1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 14, Number 15
[ Page 10263 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. In the House, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.
BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT
(continued)
F. Jackson: It is a pleasure today to rise in the House and join in the debate on Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act.
On Friday last, when the Minister of Forests was in Kamloops, I joined him in a meeting with a large sector of the forest industry in central B.C. When I put my two cents' worth in, I started off by saying that British Columbia is the forest industry. That's easy to say, because it's a very simple truth: the forest industry supports us socially, culturally and economically. Without the forest industry, there is no British Columbia. I can say that in here, I can say it on the lawn, I can say it in Kamloops or Kitimat or Keremeos, and I'll get very little argument, because it is the truth. It's true not only for today but it's true for the future, as far ahead as we can see.
One other thing that's easy to say because it's true is that we can't keep doing things in the forest industry the way that we're doing them. We can't keep cutting at the rate we are. We can't keep neglecting the environment in the way that we have been doing. In order to change that, we have introduced Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act.
When people came to this province first, the aboriginal people found it quite easy to live with the land. But when settlers came from Europe, they looked at the trees and thought they would have trees forever. This set up a mind-set that has influenced their thinking in the forest industry right up till the present time, or at least till fairly recently. It was easy to get on a high spot and see another valley that hadn't been touched. In order to reverse that mind-set, we must reclaim the promise of the forests' wealth by investing in the land that grows the trees; we must create more value from trees we cut; and we must ensure that there will be a forest industry for the future so that the people of British Columbia will have a standard of living that is second to none in this country and probably on the planet.
The forest renewal plan is a major, new long-term investment in British Columbia's future. Because Bill 32 deals with B.C.'s future, it is quite likely that it will be among the most important pieces of legislation ever to go through this chamber. The goals of the forest renewal plan are relatively simple: to renew the land, to invest in forest land, to ensure sustainability, to make sure that we have jobs for our children and grandchildren and to make sure that the communities they live in are viable and prosperous. Over the next five years, $2 billion in new money will go into the forest industry. Through legislation, we will make sure that this will in fact happen. We will complement Bill 32 with other legislation, such as the Forest Practices Code, again to make sure that we will have forests for the future.
This didn't all happen by accident. The partnership will be set up because of the input of people who are going to be involved in it: governments, industry, workers, first nations, representatives of the communities and environmentalists. They've all had their part to play in setting this up, and they'll all have their part to play in making sure that it continues to work.
Not only did it have broad input but it also has broad support. The chairman of Canadian Forest Products said, in the Times-Colonist on April 15: "It's the first time that this province has committed to reinvestment in the forest land base and I think all foresters and environmentalists should rejoice in that." Vicky Husband of the Sierra Club said: "This should lead us to balanced land use planning." George Watts, who's a well-known aboriginal leader, said in the Vancouver Sun: "I'll be very surprised if this doesn't have the support of almost all native leaders." The chairman of Share Our Resources from Port Alberni said: "We endorse this plan...." Even the Liberal Forests critic said in the Province on April 15: "the investment is great." Yesterday the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said he would support the plan. With such broad input and support, I suggest that we are in fact on the right track.
The priorities.... Renewing our forests means improved silviculture, thinning, spacing and pruning. I'm not suggesting that we're starting this process, because it is already underway, but the plan will make sure it continues.
I went to Clearwater last year and visited with a silviculture contractor, Chuck Emery, who had a crew -- largely from the local community, some social services recipients -- that was doing some pruning in a new plantation. It was interesting and heartening to see what looked like a kind of tangly part of the forest turned into straight stems, which 60 or 70 years from now will produce clear lumber. That is the most valuable and attractive piece of the forest product.
The health of the province depends on the health of the ecosystems that make up the province, and part of the plan will be to clean up environmental damage from previous logging activities, restore damage caused by roadbuilding and slides caused by previous forestry activities, restock lakes with fish, and research and develop new forest practices. We'll strengthen the plan with policy changes and new approaches, including community forests. We already have some in the province. In fact, the community of Revelstoke is involved in forestry. We need to see more of that. We need to see diversification in the types of forests that we use -- conifer and deciduous, whether it's for 2-by-4s or toothpicks. We need to ensure that the harvesting is done in a proper manner.
[10:15]
It is important that we don't just consider trees in the equation, because it's people's use of trees and use of the land which the forest renewal plan addresses. The use of the land and the trees is probably looking at a downturn at this time. Annual allowable cuts are probably being reduced. Therefore we must get more value from the trees that we cut. Value-added secondary manufacturing and research and development into new products will help us do that.
On the forestry committee that we travelled with last year, we saw examples of small companies that took scrap cedar and turned it into the very small latticework fencing used in landscaping. We saw moulded door panels for automobiles and possibly the aircraft of the future. High value, low value, but always added value, and we need more of that to ensure that we get full value from the forest.
We must make sure that the people who are involved in these activities are trained. The creation of the forest sector skills council will investigate and establish training programs to make sure that we have a workforce that we can put to work not only in the forest but in the mills and in the
[ Page 10264 ]
research and development centres that will come about because of this investment.
We must also ensure that first nations play a part in the programs, structures and frameworks that we create to ensure the future of the province. Through the treaty process and land use decisions involving aboriginal people, we must make them comfortable in this land that is theirs.
In some cases communities that rely on the forest industry had other activities in the past that helped to sustain them. The North Thompson Valley is a good example. The railroad industry, which was a main industry, is shrinking. Section men are a thing of the past. Now they have very small crews that look after 100 to 150 miles of railroad track. Maintenance on railroads has gone down quite considerably. The tourism industry, which has grown to take on some of that reduction, has problems of its own. Although the activities of heliskiing in Blue River and cross-country skiing in Wells Gray Park are very important, quite often the travelling public just travels. Therefore we need to ensure that communities like Clearwater and Birch Island, which need the forest industry, get the forest industry they need. If the forest industry in those communities is not able to supply stability, then we must look to economic development and diversification to make sure that they remain prosperous and sustainable. The forest renewal plan will help do that. We will strengthen the plan with policy changes to ensure access to wood supply for value-added companies, secondary manufacturing companies, which probably are the forest industry of the future.
Access is important here. Yesterday the Liberal critic spent a lot of time talking about tenure, as if tenure was the answer. In actual fact, tenure is part of the problem, not the solution. The people who came to talk to the committee were not interested in tenure; they were interested in access. The reason they couldn't get access was that other people had tenure and controlled it. That needs to be addressed. We need to make sure that the small business program is enhanced and that woodlot operations, which are probably the research and development centres for the future as far as actual forestry is concerned, are developed and expanded.
We have some priorities that we must address. We must set up the forest renewal council and the forest sector skills council so that we can identify needs, develop new programs, involve the communities and native nations, and get proper studies done of what is available and what the forest will yield as we go through the process of reinvestment in the land. We must make sure that forest companies are able to survive in that environment; we must make sure that they're interested in continuing with research and development. To that end, we must help them with financing and expertise, which is available through the government.
Considering the input, the support and the process, it's reasonably easy to see where ten years or 20 years from now our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will benefit from this. We must go as far as considering great-grandchildren. My youngest grandson is two years old. The trees that we plant now probably won't be ready for harvesting in his lifetime.
The benefits of renewal of the forests will anticipate the reduction of the annual allowable cut to some extent and the possible job losses because of that. We will preserve, in some cases, wildlife habitat so that some of our friends in the animal kingdom, and even the bugs, will have a place to live in the province. I got myself in trouble on the weekend by talking about bugs to a group of IWA workers, but we must keep in mind that the natural wildlife is important to the future of not only the province but the planet.
We must ensure that these kinds of communities are involved in this and that the benefits are returned to the communities that are involved. We must make sure that the industry becomes part of these communities, so that the changes we see will be beneficial. Then somebody will be able to pick up a lunchbucket in Clearwater, and they won't have to go cut down trees or pull boards off a greenchain. They will be able to go into the forest and do forest enhancement work like pruning and spacing, a natural part of the forest environment, which is quite obvious in other places in the world if we care to look. Those are the kinds of forest workers we need to come out of this, workers who can sustain families and communities.
The broad base of support, of input, and of the group that will actually oversee this says that the people in this province will support this initiative. I would ask all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act.
R. Chisholm: I rise today, like everyone else, to discuss Bill 32. I have to agree with some of the statements made by the members opposite. We want to protect our forests. We want to ensure that silviculture and forest renewal are practised. We want to ensure that there is a forest in the year 2100. We need to protect the forests for the wildlife, as the former speaker was saying. We need to protect it for ourselves, and we need to protect it for our industry.
But there are some things that are wrong with this bill. Nobody is going to argue with the concept of having a plan in place to renew our forests. But how we put that plan in place is debatable, and that's where we have some problems. I ask all hon. members: do we really need another Crown corporation? After all, we've seen in the past number of years exactly what Crown corporations have become and what they're doing.
I'm going to be quoting from the last six months about a few Crown corporations. The reason I say this is that we do have a Ministry of Forests and the B.C. Forest Service; they are already in place. Why are they not doing the job? After all, they are accountable to this House. In the past and presently, Crown corporations have not been. That is part of the reason that we have a $27 billion debt. When we start giving $500 million to a Crown corporation to start up, and $500 million every year from here on, in four years that's $2 billion. Our budget in British Columbia is only $17 billion.
I think we have to start putting a few things in perspective. We already pay for the Ministry of Forests and for the Forest Service. We already have the bureaucracy in place. Do we need more bureaucracy? I find that highly unlikely. One of the problems with all these bureaucracies is: how many masters can any one person or organization have before things start going wrong? I think we all realize that you can't work for two people; you have to work for one. It's no different when you go up the chain and take a look at the bureaucracy in different departments.
I'll just quote from the news about a few of the present Crown corporations. There are documents released today showing that a former B.C. Hydro official who retired on $4,200 per month pension was rehired by the NDP government on a contract of $165,000 per year. These costs will be part of that $500 million. It will be infiltrated by exactly the same things that we're hearing here. At a time when Hydro officials are celebrating rate increases with cocktail parties, the corporation is guaranteeing million-dollar pension packages and big contracts to its most senior staff. Plus, they're out and around in Jeep Cherokees
[ Page 10265 ]
and all the rest of it. That is one corporation, and there is a lot more on that particular one.
[10:30]
There's another Crown corporation that has gone awry somewhere: "B.C. Lottery Corporation Hits Jackpot with Luxury Box at GM Place: The B.C. Lottery Corporation's decision to purchase a luxury box at the new GM Place stadium in Vancouver is an unacceptable use of taxpayers' dollars...." What's the $500 million going to be used for? Where are the guarantees? That box cost $1 million. This is just one little issue from that Crown corporation, and there are a lot more we could pick up on.
Another one for B.C. Hydro: "While collecting a pension and receiving contract work from B.C. Hydro, William Best was also paid by the taxpayers as a councillor on the B.C. Energy Council.... Mr. Best was awarded contract work worth $101,000 while also receiving his Hydro pension." Just imagine what you could do with $500 million when it's out of control.
B.C. Ferry Corporation waste: they changed their schedules three weeks after they printed 400,000 brochures. I wonder what that cost. That's another Crown corporation.
Let's go back to Hydro. I like Hydro, because they've been so corrupt in the past.
An Hon. Member: This is not about Hydro; this is about the BC Forest Renewal Act.
R. Chisholm: But this is part of the renewal act. It's $500 million. What are we going to use it for? The people of the province deserve an answer about what you've used it for in the past.
A former executive who received severance of $169,000 was then rehired at $90 per hour, and on it goes.
B.C. Hydro again. Everybody should remember this name: Marc Eliesen. He's going to get a pension of either $10,000 a month or $13,000 a month, whichever he opts for -- paid for, I might add, by a Crown corporation's money, money which the people of B.C. own. I might add, hon. member, that every person in 100 Mile House would have to pay the equivalent of their electric bills for a year to pay his pension. Where is this $500 million going to go? Like I said, we want silviculture, but we want to ensure that it is accountable to this House, not to cabinet. It's cabinet that controls Crown corporations and their boards.
Another one with B.C. Hydro: R. Hunt. He had an increase from $448,000 to $1,546,000 in pension. Hon. member, $500 million doesn't go very far when you pay out those kinds of pensions. This is what we are talking about: Bill 32, which is going to enact another Crown corporation.
This is what other Crown corporations have done in the past. The Crown corporation of B.C. Rail was ordered a 90-day cooling-off period. We lost many millions of dollars in that fiasco. Everybody remembers it from last year. B.C. Ferries subsidized Gorbachev's dinner, if you recall, to the tune of $2,250. That's just one wee issue. "B.C. Transit, another Crown corporation that drains the provincial treasury, paid to fly NDP Esquimalt mayor Chris Clement to Venice, Italy, to deliver a 20-minute speech about the Vancouver SeaBus. Mr. Clement admitted to having taken the SeaBus only once, and the trip cost taxpayers at least $5,000." Crown corporations, hon. member.
Do you want to go on with Crown corporations? This is Today's News. When we talk about Crown corporations, is this the way to go? Is this the way we want to account for $500 million, and $500 million next year? Or do we want to keep it within the ministry, within the B.C. Forest Service, where we have tabs on it and are controlling it, so they have to report to this House? Or do we want it to report to cabinet? I just said what the track record of cabinet is.
If you want to find out about Crown corporations, hon. member, this is the Times-Colonist for Tuesday, April 26, 1994. You might remember the issue, because one of your hon. ministers got a little upset about it. "Ferries Review Data Censored" -- so we can't even find out what they're doing.
L. Reid: The Minister of Employment and Investment?
R. Chisholm: That wouldn't be that minister, would it? No, heaven forbid!
That's what I'm trying to point out: it is not accountable. When it's not accountable to this House, it is not accountable to the people of British Columbia. That is the problem with Bill 32. Get it within the ministry, within the B.C. Forest Service, and then it will be in the budget every April. We'll be able to discuss it and get answers. Right now, we send out an FOI request on Crown corporations, and it comes back censored. So much for freedom of information.
J. Pullinger: Read through section 10 of the act.
R. Chisholm: I'm going to get to section 10, hon. member.
Let's talk about these five committees. What are they going to do? We have committees right now, and chairpersons are making $1,000 a day. This is the problem with this bill. Nobody is arguing about silviculture or about renewal of the forests. We have to do that; it is a must. It's how we go about it. Are we going to keep politics and the political hacks out of it? Or are we going to keep them in, spend the money frivolously and actually have a minimal effort with respect to the forest? What counts is how many trees we put into the ground, not the way we're going about it, with Crown corporations. Let's take a look at what these committees are going to do. As a matter of fact, it says right in the bill that they will do what they are told to do. There are going to be five committees. Who is going to pay for them?
I must ask about another little section of the bill too. Let's talk about the aboriginal aspect of it. Has this taken into account the Treaty Commission? I don't think so. Section 5(3) states: "In the course of carrying out its duties, each committee must take into account the need for increased participation of first nations and aboriginal persons in the forest economy." That is great, and I applaud it. But it doesn't say in here that they will discuss it with the Treaty Commission, which has the mandate to negotiate treaties. That will probably put it off balance.
When I think about Crown corporations, I think about B.C. 21 too. I'll just mention my role as critic. When we start talking about the salmonid program, there is $1 million in B.C. 21, but you cannot get answers about who's doing what with what. It was under the Ministry of Fisheries before. If you talk to them now, they don't know what's going on, because it's under B.C. 21. That is the problem. Get it back within the control of the ministries, so people know what's happening to their money. There are a number of people out there volunteering to do a lot of this work, but they don't know how to go about it. They don't even know who to approach anymore, because the bureaucracy has become so large. Most of the bureaucracy has been farmed out to Crown corporations, or it's under the auspices of B.C. 21, which is a Crown corporation, I might add, and it could give birth to more Crown corporations. That's right in the bill, hon. member. It's time we started consolidating it and bringing it
[ Page 10266 ]
back in, so people know who they can talk to in order to address issues that concern them. Right now they don't.
When we talk about Crown corporations and to whom they are responsible, the cabinet -- not this House -- controls the boards of these Crown corporations, and that's where part of the problem is.
This bill is not going to do anything for small business. Big business is going to be able to handle the stumpage fees, but small business is not going to be able to. They talked about the Forest Sector Strategy Committee, and they started naming names. That was nice, but I didn't hear that the Fraser Coalition was on this committee. After all, this is the grass-roots level. I heard about the chairman of the board of Weldwood of Canada, the president of MacMillan Bloedel, or of Weyerhaeuser -- and it goes on and on. But I didn't hear about the Fraser Coalition or the coalition up at Squamish, and if you take a look through this, you won't find them anywhere. That's very unfortunate, because obviously only a certain point of view has been discussing this problem.
F. Garden: They don't get any better.
R. Chisholm: Yes, they get very much better, hon. member. Maybe they should start talking to people like the Fraser Coalition. These aren't the presidents and CEOs of great corporations. These are the people who work in the forests and live in the communities.
I sat here all day yesterday and listened to the people from Creston and wherever. In making their statements, they talked about small business and about community. But I'd like to know where the community was represented in that committee. I have yet to see one name. I'll go through every name on that committee if the hon. member wishes. He can hear them, and they can be put into Hansard for him. But I don't see any organization of members of the community not affiliated with the business sector. Those are the people that needed to be represented.
I remember hearing the member for Creston make certain statements about a place called Chilliwack, and that no members of this caucus had forestry in their ridings. I just want to quote something to that member. This is from the forestry coalition:
"The Fraser supply areas' annual allowable cut will be reduced to about 1.2 million cubic metres from its current 1.76 million cubic metres. The 1.7 cubic hectare Fraser TSA is the most densely populated of B.C.'s 35 TSAs.... It includes 112 major timber processing facilities, the report's proposed logging reduction of 560,000 cubic metres could eliminate 918 direct forest sector jobs and 1,830 indirect jobs, more than a quarter of the estimated 8,600 jobs now tied to the industry. All of these job losses are going to have a severe impact on local communities. The provincial treasury will be a big loser too.:"
That doesn't sound like a riding that doesn't have forestry involved in it. That sounds like a riding that is very involved. As a matter of fact, this riding invented the forestry coalitions. This riding is trying to build a museum, so that people can come out from the city and find out what forestry is all about. We are very much involved, and it has a great impact on Chilliwack. As a matter of fact, one-third of the budget of the city of Chilliwack is forestry.
Then we go on to the problem of checks and balances in this bill. There aren't any, and that is the problem. There is no reporting to this House. They are saying that 4,000 jobs will be lost and they're going to create 6,000 jobs. How the heck can you tell me what the numbers are going to be when you don't know how many trees you have out there? Out of the 35 TSAs, roughly six or seven have been audited, and they haven't got a clue about the rest. So how can they stand here and state that they're going to lose these jobs? How can they even stand here and make these decisions? They don't know what they have. What happens to the 22 NDP ridings involved in this bill? How is influence going to be peddled there? I certainly hope it isn't, but I have great fears that it could be.
I sat here yesterday, too, and I heard different people making statements about how they supported this. One of the people who said he supported it at the time was Peter Bentley. I will quote Today's News, April 26. As a matter of fact, it's out of the government communications office:
"Peter Bentley, chair of Canfor Corp., characterized the government's decision to raise timber royalties by $100 million as a 'money grab' that took the industry by surprise.
That is the $75 million royalty that has been tacked on on top of this bill.
"Royalty payments are to jump 500 percent on May 1, according to calculations by the Council of Forest Industries....
The quote goes on:
"'There's a grave danger that the government, under the guise of the forest renewal plan, is making some overly ambitious money grabs,' Bentley told shareholders at Canfor's annual general meeting in Vancouver. Bentley had been a strong industry supporter of the government's forest renewal plan, to the point of joining Premier Mike Harcourt and Forests minister Andrew Petter in Victoria on April 14 to announce the silviculture initiative."
You've just alienated them. He has obviously had second thoughts; the whole industry is having second thoughts now that they've seen and actually studied the bill.
[10:45]
What's wrong is the way these people here do business. How the heck can they be controlling a Crown corporation when they don't know how to do business themselves? If they're going to go out and make a deal with the forestry companies and say, "We're going to raise your stumpage fees $400 million, but this is the way it's going to be," and then all of a sudden raise the royalties by $100 million after the agreement has been made, it's no wonder that they have a problem with it.
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: If you want the research, hon. member, just come over here. I'll give it to you, and you can read it yourself. I'll continue reading it into the record, if you so wish.
I would like to quote another statement made by the member for Nelson-Creston. They're talking about how proud they are of this bill. He goes on to say: "On this day I'm so proud to be part of a group of people from all parties -- including you guys -- who have the guts to do this deed and change the accounting procedures of capitalism in western democracies forevermore." I have a feeling that the tentacles of the NDP are reaching out and taking a grip of and controlling the people, the industries, the resource base and everything in this province. Ask Cominco. After all, you took over their dams. It took you two years.
These are real problems; these are real people. If they say they're going to create jobs, that's fine, but what are they going to do with the displaced workers who are presently employed in the silviculture industry? What are they going to do with the students? They're saying they're going to get rid of 4,000 jobs. They're going to have to find employment for these people. These are going to be older people, people
[ Page 10267 ]
in their forties and fifties, and they're not going to have the energy of young students. If you work in silviculture, you'd best be in shape, because it is hard work. But a lot of those jobs are going to be gone.
What happens with this silviculture program? Is it going to be unionized? That was brought up yesterday. Is this just another tentacle? What happens to the businesses that presently operate? Are they out of business? This bill does not address that.
Interjections.
R. Chisholm: Have I raised your ire, hon. members? Are your hackles being raised? Good, because they should be. You should start listening to how to do a little business. You want to operate in the business world? Invest a bit, glean a little back and pay for your social programs. Don't try to go out there and take over. If you're going to be at arm's length from Crown corporations, mean what you're saying. Don't try to control it through cabinet -- because guess what. You have Marc Eliesen sitting there drawing $13,000 worth of pension out of your budget, and it is not accountable to you. You should have questions of your ministers, to be exact, hon. member, but you don't seem to be able to find your way through the forest.
Hon. Speaker, this bill is going in the right direction. The problem is how they're trying to implement it. Until they realize that a Crown corporation, an added bureaucracy, is not the answer, we are in trouble. We don't need another level of government. We don't need a municipal government, a regional government, a provincial government, a federal government and 18,000 Crown corporations as part of the bureaucracy. We are over governed. If it keeps going at this rate, each and every one of us in this province and country will be working for the government. It's time that stopped, especially in this province, because that is all that they seem to know how to do.
I've not stood here this morning to get their anger up. I've tried to get through to them to have another look at this bill and at how much bureaucracy we need, to whom it's accountable and where the checks and balances are. Are there any? Are there problems with aboriginal rights? Has the Treaty Commission been informed? These are very valid questions. After all, we have appointed people to work on the aboriginal commission and negotiate treaties, yet we are debating bills in this House that have implications for those same treaties. All I'm trying to do is warn members across the way that maybe they better inform people and let them know, because they could be in the middle of treaty negotiations. How is it going to work in with their renewal bill?
The other point is the Crown corporation. Do we need another? Do we need more of this graft and these inefficiencies that I have read out? Those are just in the last three months. If we went back through the years, you would see that it was very atrocious.
I'd like to leave them with one thought, and that is: if we're going to make decisions, we have to have the facts. Then we can make decisions. We're trying to do this in this business, and if you talk about Alcan and Kemano, we're trying to do the same thing there. We're trying to make decisions without facts. You can't do it. You cannot make proper decisions. It's all ad hoc. It doesn't work.
The last one I'd like to mention is tenure. We're not talking about tenure as such. We have grazing rights that have gone on for 100 years in this province -- and have worked quite well, I might add -- with the Forestry Service and Agriculture. We have the odd problem with it, but it works. That's the point. It doesn't have to necessarily go to tenure, but we do have to have a land base in this province that the forest industry can work with so they can make plans. Take a look at the licences right now. They're for 25 years; it takes 100 years to grow a tree. How is any industry going to invest in that kind of situation? They're not. We have to address a few of those questions. That will help this industry have a better, more solid base.
If we take this silviculture program and do it properly -- control it and have checks and balances -- we won't have wasted $500 million. After four or five years, you will be talking $2.5 billion. It won't be wasted in a big bureaucracy. It can go out to where it's needed, and it can revitalize this industry. It is an important industry, I might add -- not the only industry, but an important one -- and it is on the block right now.
We talk about the forestry code and the renewal act. How much bureaucracy do they need? The forestry code needs an awful lot of enforcement. That means more bureaucrats. For this one here they didn't increase the bureaucracy, but they made a Crown corporation, which is just another form. It's just like royalties and licences aren't taxes. But they are taken out of the pockets of the people, so they are taxes. You might want to call it a fee, a licence, a royalty or stumpage. But what is it? It is money that comes into the government in one form or another to be divvied out by the government.
Our problem in this province is that we don't have the checks and balances on what we divvy out. That's why we have $27.4 billion worth of debt, and why we still are running a deficit of $1.2 billion a year. You cannot take in $17.5 billion and spend $19.5 billion and expect to be in the black at the end of the day. This is another example of that. This is $500 million -- not a paltry sum -- and we'd better put the checks and balances in place before we hand it out to a Crown corporation when Crown corporations have proved in the past to be very irresponsible with the taxpayers' money. If you want an ideal example of that, just take a look at B.C. Hydro.
Hon. Speaker, I'll end my little speech by telling the members opposite that I hope they have listened to a few of my words. I hope they reread this bill, and I hope they take a look at Crown corporations. I'm not saying don't do it; I am saying to do it in another form. Get it under control before you put it into place. Don't create another bureaucracy. Don't put it out at arm's length when we all know the cabinet controls the board that controls the Crown corporation. Keep it within the ministry. Have it report to the Legislature of British Columbia, so that the opposition members can ask questions about it. After all, I rather suspect those members over there will be the opposition members in the very near future.
So without further ado, I will end my speech here, and hopefully they will think about a few things I've said. The last thing is that I hope they start remembering the people who are involved -- not the industries, not their committee full of CEOs and presidents, but the coalitions, the people who actually work in the industry.
R. Kasper: I rise here in full support of the forest renewal plan for British Columbia, which in many respects is long overdue. In some ways I am surprised but not surprised, listening to the opposition members with their ballyhoo on why they are not supportive of this particular act. I think it boils down to just pure and simple politics. They're unwilling to accept the fact that this government has seized the opportunity to step where previous governments have
[ Page 10268 ]
been unwilling to tread. Those steps lead, in my view, to a brighter future for the forest industry.
Over the past 20 years we've seen numerous governments unwilling to address the issues of overcutting, wasteful forest practices and damage to the environment. These actions have created numerous job losses in the industry, in particular in the riding that I represent, Malahat-Juan de Fuca, which spans as far northwest as Nitinat Lake and takes in a large area -- the Walbran, the Carmanah, Port Renfrew and the communities of Sooke, Cobble Hill and Shawnigan Lake.
Many have seen what has occurred with Crown lands that have been overcut. In many respects, there has been very little effort by the industry to enhance and encourage full regeneration of those forests.
[11:00]
With this new initiative, I feel that we can see a long-term vision for future wood supply that will help replace the jobs that have been lost from communities such as Port Renfrew. In the last of the seventies and early eighties, we had a population in that community in excess of 800 people; its population now is as low as 300. We had hundreds of forest workers in that area; currently ten people in the Port Renfrew community are directly employed in the forest industry. In many respects, that is a shame and a disgrace. It is a result of what governments did not have the guts or courage to implement, in light of the errors and omissions I mentioned earlier.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I'd like to touch on what I view as some of the important elements of this plan. We will be able to create more value from the forests and trees we harvest. With this forest renewal plan, we will be able to put more people to work with improved silviculture, fast replanting and better forest tendering. We will increase the lands available for new planting, which in turn will create additional employment opportunities over and above the current silviculture programs being carried out in this province.
I note that the previous speaker alluded to the fact that these existing silviculture programs would be threatened. That is not the case. Those programs will carry on as they have in the past. The activities that will occur as a result of the forest renewal plan will be over and above those programs, which will mean additional jobs and improvements to the forests.
I think it's important to note that with this act and forest renewal plan there will be new approaches to improve the stewardship of our forests, including community forests with expanded woodlot licence programs. Pilot programs will enhance the forest operators' sense of long-term commitment to the woods they work in. The programs will encourage harvesting a full range of forest types in a sustainable way and make use of the residual timber material now being left on the ground, something that workers in the industry -- small entrepreneurs and business people who rely on access to timber and to the small woodlot program -- have been saying for many years.
It will also encourage selective harvesting and commercial thinning. I'm proud to say that there's a thinning contractor located in my riding who, in my view, has done an admirable job. He has done work in the Port Renfrew and Jordan River areas on lands previously owned by Rayonier and currently owned by Western Forest Products. He is currently employed by the district of North Cowichan in the forest lands that that municipality owns and operates. They carry on a fairly extensive commercial thinning program, which is profitable to the municipality and gives fibre to the local pulp and gang mills in the Cowichan area. I mention that because this thinning contractor has been in business in my riding for almost 20 years. He had explained the value of these thinning programs to previous governments, but the comment he received from those previous governments was: "Mind your own business. We're here to manage those forests. We don't want to hear what you have to say." They just patted him on the head and told him to go on with what he had been successfully doing. I talked to him just after the announcement of the forest renewal plan, and he was absolutely ecstatic. He said it was about time governments took steps to improve and encourage this type of activity so that both small and large entrepreneurs in the small business programs can see a way of increasing the employment opportunities that commercial thinning will allow.
It's not only people from my riding who have been encouraging this government to take the steps outlined in the forest renewal plan. Even people like Gerry Furney, chair of the Vancouver Island Forestry Task Force, made a number of recommendations under the previous administration. As chair of a committee in 1989, he recommended a number of findings to the government of the day. Conclusions that they found were:
"Wood supply is a serious problem for the industry and is limiting to the size and growth of the industry.
"The value-added bid proposal is meeting the need of some independent specialty wood producers, and there is considerable interest in the woodlot program as a means of obtaining small amounts of quality wood.
"Many of the operators feel strongly that the Ministry of Forests should change some of its programs and policies in order to increase the availability of timber to small independent wood processors on a secure longer-term basis. In particular, the Ministry of Forests should consider changes to the value-added bid proposal system, the woodlot program, and policies governing accessibility and stumpage rates for salvage material."
This is what this forest renewal plan does. Where the government of 1989 failed to listen to people like Gerry Furney, I'm proud to say that our government is taking into consideration much of what he mentioned in reports and studies, which previous governments ignored. It says loud and clear that we will encourage small companies in the value-added business and provide them with assistance to start up and expand their businesses. We will allow them better access to wood supply and encourage better research and development on new technologies and product types.
I don't know what I can say. We have listened to representatives of our communities on Vancouver Island. Mr. Furney chaired a committee with members from local government and people from Powell River, the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, Central Coast Regional District, the city of Port Alberni, Sayward, the district of Powell River and people in the private sector and those with business interests, like Chinook Forest Products. These individuals identified forestry issues in a report that deals with wood supply for specialty mills. Labour in the forest industry has for many years been advocating that government change its policies and allow greater access to wood supply for entrepreneurs. Under this program we will, in fact, be doing that.
We've listened to people like Gerry Furney, who is known up and down this Island for speaking very passionately for communities on Vancouver Island. He's concerned about those communities. He's concerned about access to timber, and he's concerned about ensuring that businesses in value-added manufacturing have greater access to wood
[ Page 10269 ]
supply. This is something that our forest renewal plan will do. It will enhance the role of value-added industries on Vancouver Island.
With the announcement of this program, we've made a commitment that these are the types of activities we want to see encouraged, enhanced and improved upon. We want to see the small entrepreneurs who currently exist expanding their operations. We want to make sure that those companies have better and greater access to wood under the small-lot wood program. We also have to ensure with this program, as outlined, that better use is made of residual timber left on the land, which is salvage, in other words. It's something Mr. Furney and his task force recommended to the previous administration in 1989. It fell on deaf ears. They weren't interested in implementing or enforcing that. But our government has taken those words, ideas and initiatives, and we're acting on them. We're making sure that people who are employed directly and indirectly in the forest industry will continue to be employed in the forest industry.
As a result of this new legislation, we will see a new partnership, a partnership that was established and initiated last year with the appointment of the Forest Sector Strategy Committee. Individuals from industry, labour, the environment community, local government, the aboriginal community and Ministry of Forests representatives are coming together. They are working to come up with ideas as to how we can have a better future for our forests and are securing jobs for people in the forest industry not just for the short term but for the long term. That committee worked diligently on preparation and input for this new forest renewal plan.
We didn't invent this in a back room. The government listened to individuals who have a great deal of expertise and knowledge about what has happened in the forest industry in the past and what is happening in the present. We are making use of that good information and knowledge base and the excellent suggestions brought forward by that committee, and we're acting upon those recommendations. I daresay that the committee outlined in the act will continue to play a role in some way, shape or form.
With the new BC Forest Renewal Act, there is the opportunity for representatives from business, labour, local government, aboriginal communities and the environmentalist side to give direction as to how the estimated $400 million or $500 million a year generated by increased stumpage rates will be spent to improve and enhance employment opportunities in forest industries, regenerate our forests and initiate thinning and additional silviculture programs over and above what currently exists to ensure that we have a good working forest for the long term, not the short term.
That committee will also make use of the good recommendations from people like Gerry Furney, who in the past stressed loud and clear that we have to make sure that people in the specialty mill business have greater access to a timber supply, that they have an opportunity to bid in the woodlot program in a more competitive fashion, and that those same people can get out there and salvage wood in a fair, equitable way to create more jobs through their entrepreneurial skills.
[11:15]
I think I should close my debate on this historic bill by just saying that I hope members opposite, from the opposition and the other parties, set aside their partisan political views and the negativism that they alluded to in their speeches to embrace and work with this program in a positive fashion. It's not just this NDP government that is saying this. Failed Social Credit candidates and people from all political stripes have been recommending for many years that there be major changes to how we utilize our wood supply to create greater security and employment opportunities in British Columbia.
D. Jarvis: I am very pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act. I see that the ex-Minister of Forests is in the House. I am really pleased, because with what I am about to say, this minister will know exactly how things are going and the way I feel about them, and he will agree with me thoroughly, I'm quite sure.
The document the minister is presenting states that he wants to sustain our forests for future generations, create more value and jobs from the woods we cut, protect environmental and other values in our forests, meet the demands of changing international markets, etc., and foster cooperation and partnership instead of conflict and confrontation throughout this province.
We in the Liberal opposition thoroughly agree with this statement. However, we find it difficult to give our overwhelming support to this bill. We feel that although we support a change in the forest sector, we want to see a secure future for forests in British Columbia's economy. We want to allay all those environmental concerns as well. We want a future for our communities, especially for the workers who rely on our forest industry.
This bill, which creates another Crown corporation, is simply not the way to go as far as we're concerned. We feel that it leaves too many things suspect. All Crown corporations cost the taxpayers money. The taxpayers are always the ones that will have to pick up the bill for the additional costs of government when we go into Crown corporations. This is what this new Crown corporation will do. It will not be self-sufficient; it will cost us money, and it will cost us more in bureaucracy. We all know, on the basis of past performance, that Crown corporations operate in secret, out of the public view.
This Forest Renewal B.C. corporation that they intend to start will become the fourth-largest Crown corporation in British Columbia, with a whopping budget of over $2 billion over the next four years. And this government stacks their Crown corporations and review committees with political hacks, as was stated by the member for Chilliwack.
Most people at this time do not truly understand the long-range ramifications of Bill 32. As I said, we have many concerns. Our major concern, perhaps, is what tenure will be in the future. How will it affect our future? How long will it be in this province, under this government?
I listened to the member for Nelson-Creston, I believe, state that the bill will change the future of capitalism in this province. He said that the accounting of capitalism will be changed. As the member for West Vancouver-Capilano says, that is truly frightening. A change in the accounting of capitalism is a change in the socialist pattern that this government has started in this province. This is a change to a form of government that has been tested across this country and around the world over the last 70 years. Socialism has failed dismally. It has been found unsatisfactory. Tommy Douglas said some years ago that you can't build socialism in a sea of capitalism. This is obviously the intention of this bill. This government wants to change the broad forestry sector of this province into an unacceptable socialist vehicle that will control all aspects of forestry, silviculture and the environment.
The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca said a little while ago that the member for Chilliwack was complaining that there would be a loss of silviculture in this province. He said
[ Page 10270 ]
that this bill would protect all those businesses that are now in silviculture. We've heard that story before.
When we get to committee stage, we'll see just see how many amendments this government is prepared to accept. We all know that this government stands up before the Speaker with its badge of courage and states: "Mr. Speaker, the bill has passed without amendment." This has gone on time after time. This is your badge of courage. We'll see how the independent silviculture entrepreneurs that are out there now survive under this government. We'll see whether they're prepared to change this legislation to protect the people that are working out there in the silviculture business at this time.
The bill will create a Crown corporation that will definitely make for political interference by this government and its friends. We have seen the friends of this government before. It's truly a start of the resource nationalization of this province. That is their bible, as evidenced by the members they have brought in to act as deputy ministers, such as Tom Gunton out of Simon Fraser, who states that all resources in this province should be nationalized and run by the government. That is a fact.
I see the Minister of Health looking incredulously at that statement. Yet if he'd read the workings of his own government....
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think you're unaware of tender arrangements in the province.
D. Jarvis: Well, he says I'm unaware of tender arrangements in this province. But when you nationalize a resource, tender does not come into effect after that, my friend.
In any event, I've said that the old ways do not and have not worked properly. We all agree with that. We realize there have been abuses in the industry as it was first set up. However, this bill does not improve the entrepreneurial way. It does not improve the living standards that we have had in this province. It takes complete control. We know that when governments become involved in business, they have a tradition of failure -- especially this government. Governments do not belong in the business world. Governments are there not to control but to hold checks on the business world, to give them advice, to treat them in no special way but to give them a way of working.
The standards we have today have been brought to us through the free enterprise system. Yes, there have been mistakes in free enterprise. But more bureaucracy, which is so familiar to this government, is not what we need. This is where their competence lies, in giving jobs to their friends and associates. Already in the last two and a half years in this province, they've added in excess of 12,000 people to the bureaucracy now working in Victoria. Instead of cutting, they have been hiring, hiring, hiring, and our debt is increasing.
This bill will have too many controls over the forest industry. This bill will give this government what we call full control of our supply and of silviculture. Although the minister says the silviculture and free enterprise world that are out there now will exist, the bill does not indicate that. We'll again have to wait and see what amendments this government will accept. The entrepreneurial company will be gone. Our economy will be gone in the future. Our standard of living as well will be going down, because governments cannot run business. It's a proven fact that when governments are involved in the business community, they fail. They have to be propped up by the taxpayers' dollars. If governments fail and there are no taxpayers, everything will go down.
The minister has said: "Don't worry, we are going to make the decisions. We will make the investments from the stumpage. We will do the right thing." Well, I'm afraid this gang doesn't know what investment is really about. They do not know how to create wealth. It's a proven fact that a socialist government doesn't know how to create wealth. They have no concern about that investment and the increase of yield, what it means or how it is created. That comes from security in an entrepreneurially-driven society -- not from socialism, not from this government. This government bureaucracy spends the wealth created by entrepreneurs -- ordinary people who are prepared to invest in this province. This is going to be taken away.
We are not against the concept of this bill. We basically approve of it, as I said. However, it is the implementation that worries us. As I said before, little Tommy the Commie said that you cannot build socialism in a sea of capitalism. This is what we see in this bill: government control of investment. It's the start of the nationalization of the forest industry. The nationalization of our resources is the long-range plan. If it is not, as I said before, we'll see the government allow changes in committee stage. The way it has been presented, there's nothing in this bill that does not preclude the fact that this is a nationalization of our forestry and resource industries.
To emphasize what I said in my last statement, I'll have to repeat what the member for Nelson-Creston said. He said that in this bill we are changing capitalism; we are changing the accounting of capitalism. As I said, this is part of the overall scheme, and we should be happy. Well, I'm not happy and a lot of people out there aren't happy, because they do not realize what the true ramifications of this bill will be. The major companies bought into this situation. They felt they had no choice and that they had to stand up and agree with it, but now they are having second thoughts. They think they can deal as honest brokers with this government. The small entrepreneurs feel they can trust this government. However, the problem with business is that they think they can make deals with government. Although I'm in government, I feel the actual fact is that history and the track record of this government show that you can't make deals with government. Businesses think they can deal with government as they would with private business outside, but they can't, because governments change their minds, governments change themselves and philosophies change.
[11:30]
I would like to support this bill. I realize we need a change, but the structure and the attitude of this bill is such that unless safeguards or fail-safes are put into the bill in committee stage, which I doubt very much will happen, we'll see the end of private resources in this province. We will see the start of the nationalization of our resources.
All of us are here because of a free enterprise system. We're here because of a free business situation, an entrepreneurship, that has existed in this province. Although it hasn't been perfect in the past, we can make changes to this bill if this government is prepared to make changes, which I doubt they are. This government feels that they know what's best; they know the right way. The philosophy of this government has failed in the past, and it will fail in the future; in fact, socialism has failed all around the world. We know that it will be disastrous for this province if we continue this way. As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with socialism except that it doesn't work.
[ Page 10271 ]
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise in debate on second reading of Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act. I too believe that this is a defining bill for this government. I would like to support the remarks by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour in relation to where I think this government is going with this bill.
Yesterday in this chamber the member for Nelson-Creston spoke at some length -- and very eloquently, as he does -- about the state of forestry in British Columbia. He also provided all of us with a glimpse of the direction of this government. In his very last line, he said that he was very proud to be a part of a group of people "who have the guts to do this deed and change the accounting procedures of capitalism and western democracies forevermore." I think we should all bear that statement in mind and certainly look at it a little more closely.
"The purpose of this Act," the bill states, "is to renew the forest economy of British Columbia, enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs, provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities." That sounds wonderful, and I think everyone in this House would agree that that is a laudable goal and one we should all strive for. Yes, it is important that our forests should be managed in an appropriate way, and yes, it is important for the economy of the province that that happens.
The explanatory note of this bill states: "This bill sets out a government initiative for investment in the forest sector." I believe that this bill sets out a government initiative for a state-run forest sector. Government control, the redistribution of wealth and government intervention is what this bill is all about. It's going to establish a Crown corporation, and the moment that becomes an entity it will be the fourth-largest Crown corporation in the province, with $2 billion of new money over four years. It will consist of a board of directors, to be appointed by cabinet. If this isn't a vehicle for NDP hacks, failed candidates, friends and insiders and imports from other NDP governments in the country, I don't know what is.
Interjection.
L. Stephens: Forestry experts from the Northwest Territories. Well, that is out of British Columbia, isn't it?
The mandate set out in this bill is, among other things, to set up at least five committees -- there could be more. Again, it's a wonderful opportunity to create a huge bureaucracy of friends and insiders. It's also to "enter into contracts with individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions, local governments, groups and other organizations for the delivery of programs within the purpose of this Act." This will all be done by a corporation whose board of directors will be appointed by cabinet.
It looks like this bill is going to do three things. Government control and intervention in the forest sector -- a state-run forest sector -- creates this government's largest pork-barrel yet and ensures that the bureaucracy and the cost to taxpayers will be huge. It's all wrapped up in fine-sounding rhetoric.
The member for Nelson-Creston laid it out. He said that there are more steps. "We're not done by half." So what is the next step? Is it tenure? Maybe. We've already heard this government say that their goal is state-run day care, so this is the next one. In the two and a half years of this government it has been tax and spend, attempts to redistribute wealth and centralize government control, unionize all sectors of the province and hire all of their friends and insiders wherever they could find them.
An Hon. Member: Scary stuff.
L. Stephens: It is scary stuff, hon. member. It certainly is.
I believe that this bill is about unionization, a state-run forestry sector and the nationalization of the forest industry in this province. We will see whether or not I'm wrong. I hope I am, but I don't think I am. We will see where the government is going with this. I look forward to committee stage of this bill, where we will debate it more fully. Time will tell whether or not this government is looking at a state-run forest sector.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Mission-Kent.
D. Streifel: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I hope I haven't popped up out of place here. The speakers' list seems to be a little bit....
Interjections.
D. Streifel: That's what I wanted to hear, hon. Speaker: I'm told that I'm out of place to start with.
But I'll tell you that I feel right at home debating Bill 32. I feel right at home debating an issue that is so needed and so important in this province that I'm going to take very few words and very little of my time in slanging the opposition. The opposition has stood up here, speaker after speaker, talking about all kinds of convoluted issues, secret agendas and fear and worry about where the wealth is going to come from and where we're going to find renewal of our forests.
An Hon. Member: They won't vote against it.
D. Streifel: No, hon. members, they won't vote against it. They'll stand up and waste the time of this Legislature on some negative, convoluted and contrived argument, but they will not have the courage to stand on their convictions and vote against this piece of legislation.
Interjection.
D. Streifel: I hear the hon. member for Langley talking about the truth. The truth is Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act. Through this piece of legislation we will be taking a major departure from how we manage our forests. This bill is about change. It's about the change in the way we manage our forests.
L. Stephens: It's nationalizing.
An Hon. Member: And control.
D. Streifel: The members say that it's nationalizing and control. Whose trees are they, hon. members? Shall we give them away, or are they the people's trees? I say that it's a resource that has to be managed for all British Columbians, not just for a few of the very wealthiest as indicated in the past. For too long, needed changes were avoided due to failure and fear -- failure of successive former governments in this province that did not have the courage to bring forward the necessary changes that would sustain long-term profitability, long-term healthy communities and healthy environments, and long-term jobs for workers.
[ Page 10272 ]
I haven't heard one opposition member stand up in this House and talk about the plight of workers and why workers are necessary in this province. We don't have the attitude of the elitist that the opposition enjoys. Over the past years, the forests have been driven by the fears of forestry workers, companies, communities and environmentalists -- fears that without change we would look like the cod fishery in Newfoundland; the workers' jobs, the communities, the trees and the environment would be gone. What's gone now is the fear. Through Bill 32 we have committed to a plan that will succeed in sustaining long-term jobs, long-term communities, forests and profits, because this plan will sustain the profits of the industry. With those profits we will enjoy renewed wealth within the forest industry. With stability there will be no fear that our generation will be the last to benefit from our renewable resources. We will not fail.
We have put together a partnership of communities, workers, first nations, environmentalists, business and workers that is without precedent in British Columbia, all coming together for one goal: to renew our forest industry. The opposition is silent in the face of this onslaught of logic and realism. In the first five years this plan will invest some $2 billion directly into forest renewal. This money will be dedicated, by law, to the forest workers and communities. That money can't go someplace else. We won't let the Liberal opposition tell us to spend that money on goodies in their ridings. That's going right back into the forest industry, where it belongs.
L. Stephens: Twenty-two NDP ridings around the province. That's where it's going.
D. Streifel: I should hope that it goes into every riding in the province that has a forest base -- even some of the stuff the member for Chilliwack spoke about before he admitted that he wanted to trash and destroy the whole Ministry of Small Business and Tourism. He said that some money will be spent in his riding to renew his forests.
The forest renewal plan has five main goals: to renew the land and keep the forests healthy; to invest in the forest lands; to ensure sustainable use and enjoyment of our forests; to ensure the continued availability of good forestry jobs; and to ensure the long-term stability of our forest communities.
Interjection.
D. Streifel: There's another comment about workers. The Liberal opposition fails to recognize the need for workers in this province to have good consumers' jobs....
Interjection.
D. Streifel: Yes, a lot of them will be union jobs. I hope so. Do you know the difference between a union job and a non-union job? It's survival.
In order to achieve these goals, the forest renewal plan will act on two priorities. The first is giving back to the forests by renewing through improved silviculture. This is absolutely vital to a healthy sustainable forest supporting a healthy economy. We will employ advanced approaches to reforestation, increase the lands available for planting, and invest in silviculture, research and development. Those are laudable goals for this plan.
In order to ensure that the past is the past, through this plan we will clean up environmental damage, placing a priority on rehabilitating rivers, streams and watersheds -- a home for fish and wildlife.
Listen up, hon. members. The area I represent has a community forest that has been very well managed for the benefit of all Mission residents. There is also an active woodlot in my area. These are two areas of forest activity that we will see expanded under this plan, as well as a new policy that would ensure a full range of harvest in our working forests. That's absolutely necessary to diversity within our forests -- a full range of harvest. We won't be leaving species behind on the ground any longer.
The second priority for action will be creating more value from our harvest and strengthening forest communities. This will be accomplished by giving help to value-added companies to start up, expand and stabilize. How's that for supporting small business? Most of those value-added companies are small business. The member for Chilliwack would see the ministry that works with small business "abandoned and sent off into the trash heap some place" -- if I remember the quote in the paper. To develop new technologies in wood processing and develop and market these products would be an absolute aid to the small business sector.
There will be an investment in worker training -- there's the word "workers" again, workers that work with their hands, minds and bodies --through the creation of a forest sector skills council comprised of workers, industry and government, to coordinate existing training and create new training programs, training in new workplace organizations, production technologies and products for those who work in manufacturing.
The plan will ensure aboriginal participation in all training programs. This is absolutely essential if we are going to meet the challenge of a changing world, changing economy and changing relationship with the peoples of the first nations. The participation and involvement of first nations in joint ventures, forest worker training, competitive bid proposal assessment, development training and resource management programs will help to ensure the success of this plan. We will work with industry to ensure greater access to wood supply for value-added companies and encourage the production of higher-valued forest products.
[11:45]
As I said before, the forest renewal plan is a major departure, a fundamental change in the way we manage our forests. This plan will make available the promise of forest wealth, including good jobs -- jobs for workers, hon. members -- thriving communities, economic prosperity and a bountiful environment for all British Columbians.
In the years since I worked in a mill alongside my father, brother, cousins and four uncles, we have seen B.C.'s economy diversify. We still have about 230,000 direct and indirect jobs in the forest sector economy, and that's equivalent to about a $10 billion contribution to B.C.'s gross domestic product. Through Bill 32 we will ensure that that economic contribution to British Columbia will be stabilized, enhanced and increased.
There are many more things I would like to say about this plan and about some of the comments I've heard. When I spoke with one of my constituents who is a forester, I explained to him the opposition's position on this plan and how they say that it's nationalizing industry, that it's an intrusion into the free enterprise world and that it is going to destroy forestry as we know it in this province. His comments were just three words: "Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense." He said that the Liberal opposition doesn't know
[ Page 10273 ]
what they're talking about; they should visit the forest that he manages, see advanced silviculture and productivity within the forest levels, and see how he has been able to increase the harvest in the area that he manages.
With that, noticing the time and asking that all members stand and support this bill, I move adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 9: minister's office, $319,041 (continued).
C. Serwa: The discussion we left off yesterday revolved around the word "government" and native self-government. Perhaps the minister would open this morning by providing me with a definition of government. It seems to me that he uses "government" in a very casual manner.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think there are a number of very fundamental reasons why we have taken the approach of entering into government-to-government relationships with first nations. This basis is founded in history and in certain legal concepts. First of all, first nations have a recognized legal existence within the province, and the province must take that into account. For example, the Douglas treaties and Treaty 8 are legal entities that recognize the legal existence of first nations within the province.
Second, there are unextinguished communally held aboriginal rights within the province, which require the province to deal with the communities that hold those rights. Third, existing treaties create ongoing collective treaty rights in the province, making it necessary for the province to deal with the first nations who hold those existing treaties. Fourth, the Indian Act of Canada confirms the existence of 197 governments within the province with lands and jurisdictions that adjoin and interface with provincial lands and institutions. Fifth, there are customary aboriginal laws in force within the province, which interface with provincial jurisdictions.
I can elaborate on each one of those, but there is a fundamental basis there that I think recognizes the need for a government-to-government relationship. I realize that takes the discussion into a kind of chicken-and-egg process. One argument says you must have a hard-and-fast, watertight definition before you enter down this path. Another says that the life of the province and of first nations peoples must go on. Therefore you engage in processes, and during the process of engaging on a government-to-government basis, the definition takes on a greater meaning. I think that is the way that has happened throughout history with regard to government-to-government relationships, whatever they may be. Given the responses of courts and given the existing legal entities, I think it's very clear that it's appropriate and judicious to proceed on a government-to-government basis.
C. Serwa: It was a very long answer to a question that I really didn't ask. All I asked for was the minister's definition of government. Surely the minister has a definition of government that would enable me to understand how the minister uses it. I have no difficulty with the answer the minister gave. All I'm asking for is the minister's definition of government.
[10:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: I think we all know what government is. Government is the ability of a people to take responsibility for their lives and to pass bylaws relating to the way in which they conduct their affairs and activities. Governance with regard to first nations could be in the areas of health, education, social services or of lands that could become recognized as lands for which they have a jurisdiction. Governance is the process whereby a people come together to make decisions regarding their vision and their destiny.
C. Serwa: The minister used the words "government to government" yesterday -- or often the expression "nation to nation" is used -- when he talked about negotiations with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit. You used "government to government" in your talks with them. It doesn't appear to me that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is government, and it doesn't appear to me that the First Nations Summit is in fact government. What I'm trying to get from the minister is this loose definition of government that seems to float around in talking to everyone as if they're government. This is an organization, perhaps throughout the province of British Columbia, representing B.C. Indian chiefs, bands and tribal councils -- the organizations -- but they, per se, are not government. They don't fit or qualify. They're not a governing body; they do not govern. They are an association. I'm trying to understand -- when we're talking about negotiations with respect to native self-government -- what the minister, or the current government in the province of British Columbia, means when they say government, because it seems to fit everything.
Hon. J. Cashore: The provincial government and the federal government both recognize the First Nations Summit in the context of a government-to-government relationship. That relationship need not be described as an entity that contains all of the aspects that you would necessarily define as government. The fact is that we relate to them as a government.
The summit is an entity that has the sanction of a number of first nations and the support of those first nations, and it represents those first nations. Therefore it is appropriate, in the deliberations between our government and the First Nations Summit, that there be a government-to-government relationship. Indeed, when we meet with them, we meet as
[ Page 10274 ]
Premier and members of cabinet, and we have a protocol whereby various issues are placed on the table that we are going to be discussing together. As a result of those discussions, there could be changes in policy, so those topics are held at a very high level in dealing directly with governance. Therefore you are correct. The First Nations Summit or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs do not take on all the aspects that might be taken on in certain other examples of an entity that you would describe as government. However, in that setting we relate to each other as government to government, and within that relationship there is respect for the way in which they define themselves. There is mutual respect for the way in which we can come into a creative interaction to address vital issues both to the province and to those entities.
There's also respect on the part of the province for the fact that different members of aboriginal communities or first nations have different perspectives on how to go about achieving their vision. Therefore we have the trilateral process that the summit generally supports, which has led to the foundation of the Treaty Commission. However, we do have a bilateral table with them at the government-to-government table. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs prefers a double bilateral process when it comes to their relations with the federal government and the provincial government. There is no question that both senior levels of government recognize these as entities that we interrelate with on a government-to-government basis.
C. Serwa: If the public is going to have confidence in the efforts of the provincial government to negotiate, and if the native people are going to have confidence in those who represent them, it seems to me that we're going to have to fix the parameters. When I listen to the minister or to government spokesmen on this particular issue, I don't have a great deal of confidence that they have any handle whatsoever on this negotiating process. It sounds more like the creation of a growth industry that will employ a lot of people in deliberating or partaking in discussions over a long period of time but without any ability to focus.
The government-to-government relationship, if it's used only to imply respect.... I would expect that any organization's governing body -- for instance, the B.C. Medical Association -- would get the same degree of respect that any other governing association would get when they talk with government. So I think part and parcel of the level of discussion, when anyone talks to the current minister or to government, is that they have to get respect on the basis of earned and deserved credibility. There's no difficulty there.
As I listen to the minister -- and I listened to the questions posed yesterday -- I don't believe that the current provincial government has any sort of vision of where they're going or what they're doing. The minister spoke yesterday of confidentiality in the negotiating process. That's why we're not letting anything out. The minister knows full well that that is not the reason. The reason you're not letting anything out is that there is nothing to let out. You have no baseline or established position. The minister also knows full well that in the negotiating process with aboriginal organizations, consensus is developed through communication. There is no such thing as coming to the negotiating table and everything staying in that sealed room. Confidentiality is not part and parcel of the system for native people. In the negotiating process, they will develop a consensus by going back and speaking again to other members of the band or the tribal council.
It seems wrong, for example, that the public is excluded from any information on the negotiating process or even on the provincial government's basic starting position, its aims or objectives, and how they can best represent the interests of the third-party group, which is the general public in the province of British Columbia.
I have a great deal of concern, and my concern is one of confidence. If there is no game plan, if there are no base parameters and if we're willing to enter into supplementary agreements as we go toward the negotiating process, we're abdicating our responsibility to the general population in British Columbia. In order for this to work, everyone has to have confidence not only in the people involved in the process but in the process itself. And I think that element is really missing. That element can only be created on the basis of effective communication and by indicating clearly to the public that the provincial government does have a position: these are their aims and ambitions, and these are their goals. Then we can go forward with confidence. But at this particular time, I don't see how anyone in the province can have any confidence in something so loose and disunited. It's almost as if chaos reigns supreme rather than any tangible goal or direction.
Hon. J. Cashore: That was a pretty wide-ranging comment with regard to the member's critique of the direction this government has taken. I don't want to enter into rhetoric in responding to that, but I will simply say that what this government has accomplished in a mere two years has been truly outstanding in an historic sense.
After 125 years of justice waiting to be done, as has been acknowledged yesterday by the hon. member in his opening remarks, we have seen the approval of the task force report and the establishment of the Treaty Commission and of two government-to-government policy tables with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit. We have seen a process whereby the government of British Columbia and those two first nations governments have established an agenda and are working together on items of mutual interest, and we have seen progress within that context.
Regarding the Treaty Commission itself, more than 42 first nations entities have filed a statement of claim with the Treaty Commission; almost 40 of those statements of claim have been deemed complete, and the first round of meetings that must take place within 45 days has been completed. We are very close to completing the funding arrangement negotiations that involve the summit, the federal government and the government of British Columbia, to cover the very important cost factors with regard to all entities as we move into the actual negotiations. We have seen very diligent work with regard to the Nisga'a claim.
The hon. member asks what the vision is. The vision is that we continue to facilitate the process that has been put in place. We recognize that some aspects of the work were done by the previous Social Credit government in starting, somewhat gingerly, to take the steps that would lead in this direction. There has been a recognition that, in doing so, we are entering into a process with first nations and in some instances with the government of Canada that is seeking to fulfil a vision -- one that would lead to agreements for building a much better relationship with first nations, whereas the paternalistic relationship that existed in the past has not been an honourable relationship. It would seek -- and we realize this is going to take time -- to build the kind of relationship in which trust can be established and in which there can be greater hope for first nations young people. None of this is a panacea; no one has ever said that
[ Page 10275 ]
this will produce economic renewal overnight. But when people are in a position to foster self-determination, self-respect and self-government, there is more hope in addressing those things that would bring together their vision and the vision of the province and bring a vision of economic certainty that would lead away from the kind of massive unemployment that we see in first nations communities.
[10:30]
When we talk about the government-to-government relationship, I know many statements have been made with regard to the interim measures process. There's been criticism by some members opposite, and reference was made to the agreement with the Nuu-chah-nulth.
I would ask hon. members to look closely at that agreement and to recognize there has been an arrangement that would ensure that first nations people would have a role with regard to the economic development of the area which they place within their traditional claim. It is an opportunity for them to work with industry, with government, with their own people and with other working people to foster a new approach to the way in which we manage lands and resources to the benefit of all. The elements built into that are recognized on a worldwide basis as being exemplary and outstanding. It's an indication of the way we must go. Each accomplishment puts substance into the vision. When we are talking about vision, we are talking about where we would like to be. We have to be building into these agreements the substance that builds up a body of fact and demonstrates that this process is working.
We are very close to the beginning of that process -- I recognize that -- and it is very important that we take the right steps. It's also important to recognize that each decision is not a precedent that applies as a cookie-cutter to the rest of the province but is important in terms of what could be happening elsewhere in the province, recognizing that each situation is unique. Therefore we are still at a very early stage of carrying out a mandate, building toward a vision that has been stated and putting in place the kinds of results that are going to make a difference.
G. Wilson: I'd like to come back to the point that my colleague from Okanagan West was making, because I think it really is one of the critical and more salient points that needs to be nailed down in these estimates. It has to do with the question of government.
We've heard through the ill-fated Charlottetown accord this notice of a third order of government. That was resoundingly defeated by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, because it lacked definition. We've heard within the last month or so from the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the third order of government will be a reality in Canada within six months. That impacts dramatically on British Columbia, because we are the province that has, without a doubt, the largest stake in seeing how that third order of government is going to come about.
I understand full well what is included within the Douglas treaties that exist and those aboriginal people who are defined under treaty. Notwithstanding that, this minister must know that government has within its definition the power to do three things. First, it has the power to regulate and legislate laws that affect the people it has jurisdiction over. The second thing it's able to do is tax and seek from its people revenue to provide services that it may deem necessary in terms of health care, social services, education, etc. Third, most governments are in a position to provide some form of defence against those who would either create anarchy or in some way be hostile to the state. In the federal statutes we are allowed national defence, and in the provincial statutes we're able to have jurisdiction over police action on civil matters.
The question is twofold to the minister, and I want to be very specific on this, because I think it's time that we had a specific answer to them. The first question is: in these new government-to-government negotiations with the first nations governments, does this minister envisage that they have the right to pass legislation that impacts their people? Does he envisage that they have the right to tax? And does he envisage that they have the right to some form of defence or police action for the maintenance and enforcement of those laws they may pass?
Question number two is: who is a member of the group over which these governments have jurisdiction? How do we determine membership? In Canada, it's citizenship. A Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant has a status within the laws of Canada and in the jurisdiction covered by those laws. How is that jurisdiction and its membership determined? Who determines it? Who's a member, and how does this government interface or interact with those decisions? Two simple questions.
Hon. J. Cashore: I believe that the questions were: will first nations governments have the right to pass legislation, will they have the right to tax and will they have the right to enforce their laws? If I have those questions correct, the answer is yes, but within the context of the tripartite negotiated agreements. It would be the responsibility of the negotiating teams on behalf of the federal and provincial governments to ensure that the interests of the adjacent public and the wider public throughout the province were addressed in arriving at those agreements. In many instances, when dealing with those different aspects, there are matters that are in the interest of the first nations entity where they would not be seeking exclusive powers in some of those areas. As you know, in the taxation-enabling legislation that has been passed in this House, some taxation powers now exist with first nations governments.
With regard to the question of enforcement, while the answer is technically yes, the position of Canada and of British Columbia in coming to the negotiating table is that the constitution of Canada applies and the Criminal Code applies. That would always be the fundamental position with regard to addressing how the issue around justice would be negotiated.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: There was a question about how first nations citizens would be identified. The question of enrolment is one of the issues that is up for negotiation at the table. Again, the mandate of the federal and provincial governments is one in which the interests of the wider public would be clearly represented in establishing what that enrolment would be and how it would be defined.
G. Wilson: I'm not quite sure what that last answer meant, but I'll come back to that in just a moment.
I'd like to come back to this question of jurisdiction on taxation with respect to the right to tax. Where tax is levied, it is levied as a condition of the statues of Canada and/or the province of British Columbia. There is no independent authority or right to tax or levy any kind of fee, at least not to my knowledge. If not, I'd be curious to know what they are.
[ Page 10276 ]
But clearly, where taxation is, in fact, a part of the agreement, it is done so either through an agreement with the federal government and Department of Indian Affairs and their right to tax, or it is done through some kind of amendment within the provincial statutes to provide for that taxation authority. A government -- a truly independent authority with which this government of the province of British Columbia seems to be prepared to negotiate on matters as critical as land jurisdiction, as resource jurisdiction, as membership and citizenship jurisdiction -- surely must have the autonomy and freedom to be able to provide a taxation base to support the government that the provincial government seems to be wanting to put into effect. So maybe the minister could be more clear with respect to how the levy of these third orders of government will work.
If we were to look at the only self-governing band that I'm aware of in the province of British Columbia to date -- at least the first that was there, the Sechelt -- in the model the Sechelt used, their right or ability to tax is governed largely through amendments to the Municipal Act and the Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act, legislation set up specifically to accommodate and provide for it. Clearly, the work that has been done by bands in Kamloops and Westbank and in other areas -- Sliammon is another one I'm very familiar with -- gives them a right with respect to property taxation or leased lands or leaseholdings that are on reserve. Clearly the governments do not have the right to levy a general tax against their citizens in order to provide the revenue that is necessary to fund the government, which is something that governments traditionally have a right to do. Maybe the minister could clarify that.
Hon. J. Cashore: Any taxation powers that come as the result of negotiations would be very much the result of those negotiations. There wouldn't be any blanket type of process that took place there. But we should recognize that there are currently 30 first nations in the province that have undertaken real property taxation powers, as permitted by section 83 of the federal Indian Act, and as facilitated by the British Columbia Indian Self Government Enabling Act. When a first nation indicates a desire to undertake a property taxation bylaw, the bylaw must be first approved by the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, upon the recommendation of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board. So under the current circumstances there's a very clear process whereby that might be done. In the context of treaty negotiations, the issue and range of taxation matters would be subject to those negotiations.
G. Wilson: More specifically, the key word is that it's "approved" by the federal government, as per the constitution of Canada with respect to matters of taxation, the authority vested in the federal government and, by virtue of its agreements with the provinces, the distribution of taxation rights within the provincial government.
Could the minister point to what aspect in law, either federal or provincial...or where in the Canadian constitution either a federal or provincial government is empowered to negotiate independent taxation rights for one group of people in Canada whose membership is determined through some separate negotiation process outside the general laws that govern the citizens of Canada? What legal authority does this minister quote that gives them the right to negotiate that on behalf of Canadians and/or first nations people -- who, this minister would suggest, are an entity yet to be determined in the laws of Canada?
Hon. J. Cashore: At the very beginning, in response to the question from the member for Okanagan West, I cited five reasons outlining why first nations are a legal entity and why we take the position that we have a government-to-government relationship. Within that context, it is appropriate to be discussing such matters, given the responsibility of the senior levels of government to ensure this is done in a manner consistent with our mandate and responsibility.
G. Wilson: I think the question from the member for Okanagan West was right on target and was not answered. I'm aware of nothing in the Douglas treaties that provides provincial or federal governments the statutory right to negotiate independent tax status -- absolutely nothing whatsoever. Furthermore, not all aboriginal people in the province are covered by treaty.
[10:45]
The third point is that we're now talking about -- and perhaps now is the time to get into it -- the establishment of a jurisdiction of people, whose membership is determined through some negotiation process and who are going to have rights and privileges under the laws of Canada and/or the first nations, however they're determined, that will run specifically and separately to those people and will not run equally to other Canadians. This is a major departure in Canada, and notwithstanding the indiscretions that have been held against aboriginal people.... I'd be the first person to say that history is replete with examples of massive indiscretions levelled against aboriginal people in this country, and we do have to repair much of that damage. But the way to do it, surely, is not to create a special order of people within Canada who have special rights, special privileges and a jurisdiction that is separate unto themselves on the basis of some kind of negotiated citizenship-membership process.
The minister hasn't answered the question. There is absolutely nothing within the treaties that I'm aware of -- and I've studied them extensively -- that provides this government or the federal government with the statutory power to negotiate autonomy with respect to governance over one people who are going to be determined specifically and separately on the basis of their racial origin. Can the minister answer that?
Hon. J. Cashore: The fact that the first nations exist as legal entities, and the fact that I have listed five very clear areas that establish them as legal entities, and the fact that we are encouraged by the courts -- in fact, in at least one instance ordered by the courts -- to negotiate with first nations because of the recognition that negotiation is better than litigation....
Let's make it very clear. The hon. member and I have agreed to disagree on this issue. But since we have taken the point -- which I believe he disagrees with -- that we accept these as first nations and relate to them on a government-to-government basis, therefore whatever is stated in any of the treaties or any of the other fundamental legal background information.... When you take the position of coming together as government to government, you also take the position, recognizing that those are legal entities, that it is entirely appropriate for one party or the other to place the issue of taxation on the table for the negotiations.
[ Page 10277 ]
Once you agree to have a table and come to a table, that means there will be topics placed on that table. It may be the opinion of this member that that topic should not be on the table, but there's nothing to say that because that particular topic is not phrased in a certain way in a particular treaty, therefore it cannot be discussed. There's nothing that is not logical; you cannot make that conclusion. Once you've accepted the basic premise -- which this government has accepted and which I believe is widely supported -- that we must enter into this new government-to-government relationship, then whether you're at a treaty table or a policy table such as the one we have with the UBCIC or the summit, it is appropriate for either of those government entities to place a topic such as taxation on the table.
G. Wilson: I've only got a couple more questions specifically on this, and then I will yield. I don't wish to dominate this discussion, although this is clearly something that I not only disagree with, but passionately disagree with. I think it is clearly not in the interests of British Columbians or Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike -- and I don't make a distinction.
What I hear the minister saying is that the courts have said: "Go negotiate this because there is no legal jurisprudence that would allow that to occur." You can't litigate it in the courts, because there is no legislation that permits it. This problem is one where the government -- and it's a political decision -- has suggested that because we will bring together entities covered by the first nations.... And let's be clear: "first nations" does not include all aboriginal people in the province. In the entity that sits at the Treaty Commission, we have the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, a series of independents, the United Native Nations and the Metis groups. All of them want some kind of provision with respect to negotiations, and that's a complex problem.
But the government has decided, because there is no statutory right or a clear, obvious way to provide this within the existing legislation, that just by general agreement we are going to create entities in this province where there is political jurisdiction with respect to the provision of taxation rights, legal rights over resources or legal rights over people who are deemed to be members of that group over which that jurisdiction has authority. We're going to do this by taxing the general public through the Department of Indian Affairs currently, but also through the province of British Columbia and a Treaty Commission in order to provide the right for the creation of those entities. Those non-aboriginal people who reside within those territories may be taxed and legislated but have absolutely no right of representation.
Well, hon. Chair, I have to tell you that that is an absolute travesty with respect to the basic principles of democracy, notwithstanding the need to try to deal with the issue. Maybe the minister could tell us how he expects to explain that to the people -- both aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- who are deemed to be non-members of these new jurisdictions over which governments will have authority to tax, enforce legislation and provide regulation of resource use and development. How does this ministry expect to explain to those non-members how they would be required to continue to finance, fund and put revenues into those jurisdictions when they have no right to vote or representation on the authorities that are created?
Hon. J. Cashore: All of those are important considerations that are dealt with in the negotiating process if it comes to a specific treaty negotiation. Under the present Indian Self Government Enabling Act, we already have a situation where taxation is taking place. It is designed to ensure that there is no double taxation. I think it should do the opposite of causing the kind of fear that I think the member's comments are designed to create. It's functioning well, it's providing a process whereby there would not be double taxation, and it's a good example of the kind of process that could be negotiated.
The hon. member asked a question about who would be enrolled within a first nations entity. One of the things that has to be taken into consideration in negotiations is the interests of all the people who live within a particular region. We should not assume automatically that some decision will be made that an all-encompassing territory is going to have the impact the hon. member projects. This will be carried out in a reasonable and appropriate way, through hard negotiations, by fielding competent teams of negotiators in a consistent process of mandate development. This is done in consultation with third parties as this process goes along. Don't lose sight of the object, which is to achieve certainty. It's to achieve a new relationship in which we can move forward together.
G. Wilson: I have two questions and then I will yield, but I hold the right to come back to this question at some point, because it's critical.
What the minister is saying is that we're going to proceed in a manner in which the negotiations will provide things that are reasonable and a situation that is just. The question is: what's reasonable and what's just?
It is quite true that there are areas where taxation jurisdiction currently exists. We're well aware of it. I receive countless letters not only from non-aboriginal but from aboriginal people who say they do not like or respect the manner by which we are negotiating these processes. They say there is an elite within the aboriginal community who have taken on the role of leader and who are now controlling, within not all but some bands, the authority to be able to make representation. They are doing this without proper consultation or negotiation among citizens of their own groups. They are negotiating government-to-government with British Columbia, providing within those negotiations detailed information and documentation with respect to how they wish to proceed into a formation of government that may or may not have the appropriate -- and, I would argue, prerequisite -- green light from members of their own organization.
This government is saying that it's okay to establish jurisdictions in Canada in which governments will have the right to have representation only by a select group, and that there will be some authority determining who that select group is going to be. As Canadians, I and other members of society at large will have no input whatsoever into that. Urban aboriginal people, or Metis, or non-status people will have no input into it. But you're going to be able to create this entity to which will fall land jurisdiction, and the right to legislate, to tax and to represent. The minister says that this is going to be an appropriate and fair way to proceed.
Appropriate for whom, and fair to whom? Those are the questions. It seems to me that what we're dealing with on this jurisdictional question is the manner by which we have made a political accord that has absolutely no authority in federal or provincial statutes. Notwithstanding the commentary that the minister made to the member for Okanagan West, who hit right on the target with respect to this question of the definition of government, the minister has failed to tell us where the statutory authority is going to lie.
[ Page 10278 ]
My question -- and I have just two more, and then I will yield because I think others would like to get into this debate -- is this: where does an individual who is deemed to be a non-member of this new group have the right to appeal their status under the negotiated third order of government if they wish status or jurisdiction under those authorities? Where does this minister see that appeal process falling? To which jurisdiction will they appeal?
Hon. J. Cashore: In the Nisga'a case, an appeal process has been established to deal with that issue. When we're dealing with enrolment issues, that will be a topic of very real focus. But there will be a process for dealing with that in a way that is workable. That's what government-to-government relationships are all about. It's taking a problem such as that and coming up with a solution that's going to be workable to enable the accomplishment of the overall vision.
The hon. member has said that persons such as himself would have no rights in this process. We know where he's coming from; we know that he opposes the process. He's made that very clear. He has said that he is opposed to the government concept. So since his fundamental premise is different from my fundamental premise, it follows then that he will disagree with virtually everything else. It's automatic that he will disagree with everything else, because he has not agreed to that fundamental premise. That is the very thing that he should be saying in these debates and making it very clear where he stands on this issue both to first nations people and to non-first nations people. That's the way it should be. We happen to be following a different fundamental premise.
The hon. member has said that there's nothing written down that gives us authority to negotiate treaties on a government-to-government basis. The fact is that the courts have said that we should negotiate, because aboriginal and treaty rights are recognized in the constitution of Canada. If we are going to negotiate, it means that we are going to come together as two separate government entities and put those items on the table that one party or the other believes need to be negotiated. In that context, it's appropriate to enter into issues such as taxation.
I disagree with the hon. member but I understand where he's coming from. If you follow the logical position he takes of denying the fundamental point that there can be a government-to-government relationship, well then it's understandable that the hon. member ends up where he does on that.
The hon. member referred to urban areas and the Metis. He was not here for the discussion yesterday. We canvassed that issue. We identified that we would be in the process...
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not criticizing the hon. member for that; I'm just reminding him that we addressed that yesterday. I identified the fact that we are in the process this year of setting up two tables with the non-status and Metis people. Again, those issues have to do with the way in which enrolment factors would relate, say, to a given first nation somewhere in the province, and how that relates to the fact that members of that first nation are in urban areas. Those are matters for negotiation and matters that need to be hammered out. I make no apology for that. Those are simply parts of the stuff of the negotiations that have to take place. But the fact is that we're learning with the Nisga'a experience and from looking at other jurisdictions in Canada where treaties have been negotiated successfully that these are not insurmountable obstacles. They are issues that can be addressed within the context.
[11:00]
G. Wilson: With respect to the Nisga'a treaty, which has been signed on that matter -- and I've requested a copy of it and hopefully I'll be receiving it soon -- to whom do they appeal in that agreement? What body does somebody who believes that their rights have been abridged appeal to?
Hon. J. Cashore: The document has been sent to the hon. member, so he should have that in his office. The appeal board will have three members: one appointed by the Nisga'a Tribal Council, one appointed by Canada and a chairperson chosen by the other two members. So that is the entity to which that appeal would be addressed in this process.
G. Wilson: I won't press on with questions on that document until I've had a chance to read and understand it.
Just a last question, then I will yield to other members and reserve the right to come back to question. I fully appreciate the minister's frankness with respect to our differences; we do have a fundamental difference in terms of the approach to this issue. With respect to the negotiation process in this third order of government, I'm not certain that there is wide acceptance of the process either among aboriginal people or non-aboriginal people, quite frankly. I don't know if that's been tested, except for the Charlottetown accord, in which this direction was resoundingly defeated. If that was a yardstick, I would say that this minister should take heed of public opinion on this, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.
Within these negotiations, is there a paramount consideration that notwithstanding whatever agreements are made, the constitution of Canada will prevail, and that within that provision the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will prevail and will apply to all individuals within whatever new entity comes forward, so that they will have equal protection under the Charter and all of its provisions within whatever jurisdictions may be created?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes to both of those questions. With regard to the point that the hon. member raised earlier, I would point out that there's no legislative requirement on behalf of first nations to be able to enter into negotiations, but legislation will be passed in the House to accommodate treaties as they are....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. And so there would be legislation at both levels. If it's a tripartite negotiation, there would be legislation in both senior Houses. That would be part of the process.
The hon. member also mentioned in his most recent remarks that he did not think this process was accepted by the majority of aboriginal people. As I pointed out yesterday, there is respect for the diversity of approaches among first nations. We all recognize that there's great cultural diversity and divergence of opinion among first nations, and that's quite understandable. Some first nations do not support the process we have coalesced: the summit, the federal government, and the provincial government with the Treaty Commission. At the same time, I would find it informative to recognize that more than two-thirds of the on-reserve populations in the province are represented in the statements of claim that have been put forward.
On Vancouver Island, for instance, I believe that statements of claim represent close to 95 percent of the population. The hon. member is still seeking to make the point that that does not indicate that all of those people agree with the fact that they have filed with the Treaty Commission. I don't think that either of us could say that 100 percent agree or 50 percent agree, or anything like that. I have been to a number of first nations communities, and the strong impression I get on my travels is that people in those communities are very interested in the process. They are excited about it, they're positive about it, and I believe -- and I realize I can't speak for them -- that the general tenor out there is that we think this has real possibilities. We want to see the meat; we want to see what this is going to produce; but we believe it is the most hopeful and potentially productive process that we've ever seen in our history, in terms of dealing with 125 years or more of injustice. There is very strong support among aboriginal people for the process we've embarked on with the First Nations Summit.
[ Page 10279 ]
With regard to the member's comments on the leadership of the first nations organizations, there's a kind of elite that does not really communicate well with the people. That's a subjective comment, and I will not seek to enter into or engage in producing that kind of very simple statement without knowing what kind of data or research it's based on. I would caution the hon. member to be very careful in making a statement like that. First of all, it could be a bit descriptive of human nature that those people who get into positions of elected office, whatever their background, are viewed with a great deal of scrutiny and criticism. That's the way our process works. I think all of us understand how that works.
At the same time, I'm aware of the summit, for instance, which is representative of the people, having meetings and a process whereby their task group members are elected and put in place. I believe this represents a democratic process that is appropriate. If we are going to be conducting these relationships in a climate that leads to respect, it would be helpful to have respect for the institutions which are emerging as they seek to find their destiny in a new Canada.
G. Wilson: Just a quick clarification on two things the minister said. I understood the minister to say there would be legislation, and obviously future policy would be jealously guarded. I understand the minister said there would be legislation coming forward, and I assume that to be something other than the passage of the Treaty Commission Act that allowed that. So this is something additional that we could look forward to -- that was the first question.
Secondly, with respect to choosing words carefully, I'm fully aware of the need not to inflame, or in any way aggravate, what are often difficult negotiations. I would be happy to share with the minister in this set of estimates -- later -- some of the concerns I'm hearing from aboriginal people, especially around their desire to have an aboriginal ombudsperson established in the province of British Columbia for aboriginal people to appeal to directly on decisions where they believe the basic democratic principles, within their bands, are not being adhered to because of the establishment of family elites that tend to control the power agenda of various groups. With that said, if the minister could just clarify the future legislation question, I'd yield.
The Chair: The Chair cautions all members that future legislation is not properly in order. But for those aspects of the question that are in order, I recognize the hon. minister.
Hon. J. Cashore: As hon. members know, a six-stage process has been approved from the findings of the task force. When you get into the agreement-in-principle process, and when you have an agreement in principle, that would be approved by cabinet, and then it would go from there to the ratification of the agreement. At that stage, there would be legislation in the House to ratify the agreement, as was the case in the Yukon Legislature after completion of those agreements.
A. Warnke: Before continuing on a line of thought that was introduced by the member for Okanagan West, stemming from some of the comments made yesterday, I'd like to comment that I'm somewhat surprised by some of the comments made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, in the context that while that member is claiming there is a travesty of democracy --unless, of course, there is some sort of integration of all aboriginal peoples.... I thought aboriginal peoples had made it very clear that that's been part of the problem since embarking on the Indian Act. As a matter of fact, what is essential is to develop an appropriate set of institutions whereby aboriginal people are empowered to realize their own destiny and fit into a fabric of Canadian society, which, again, I thought was premised on some sort of notion of respect for different cultures and different heritages. In that context, I thought that's exactly what is being promoted. And in that context, it's appropriate that what would unfold is a distinct kind of democracy in Canada which takes into account the contributions of many different peoples, including aboriginal peoples and including the different heritages, different histories and different cultures of the aboriginal peoples. I think that's extremely important to appreciate. The aboriginal peoples have made it crystal-clear, especially in recent years, that the kind of integrationist or assimilationist model that was practised certainly did not damage their spirit beyond repair, but they also articulated that it simply did not work. A simple model of democracy, which, again, is highly questionable -- but we won't explore that here -- really needs some rethinking. Otherwise, I think what we may flirt around with is not a travesty of democracy but a travesty of justice for the aboriginal peoples in this country and, in particular, in this province.
[11:15]
Within that context, there has been plenty of discussion in the aboriginal community throughout British Columbia. This includes -- I think the minister is quite correct -- the status of urban aboriginals. Where do they fit in this picture? The definition by urban aboriginals themselves -- which has been described vividly to me on many occasions, incidentally -- is that they do have a linkage with the aboriginal peoples. The linkage is that they were either born or raised, or, as a result of their extended family.... Even if they were born in Vancouver, a complex and cosmopolitan city, as a result of the extended family and by association with that extended family, they are of a particular band, they are of a particular people, and, as a result, they do not necessarily lose their status, at least in British Columbia. Many aboriginals have made it very clear that they have a very strong association through the extended family. And as a result, I would suspect they would enjoy some membership within the aboriginal community, somehow.
There is the other point, as well, which I took from the government, and it is that the Nisga'a negotiations provide the model, the basis, and perhaps the experience by which we could look at some of the developments of the other aboriginal communities, especially when we get into this whole problem. And I recognize -- as I did yesterday -- the
[ Page 10280 ]
complexity of developing institutions; one recognizes the complexity of that, especially through self-governing institutions. The negotiations themselves are complex, as has been described yesterday and today. We've only just scraped, you might say, the very top, the cream of the issue. The fact is that they are very complex, and many factors have to be taken into consideration. That's why it's not just a simple matter of saying: "Well, here's a model, third order of government, bang -- we're going to shoot it in." I cautioned the minister -- and I think the minister agreed -- that that is not the way to go. Education, the transmission of knowledge, the communication of the complexity of these issues to British Columbians and to Canadians, and a constant communication flow between all peoples are absolutely essential. Otherwise, we repeat some of the problems that were witnessed as a result of the Charlottetown accord.
One thing I believe we have to move towards -- and I thought we had some agreement here -- is that an elite-imposed solution to these is just not on. I think everyone really recognizes that. At any rate, those are just some comments. I suppose they are worth reintroducing for today's discussion as well.
Some of the remarks made by the member for Okanagan West are appropriate to follow up on, because I think the member was concerned that if we begin to talk about government-to-government relations -- we use that sort of jargon, or perhaps we really mean it -- then as a result of the effect of ritualization, of saying that all of this package is a result of government-to-government relations, what we end up doing is promoting something that leads to an expectation. Already, through ritualization, we are a distinct form of government. The member quite rightly raises the prospect that through that kind of ritualization we are gradually bringing forth a third order of government. Therefore I think it would be instructive for the minister to put in a reality check of some sort and make it very clear that this third order of government is not in place yet. The way we deal with aboriginal peoples right now does not mean we accept the third order of government, or a distinctive order of government.
On that basis, would the minister like to respond?
Hon. J. Cashore: I very much appreciate the hon. member's comments. I think they're very perceptive and are basically cognizant of the fact that the approach we're taking is heading in the right direction. I know that the hon. member and I had the opportunity to spend half an hour together several weeks ago with the new minister of DIAND, and I found that to be a very good discussion. I think it's worthwhile that we are able to hear some of these perspectives.
With regard to the point the hon. member was just making, I think we have to recognize that given the direction we have received from the courts, and also given the fact that first nations governments existed prior to contact, which is being recognized, it is in that context that we recognize them as governments. We don't enter into that in any other way. It's simply that we recognize the pre-existence of their rights and responsibilities with regard to their own governance.
On the other hand, first nations have made it very clear that they recognize the roles of senior governments. They recognize those governments. Therefore they seek to enter into discussions and negotiations that would lead to settlements of longstanding areas where they have a very strong and profound sense that justice is still waiting to be done.
I want to take this opportunity to put into the record some elements of the treaty negotiation process. In preparing for treaty negotiations, the province has had to develop an internal process that's necessary to support the complex negotiations. This process includes mandate development, negotiations and fiscal controls. Those are the three main internal elements.
The negotiating process we have developed is based on efficiency, affordability and effectiveness, and it provides for clearly defined responsibilities and accountabilities. There were some primary considerations with regard to maintaining flexibility and enabling the province to adjust to changing circumstances and take advantage of existing expertise within line ministries. I think it's very important to recognize that we're not the only ministry involved in bringing about a very important change, and that there must be an ethic which builds in these principles of respect, understanding protocols and the importance of leading to self-determination. That ethic must permeate all line ministries.
Taking advantage of the expertise within those line ministries, we also recognize the need for reducing costs and administrative structures where possible and for ensuring the timely provision of information. Again, we've recognized that the information aspect of this is a very real challenge; we have to do better. We feel good about the direction in which we are moving to get the information out there.
Also, with regard to public consultation and communications, that is a very important role within the treaty negotiation process. As I mentioned yesterday, we have the treaty negotiations advisory committee, and we also plan to establish regional consultation processes as individual negotiations get underway. The planning for that is well underway at the present time.
With regard to the line ministries that I was referring to a few moments ago, there is an interministry committee. Each ministry has a representative on this committee, and we maintain close contact with them to ensure efforts across government are coordinated. We recognize, within this, that there are not only the formal relationships, if you will, that might lead to government-to-government negotiation and memoranda of understanding, but there are also more informal discussions that take place on a regular basis between line ministries and first nations. I'm very pleased to see the way in which the ministers and the ministries have looked very positively towards understanding this new process and being able to represent that ethic in their daily deliberations.
It's very important that we ensure that settlements are affordable. That's an absolutely fundamental point. They must be affordable, and therefore there must be effective fiscal controls. Our primary consideration, therefore, has to be to monitor the costs associated with treaty negotiations and to ensure these fall both within the planning estimates and within the long-range fiscal plan of government. Therefore our ministry is working very closely with the Ministry of Finance in this area.
I would conclude by saying that the negotiation process was developed in consultation with line ministries, and they have input into how the process will work. There's a great deal of ongoing work that is done within the various agencies of government to ensure that this process is carried out well.
A. Warnke: I want to follow up with what is a minor point but nonetheless part of the regional approach. A regional
[ Page 10281 ]
consultation process, through, I suppose, the experience of negotiating with the Nisga'a, is in place. It is tailored to the nature of the negotiations taking place within a region. It also deals with the local situation through joint advisory structures, and so on. This would also include, I understand, the input of local industries. I'm wondering -- it's almost a supplemental -- how the regional approach fits into this package of self-government, because it may lead one to think that as a result of a regional approach we may end up with quite distinct models of self-government. I'm wondering if the minister has thought this one through, and what his response would be.
Hon. J. Cashore: We have thought this through. As I've said before, we would have regional teams in those places throughout the province where we begin to negotiate with first nations. That would by definition recognize the importance of local public education and information programs developed to provide specific information to local communities. Sometimes this information will be developed in cooperation with the individual first nation and the federal government, within a tripartite process. This process has already been successful in the Nisga'a negotiations.
The member made a comment earlier about the Nisga'a being a model. I would personally avoid the use of the term "model" and would say that there's a body of experience and information emerging from these negotiations which will inform other negotiations. We recognize the diversity of geography and terrain and the diversity of cultural backgrounds of the various peoples with whom we negotiate. Given the demographic diversity that is now the reality within this province -- in the areas where the Squamish and the Musqueam reside, for instance, there's very little Crown land, whereas the further north you go there's more of it -- there are certain specific, unique aspects to every negotiation. As I said yesterday, there will be patterns in a number of areas of governance that will develop as the experience with these negotiations moves along.
[11:30]
A. Warnke: There's one particular point the minister made that is really worth accentuating: the use of the term "model," which I picked up in reading the literature. I quite agree with the minister that there is a problem here. The use of the term "model" conceptually implies that it is somehow a vision of what we have in mind that's going to be imposed. The minister explained that the word "model" is inappropriate and that what we may see as a result will be from the set of experiences through the negotiations and so on. That's extremely important, because through that kind of experience we have something that emanates from the people themselves. I think that is a very healthy approach to this whole manner.
Hon. Chair, we have a certain line of thinking. We're not going to belabour this much further, but we still want to discuss a few points on self-government before moving on. I would like to take a look at the land settlement issue.
Given the hour, it might be appropriate to move adjournment. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:32 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]