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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 14, Number 16
[ Page 10283 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Hon. A. Edwards: I would like the House to join me in welcoming Dr. Donald Balmer of the Graduate School of Professional Studies at Lewis and Clark College. He's here with a group of 25 to 30 Bonneville Power Administration professionals. They are examining how we go about government and how we deal with energy issues. Please help me give them a good warm welcome.
A. Hagen: I'm very pleased to welcome to the Legislature this afternoon approximately 25 people, with their instructor Ms. B. Stephens, from the Options Unlimited program based in New Westminster. They're in the Legislature today to learn something about our government and how we function as a democracy. I know that the session will be interesting for them. Will you join me in welcoming them this afternoon.
L. Boone: It gives me great pleasure today.... It's not that often that I have an opportunity to introduce guests, let alone a group from a school, but today we have a group of students who have travelled here from the Robson Valley. I'd ask the House to give a warm welcome to students from the Robson Valley Junior Academy and their teacher Mr. George Schafer. They have left the wonderful area of the Robson Valley to come down to the rainy town of Victoria to see the Legislature. Would you please greet them.
D. Streifel: One of the privileges we have as members is to introduce to British Columbians guests who come to visit us in this chamber. It's an absolute privilege and a pleasure for me to introduce a good friend of mine and a good source of information in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area. Would the House help me welcome Shirley Cooke.
D. Schreck: I see in the gallery one of the city councillors from the city of North Vancouver. Will the House please join me in welcoming Councillor Bill Bell.
G. Janssen: Joining us today in the galleries are two women actively involved in the women's movement in Port Alberni. I ask the House to please welcome Sue Egers and Pam Keel.
G. Brewin: From perhaps rainy downtown Victoria, but very full of gardens and flowers, I would like the House to welcome to this chamber 30 grade 7 students from South Park Elementary and their teacher Mr. Koytshyn. Welcome to all of you.
F. Garden: In the gallery I recognize a good Caribooster. I don't know whether he's from Hon. D. Zirnhelt's riding or mine, but both of us bump into him a lot. He's a reporter for the Williams Lake Tribune. I'd like you to join me in welcoming Bill Phillips.
Hon. D. Miller: It's a busy day for introductions, but it's not often that those of us from the north get people down here. So I would like to introduce a very old and dear friend and supporter, Ms. Brenda Gardiner from Prince Rupert -- where we grow moss better than we grow grass.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to note that we have in the galleries today a first-time visitor to Canada from England, who arrived late last night, Mr. Alec Moore. He's here today visiting with his cousin Jim, better known to some members of the House as Jim Bennett. Would members welcome Alec Moore to Canada and to today's proceedings.
C. Evans: I think there are about half a million renters in British Columbia. Representing these people in the Legislature today -- they have a lot more constituents than any of us -- are Kim Zander, Tom Durning and Brent Mueller. Would members please make them welcome.
F. Randall: In the gallery today we have Harley Stubbing, Richard Roy and Darren Smith of Rogers Cable 4 in Burnaby. They are here to do interviews with the MLAs. Would the House please make them welcome.
LAND PURCHASE BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Deputy Premier. The official opposition has learned that during the fall of 1991 a Ms. Brady met with the present Minister of Agriculture to discuss legal road access to her property at Opheim Lake. The advice given to her at that time by the member was that she herself should contact the owner of the property through which she needed access, in order to negotiate legal access. Subsequent to those meetings, the Minister of Agriculture himself purchased the property in question and became that very owner. Can the Deputy Premier confirm that that action by that minister is in fact in violation of section 3 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, which reads as follows: "A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office...to...seek to further the member's private interest"?
Hon. E. Cull: No, I can't confirm that. I'd be happy to take the question on notice for the minister.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.
G. Campbell: Today I have written to the conflict-of-interest commissioner requesting that he investigate the actions of the Minister of Agriculture, which have all the appearances of a conflict of interest. Clearly, from the information available, the Minister of Agriculture has used his public position to further his private interests. My question is to the Deputy Premier: how can she justify the actions of a minister who abuses the public trust in this way?
Hon. E. Cull: This government has brought in the toughest conflict-of-interest legislation in this country. The member, in the action that he has just outlined, is making appropriate use of this legislation. I'm sure the conflict-of-interest commissioner will take the action he is required to take under the act.
The Speaker: A supplementary, hon. member?
G. Campbell: This government constantly tells us about their tough conflict-of-interest guidelines, and they fail to act on them day in and day out, week in and week out. It should not be up to the opposition to hold cabinet ministers to account, to make sure they are taking care of the public interest instead of pursuing their private interests. That's the job of the Premier and Deputy Premier. Will the Deputy Premier not demand the resignation of that minister today and protect the public trust?
[ Page 10284 ]
Hon. E. Cull: The Leader of the Opposition refers to these as conflict-of-interest guidelines, and maybe for his party that's what they are. But the conflict-of-interest law is the law that we brought in in this province. The conflict-of-interest commissioner is a servant of the House, not of the government, and will take the action that is appropriate under the law.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
G. Campbell: The government has an obligation to take care of the public trust as well. If we're always waiting for the conflict-of-interest commissioner to act, that is hardly a star for the government's behaviour. The fact of the matter is that your Premier previously pointed out that when a minister handed a business card to someone, it was totally unacceptable behaviour. Why the double standard? The only unacceptable behaviour here is your government's failure to act to protect the public and demand a minister's resignation when it's called for.
[2:15]
Hon. E. Cull: The Leader of the Official Opposition has pronounced the sentence and is now calling for the trial. The appropriate order is that the conflict-of-interest commissioner will receive the letter from the Leader of the Opposition and take whatever action is required under the act.
SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE
V. Anderson: This is a question to the Minister of Social Services. We're all aware of the tragic death of five-year-old Matthew Vaudreuil, apparently after Social Services failed to take action to help him and his mother. Will the minister explain how this happened? Why did the ministry tragically fail in their responsibility? The public wants to know why this happened.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I completely share your grief around this tragic death. The minute that the criminal investigation was completed at the beginning of March, I ordered a review into the circumstances surrounding the death, and I anticipate that that review will be completed by mid-May. I can commit to you that I will share its results and any recommendations flowing from that review so that all the members of the House have a chance to review and consider them.
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
V. Anderson: I appreciate your commitment to present the results of the review to us, but that's an internal review. The public wants an independent review by those who are not in the process, looking after themselves, so that they can be assured that it is honest, fair and just to everybody concerned. Will the minister undertake to have an independent review by those who are not involved in the process, so that we might have assurance in the reply?
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I said to you, I will commit to making the results and recommendations available, within the constraints of the Family and Child Service Act, for the first time ever. Previous governments didn't do this. For the very first time ever, I will make those results and recommendations available to all members of this House, so that we can all consider them. That's as open a process as you'll get. That's an excellent, open process.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
V. Anderson: This is one more of this ministry's tragic failures, which have been happening ever since the government has been in power. We asked last year that there be an independent public review of the whole social services system, which was refused by the previous minister before she lost her position. Will this minister undertake to have a full public review of the total social services system in this province?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume you mean the family and child service side of the ministry. Contrary to what you have stated, our government instituted a review of family and child services and published two excellent reports in 1992. One report dealt with aboriginal families and the other with making changes to the entire family and child service system. We then had a White Paper, a discussion paper, which you and I have discussed on many occasions, hon. member. You know as well as I do that changes are anticipated. After legislation has been on the books for 15 years, it is time for change, and you know that we're ready to do that.
PEAT MARWICK REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Perhaps the minister can tell us why she never released the 1992 Peat Marwick report dealing with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Was it because that report proves that the government's underfunding of rehabilitation will cost the government billions of dollars down the road, or was it perhaps because she didn't want British Columbians to know that safety was being seriously compromised by her government's failure to keep rehabilitation at an acceptable level?
Hon. J. Pement: The reports in question were under another minister at the time. However, I can assure the member that traffic safety issues and highway safety are a number one priority with this minister and with this ministry. I will make certain that we bring reports forward that cover those issues.
The Speaker: The member has a supplementary?
J. Weisgerber: The minister's own deputy stated in the Peat Marwick report that the government must spend a minimum of $250 million a year on rehabilitation or face serious costs down the road. This government has cut spending on rehabilitation....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Will the hon. member please state his question.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister will explain why she allowed her budget to be reduced.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps....
[ Page 10285 ]
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has asked one question. Does the member have a further question?
J. Weisgerber: The question is: why did the minister allow rehabilitation spending to fall from $167 million in 1991 to $139 million this year?
Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to say to the member that we in the ministry always have upgrading our highways as a priority. We try very hard to ensure that we meet the needs and the priorities of each of the regions. I would suggest that the member broach the subject of budget estimates at the appropriate time.
The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Again to the minister. The report released by the minister indicates the ministry's figures on the number and cost of salaried employees and is marked in the margins as "fudged" by the ministry. Can the minister confirm that the other figures in the report are accurate, or are all of the figures in the Peat Marwick report fudged by the ministry?
Hon. J. Pement: I would suggest that they broach some of these issues in the budget estimates debate. Don't forget that these reports were done on the past government's performance and behaviour and with the figures they put forward. So I would suggest that the member look back at some of their budget speeches in the last while regarding budget cuts, deficits and debt. One could maybe look at the priorities in all budgets and in all ministries.
COMMUNITY-BASED AIDS STRATEGY
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. We know that the AIDS Secretariat chair quit over this government's doublespeak on an AIDS strategy. Now, after the budgets are finalized and the programs have been eliminated, the minister requests a meeting with the AIDS coalition. Where is this minister's commitment to a community-based AIDS strategy when consultation is merely an afterthought?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Unfortunately, all the member has wrong are her facts and her conclusions. The facts are that this government is committed to AIDS prevention in this province. When we took over government from the previous administration, which could barely acknowledge the existence of AIDS, funding on AIDS prevention from all aspects of the ministry stood at $1.4 million. In the current year, 1994-95, we will have spent over $4.5 million on AIDS prevention -- a 300 percent increase.
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
L. Reid: That was a disgusting display by this minister. I have talked to individuals who believe that this government is selling direct programming short. You have a $4.5 million budget, and $2.75 million is going to direct programs. Where are the other dollars going? The people on the street want the answers to those questions, hon. minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Those additional moneys are going to promotion campaigns to prevent the spread of AIDS. They are going to health units and community groups around the province. We have a comprehensive program here that involves the community and empowers the AIDS activist community on the secretariat to make decisions about how we can spend funds to do the most to prevent the spread of AIDS.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
L. Reid: The chair of the AIDS Secretariat has so much confidence in your remarks that he quit. There is no comprehensive AIDS strategy in this province. This government promised it; they said they absolutely would put that in place. You have just cut some of the finest outreach programs in North America.
The Speaker: Question, hon. member.
L. Reid: There is no justification. When will you endeavour to return direct funding for direct programs? People are not prepared to pay any more for administrative costs.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I wish the member opposite had the respect for members of the AIDS activist community that I do.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The AIDS Secretariat is charged with allocating moneys for public groups involved in the prevention of AIDS. They received a 10 percent funding increase, to $2.75 million. The AIDS Secretariat recommended that we have to consider AIDS as more than an urban disease. Therefore they recommended more than doubling the number of groups that receive funding through the secretariat. Most groups have received equivalent or greater funding in the coming year. The AIDS Secretariat has decided how these funds can be spent to do the most to prevent AIDS in our province.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
J. Weisgerber: I request leave to table a document received from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways pursuant to the Peat Marwick report of 1992.
Leave granted.
Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the annual report of the B.C. Police Commission for the fiscal year 1992-93.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. In the main House I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.
BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT
(continued)
The Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member for New Westminster, perhaps the members who are going to be leaving would do so.
[ Page 10286 ]
A. Hagen: This afternoon I rise in support of one of the most significant pieces of legislation that I have seen come before this Legislature since I was elected in 1986. One might wonder, given the large number of people in our membership coming from forest communities, why I would be standing this afternoon when I know so many other people want to speak.
[2:30]
I want to make very clear to the members of this House, speaking on behalf of my constituents, that this piece of legislation is important for all of the communities that lie on the historic banks of the lower region of the Fraser River -- recognizing that the Fraser River extends as the primary river source through so many of our forest communities. I believe the imagination of my community and the communities around the Fraser will be increasingly captured by the intent and the results of this legislation, which is the centrepiece of an initiative that I believe is without parallel in forest legislation throughout the continent.
We all know -- and I don't want to belabour the point at all -- how much our economy in British Columbia historically owes to the forest industry and how much its future owes to the forest industry. I always like to translate that kind of historic and economic activity into people, because it's people who participate in creating our wealth by working in jobs and contributing to their communities.
What I want to talk about for a very few minutes today are the ways in which this bill and the initiatives that will flow from it will affect my region, New Westminster, and all of those communities -- the Coquitlams, Surreys, Maple Ridges, Missions, Abbotsfords, Matsquis -- that have historically had a link to the forest industry. In communities all around the province, there have been changes over the last number of years. There are fewer jobs, and they're different. But there is a spirit of hope and optimism around this forest initiative, which reflects the good planning that has gone into it and the partnerships it represents. This is not just the work of government. Somebody spoke about consultation a moment ago. This is the product of an enormous amount of energy and creativity from people who are in the industry as managers and industrialists, and, even more significantly for us, from people who are in the industry as workers, and people who care about the forest as part of our environment and as a renewable and constant source of wealth and activity in British Columbia.
Last week I had some time to go out in my riding and talk, in particular, with the people who work in New Westminster -- the mill managers, millworkers and union people who have contributed to the development of this plan. The first thing I want to note about those visits and discussions is that whereas we often think that what goes on in Victoria is not something that people across the water pay a lot of attention to, the people I talked to -- and they were ordinary workers in a mill -- were aware of the work that was going on. They were interested in knowing its substance, and most particularly they wanted to know how it was going to affect them. They wanted to talk about that, and they wanted to know what their role and their participation might be. Indeed, because of the comprehensiveness of this plan, because of the comprehensiveness of the partnerships that exist, the people who work in my community and who contribute to the economy and the life of my community will benefit from this initiative. It will administer, in partnership, new dollars for new activities, both in the woods and, as a result of those activities, also in the mills and the production lines of the province.
There were three areas, all of them addressed by the work that will be encompassed by this bill, that people wanted to know about. First of all, they wanted to know that the raw materials they need for their work were in fact going to be available to them. They wanted to know that we were going to be looking at maintaining and enhancing those raw materials that come into the mills. Because of the work that will go on in the forests, because of the ways in which forests will be managed and because of the cooperation between workers and communities that are the prime drawers of the raw material, we were able to see ways in which that source of their work, the raw materials, would continue to flow into their plants. Secondly, because these workers have been through technological changes, because they have seen the enormous number of changes that have occurred in the forest industry along the Fraser over the last ten or 15 years, they wanted to know about ways in which we would be contributing through this renewal plan to adding value to our wood. I visited a mill where that ethos and that use of the raw material was already at a very high level. The 2-by-2s that came in were sawed into 2-by-1s, then sawed into lengths and manufactured into goods that went to Japan, Germany or the United States -- specialty markets that had been highly developed.
These people knew that keeping in touch with those markets and developing new products are indeed the future of the industry. They saw that the value of a 2-by-4 could be augmented six or seven times through value-added processes that could be accomplished in their mills, and that a wide variety of those value-added processes might come out of a single mill. They were, in fact, working on the future and recognizing that they would need to stay on top of research and development and technology to stay competitive with the best use of woods of all dimensions and kinds. We know that one of the ways the dollars flowing into this initiative will be used is to make sure that we get more jobs and economic results from every cubic metre of wood. It's a very simple goal, but a very complex one in terms of what our forest industry will look like ten or 15 years from now.
Finally, the issues they wanted to talk about are related to skills and training. These people have already gone through some upgrading to be in a value-added mill. Many of them know that their fellow workers need opportunities for new skills training in the mills as well as in the woods. There was the beginning of a training trailer at that mill. It didn't have steps, power or light, but those are easy things to add. Here again, in a partnership with the mill manager, the IWA and the workers, they were looking at ways in which the workers could personally upgrade their academic skills and learn new skills, often using modern technology -- computers, which are not very much a part of that mill at this stage -- to further augment the work they are doing.
Knowing that this is part of a broader plan for workers who are not yet at a point where training is in the workplace was exciting to them. They had many questions. They knew about the initiative; they knew about the plans. They knew there was a commitment of new money, $2 billion, over the next five years. This is unlike the previous administrations, where there were promises of money for forest renewal, forest technology, training and research and development -- promises that were broken. These dollars are there; they are in place. They are separate from the other accounts of government and will be used for the purposes that this bill outlines for us. The amounts and their use will be accountable back to this Legislature through the people who have helped, through our government, to work in partnership with industry, workers and environmentalists to bring about this far-reaching and creative plan.
[ Page 10287 ]
When we pass legislation in this House, it is rare to be able to say that within a month dollars will be flowing and available for programs, the beginnings of a very efficient structure will be in place and we will be seeing the first steps of a long-range plan that will affect the lives and work of people in communities around the province. When I say that, I recognize there is an enormous amount of work to be done, but most of us feel good when we can get down to work and get practically involved with doing something that we know has such value to the people who live and work in communities across the land.
As I talk to people in my community, where the forest industry has been a very essential part of its history and where people have come from across the world to work in the mills on the banks of the Fraser, I heard two sincere and heartfelt questions about communities in the resource extraction parts of the province. People are cutting the trees, and now they will be renewing our forests in ways that we haven't known and seen before. They want to work with their brothers and sisters in those communities. There is a sense of community among people who work and live by the forest industry, and a concern that all parts of that industry will be nourished and looked after by government working in cooperation with workers, industry and environmentalists.
Many of these people are environmentally sensitive, aware and involved. They wanted to know, too, that the kinds of things they did in their leisure time around the streams and forests, if they were fisherfolk or hikers, were a part of the renewal plan -- all of this with an announcement that had come five or six days before, all of this with people who were already tuned in to the significance and effect of this work upon them and their work in their communities.
It's with enormous pleasure that I speak in favour of this legislation today. Like all of the members of this House, I will be working with our communities in its implementation. I believe it has been set up in a way that allows for the kind of partnerships that all of us have craved and have paid very strong attention to. The one concern I have is that our opposition -- which, it seems to me, tends to never be able to recognize there are times when we need to come together to support an initiative -- will try to undermine the sense of direction here and work against the cooperation and partnerships that are in place. I believe that is the kind of harm that an ill-considered opposition can do with an initiative which we should all get behind.
It is seldom that people from the workforce, industry, the environmental movement and from government are able to sit down, start a process and make a commitment to it for the long term. I for one will be working with them in my community as we proceed with this very significant initiative for our province and for its historic and still very important industry, the forestry industry.
J. Pullinger: It's with a great deal of pride and some satisfaction that I rise to speak in favour of Bill 32 today. Bill 32 is, of course, the BC Forest Renewal Act. I'm proud to support this legislation, which demonstrates in a very significant way, once again, that this government is keeping the commitments it made during the last election and before. Those are commitments that affect every one of us every day in this province.
[2:45]
During the last election, we New Democrats said that if we formed government, we would change the way B.C.'s forests are managed, and we would end the decades of government neglect and mismanagement of B.C.'s most important resource. We said that we would double B.C.'s parks and wilderness to bring them up to the 12 percent minimum, which is the internationally recognized minimum of wilderness area. We said we would settle native land claims and that the wrongs of the past 100 years would be righted in a way that's fair to all British Columbians. We said we would change the way we carried on logging in this province. We said that things like the inappropriate use of grapple-yarders, too many roads or badly built roads, erosion into creeks and streams and other environmentally damaging practices around British Columbia must stop. We said we would balance the needs of the environment with the needs for jobs and community economic stability. We said we'd end the valley-by-valley conflict that we've seen escalate over the past decade, and we would make changes that would lead ultimately to peace in the woods. The people of British Columbia have had enough conflict and confrontation.
We New Democrats said we would do things differently. We said we recognize that the forests belong to the people and that the people of this province must benefit from the use of their forests. We promised change and have delivered on that promise. In just two and a half years, we have made a great deal of progress on our commitments. We have the formulation of a land use plan for the province; it's well underway. That plan will identify where we can log and what we must set aside. We have internationally significant areas like the Khutzeymateen and Tatshenshini set aside for future generations, in spite of the Liberal opposition's demands that we allow mining and logging in parks. We have B.C.'s first forest practices code, which will become law this session. This will mean better, more sensitive, and in many cases -- in fact, in most cases -- more labour-intensive logging. The B.C. Treaty Commission is in place to settle land claims. A cost-sharing agreement is in place with the federal government, and the first round of negotiations is getting underway with B.C.'s native people.
Today we are debating the forest renewal plan. Bill 32 is a piece of legislation that represents yet another major step forward on the part of this government towards fulfilling our commitment. It's ambitious and far-reaching. Perhaps most important of all, it's a plan that looks to the long term. The forest renewal plan, quite frankly, will change forever the way we manage our forests in this province. I doubt that any legislation on this continent equals it. The New Democrat government of British Columbia has recognized the importance of the land and forests of this province, and we have developed the very first long-term plan to sustain them and reinvest in them. The forest renewal plan will sustain our forest and forest economy for the long term -- not just for the next few years, but for the next hundred years and beyond.
What we're debating today, Bill 32, represents an unprecedented partnership among communities, business, environmentalists, first nations, forest workers and government. That in itself is a significant accomplishment. This is a piece of win-win legislation. Over the next five years, we're going to see some $2 billion invested in our forests to renew and sustain them for the long term. That money will work to create stable, well-paying jobs in our forests, the kinds of jobs that support families and communities. Those dollars will create a more secure future for the forest industry and a healthier forest environment. Those dollars will ensure a prosperous economy by reinvesting in our forests -- an economy based, as it always has been in this province, on our forests and forest industry. Those dollars and this forest renewal plan will protect a way of life that is quintessentially British Columbian.
[ Page 10288 ]
This plan has been developed through consensus and cooperation. It has been acclaimed by virtually every interest group and everyone in this province -- with one notable exception, and that is the Liberal opposition. The Liberal opposition, I regret to say, is opposing Bill 32, the forest renewal plan. I want to look for a moment at the arguments the Liberals are putting forward and the basis of that opposition. We're hearing -- perhaps the loudest cry from the other side -- that we don't need another Crown corporation. The Liberal opposition wants the money for this forest renewal plan to go directly to general revenue through the Ministry of Forests. And why not? Why shouldn't it go there?
Let me outline a couple of reasons. First, let's recognize that we have a significant, ambitious and far-reaching plan for our forests here. That plan and that $2 billion over the next five years is not going to magically manage itself. It will take somebody's time and expertise and a great deal of work to manage that money appropriately. We can't simply ask the people working in the Ministry of Forests to take on yet another massive task. Let us not forget that that would mean that other important tasks being undertaken by the Ministry of Forests would go undone.
Let's not forget that there have been some massive and fundamental changes in the last two years. We have the Forest Practices Code, biodiversity guidelines, the CORE process, the protected areas strategy, sustainability studies -- and the list goes on. A tremendous amount of creative and innovative work has been undertaken by this government and carried out by the people in the Ministry of Forests. To suggest that we should hand them another $2 billion task is ludicrous and unworkable.
Perhaps another and better reason for using this model, which is at arm's length from government, is that it dedicates by law that the funds created through the stumpage charges go to Forest Renewal B.C. and then directly back into our forests. That is important, especially if you look a bit at the history of this province.
Hon. Speaker, as you well remember, the last government -- and the last free enterprise government coalition in this province -- had a tendency to regularly divert things like silviculture funds into other programs. Instead of having investment of any kind in our forests, which we so desperately need, we ended up with things like Music '91, that $30 million black hole. This way the money goes directly to Forest Renewal B.C. and directly into our forests. To change that requires open, public debate in this Legislature.
Let's not forget, amid the cries of bureaucracy and too much government, that taxpayers' money is not going into this program; this is 100 percent stumpage and royalties. It's coming out of the woods, going through Forest Renewal B.C., and being invested back into the woods.
The Liberal opposition is also complaining that by creating this plan and by using a handful of people to manage it, we're adding to what they call overgovernment. I would like to suggest to this House that the cries of overgovernment are an ideological crusade. It's not a commonsense approach, and it's not real. Let's not forget that government is about services to people. If you're saying that we should get rid of government, you're saying that we should get rid of Health, Social Services and Education, and we should pull people out of the forests, like the previous government did, and leave them to manage themselves.
I recognize that the Liberals want to take a slash-and-burn approach, like the Klein government in Alberta, and gut services, lay off workers, increase unemployment and deepen the recession, but we reject that approach. In the 1980s, with the kind of restraint that we hear advocated from across the floor, B.C. was dead last coming out of the recession by every economic indicator. With the balanced approach that this government is taking -- by protecting services to people and creating the infrastructure we need to effectively do things like manage our forests -- British Columbia is leading the way out of the economic recession this time. We reject the approach the Liberals put forward. In my view, it's dumb economics and dumb social policy, and we all pay in the long term. People in British Columbia want their agents in the woods. People want forest practices monitored, controlled and regulated. People want government to accept its responsibility for our forests. Let's recognize that that shortsighted, ideologically driven approach seen in the last two decades doesn't work. It hasn't worked, and there's lots of evidence to support that conclusion.
There's a final reason that the model we're suggesting -- the arm's-length model -- is a good one and ought to be supported by the members opposite. If you remember, the previous government asked Sandy Peel to do some work on a commission on our forests. That body recommended that there be such an arm's-length body to manage our land and resources. Numerous other bodies, reports or investigations -- those with some expertise -- have echoed that. They've said that we need to take some of the benefits from our forests and redirect them back in through an arm's-length body. That's what we're doing.
Interestingly, the Liberals are objecting to the underpinnings of what we're doing in Bill 32. We're taking charge of the industry on behalf of the people who own the forests, the people of British Columbia. We're setting up the rules by which we will operate, to make sure that we have long-term prosperity and jobs and that our forests are environmentally and economically sustainable.
Instead of accepting that and agreeing, like everyone else in the province, the Liberals are calling for increased control by corporations. They're saying government should not get involved in forestry, that we should give longer and more secure tenures to industry and that industry ought to be given more public incentives to manage well. They're saying the forests should be handed over to the corporations, and we as government, the agent of the people, ought not to interfere. They reject public management of a public resource.
I'd like to remind the Liberal members of this House that that is precisely what we've had for the last 20, 30 or 40 years in British Columbia. We've had successive free enterprise coalitions in this province sit back and blindly believe that the interests of private corporations are precisely the same as the interests of the people of British Columbia. They gave industry a free hand to manage. We had a decade of sympathetic administrations in the eighties. They downsized government. They took the people's agents out of the woods.
We always said that that approach was wrong; New Democrats always disagreed with that approach. Today we see how very wrong that approach was. We can look back to rapidly escalating levels of cuts, with equally rapidly declining numbers of jobs and forest community economies. We can look back to inexcusable amounts of waste, environmental damage and virtually no investment in the forests and lands that sustain us. To suggest that we ought to intensify and expand the model that has done so much damage is foolish, shortsighted and, quite frankly, a disservice to the people of this province.
The Liberals also object to the stumpage and royalty increases. That's not surprising, given that they have
[ Page 10289 ]
committed to removing a whole lot of taxes from corporations -- hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxes -- and shifting them onto the backs of working people in this province. This is the Howe Street party; we know that. But these people need to ask their constituency what they think. Obviously, big businesses and corporations don't love the increase. But they do recognize that it's necessary. They recognize that low stumpage rates have been an argument in countervail. They recognize the need to invest back into our forests, and they know this increase is going back into our forests. They know it's part of a long-term plan. They therefore not only support what we're doing but have been part of the creation of this plan.
Finally, in terms of stumpage, let's just remember that wood prices will drive stumpage, not the reverse. Stumpage is going to be sensitive to the marketplace, and that will ensure that our industry in British Columbia can compete in the global marketplace.
[3:00]
The Liberals are objecting to Bill 32 on the basis that it's going to displace existing silviculture programs and workers. There is no substance to that argument whatsoever. This is money from a different source which is going to a different body to do different things. It's entirely separate, entirely new, entirely different, and it won't in any way affect the existing silviculture programs.
Similarly, the Liberals are opposing this legislation on the basis, they claim, that Forest Renewal B.C. will not be an accountable body. That also is not true. I would direct the opposition to section 10 of the legislation, where it clearly lays out not just how but when Forest Renewal B.C. will table its reports to the Legislature and how those debates will come to the Legislature. This body will be very accountable through and to this Legislature in the usual manner.
The Liberals and Socreds -- now Reformers -- are the voices in the wilderness objecting to Bill 32 in this Legislature. But let's not forget that the Liberals promised something to the people of British Columbia. They promised a new kind of opposition: they would be constructive; they would oppose on the basis of real concerns; and they would not simply oppose for the sake of opposing. Yet what we've seen, especially in this session, is empty rhetoric, groundless accusations and silly criticisms, such as we're hearing this week on Bill 32. We on this side of the House have kept and are keeping our promise to the people of B.C. We can't say the same about the people on the other side. I would suggest to the members opposite that the people of this province have had enough conflict and confrontation, and sooner or later the people of British Columbia will see through the empty rhetoric and see that the emperor, in fact, wears no clothes.
Our government has worked with industry, the value-added sector, native peoples, environmentalists and labour in developing the forest renewal plan. It's rooted in consultation, cooperation and consensus. It provides all of us with the opportunity to work together and make positive and constructive changes for the future. Not surprisingly, this plan has been hailed by all as visionary, creative and precisely what we need to do in this province. There's enthusiasm all around, except on the benches opposite. And that's too bad.
In the time I have remaining, let me turn to precisely what Bill 32 does. Bill 32 takes the wealth created in the forests and puts it back into the forests and the jobs in the communities that rely on them. Here's how we're going to do it. Over the next five years approximately $2 billion from increased stumpage rates will be invested back into the forests. We're going to develop new policies to complement and enhance this investment. Aboriginal people will have full access to the investments under the plan. Our forest renewal plan has two investment priorities: forest renewal and creating more value from the trees we harvest. It's going to put people to work renewing our forests through improved silviculture, faster replanting and better forest tending -- all things that forest workers have been calling for for years.
As I said earlier, these new investments are going to be in addition to existing silviculture programs and work being done at this time. As part of the B.C. forest renewal plan, we're going to increase the lands available for planting new trees, including converting some marginal agricultural and other lands into new forests. If they have better value as forest land and active forests, then we'll put them back into forests. We're going to get better forest inventory information, and we're going to evaluate what we do in terms of intensive silviculture.
Taking these steps now will make a tremendous difference to levels of harvesting in the future. These major investments are going to lower the reductions that are staring us in the face because of falldown and the shift from old-growth to second-growth forests. They're going to reduce that problem, and there will not be the kind of job loss that we might otherwise have seen. By putting money back into the forest now, we can bring the sustainable harvest back to current levels in the long term. That's great news for forest workers and forest communities and, ultimately, for all British Columbians.
As well as silviculture activities, the forest renewal plan will put people back to work restoring and protecting the health of forest ecosystems. We're going to clean up environmental damage, rehabilitate streams and rivers, and restore hillsides damaged by roadbuilding. We're also going to make additional investments to protect and restock fish and wildlife habitats. We will extend the research work already being done for the Forest Practices Code. Tough enforcement of environmentally sound forest practices will make a tremendous difference to the health and sustainability of our forests, and we need the government's agents in the forests to make sure that there is tough enforcement.
Through the forest renewal plan we are also going to test new approaches to improved stewardship of the forests, including things like community forests -- something people in my area have not only been calling for but have been working on successfully for a significant length of time. We're going to have an expanded woodlot licence program and pilot programs to enhance the sense of long-term commitment that forest operators have for the woods they work in. We're going to encourage harvesting the full range of forest types but in a sustainable way, and we're going to make use of the residual timber material that's now being left on the ground.
In my year of work on the Select Standing Committee on Forests, possibly the complaint we heard most often from the value-added sector was that they could not get access to the waste. They wanted to take that waste from the mills and woods and make it into products to sell. We're going to encourage that kind of thing. We're going to encourage selective harvesting and commercial thinning. The forest renewal plan will also put British Columbians to work creating more value from the trees we cut. The forests belong to the people; they have not been getting value out of them in terms of jobs. For companies that create jobs by producing value-added wood products, we're going to provide start-up and expansion assistance, better access to wood supply and research and development on new technologies, products
[ Page 10290 ]
and markets. Again, this is something that came out of the year of work by the all-party committee on the value-added sector, and I'm very pleased to see it reflected in this legislation.
As well as the value-added sector and the supports and encouragement for it, there's an education component to the forest renewal plan. We want -- and we need -- to ensure that workers have the skills they need for today and tomorrow. Forest practices and the way logging occurs are changing rapidly, and we need to keep up. In order to do that, a forest sector skills council will include representatives of government, forest companies and workers. It will continue to cooperatively coordinate and evaluate existing training and to develop new training where appropriate and where needed. We're going to develop specific new training for forest workers and wood-processing workers. All of this will make a tremendous difference to workers, families and the communities in which they live by improving job opportunities.
There will also be funding for community and regional economic development. We need to ensure that communities receive the maximum benefit from all of these plans. As well, we need to assist communities, such as Lake Cowichan, which has historically been dependent on the industry, in diversifying their economies.
Interestingly, these kinds of plans usually take a long time to put into practice, but by working together for the past year and longer, we're in a position now that we can put this plan into place. Beginning on May 1, stumpage fees are going to increase, and they will give us, on average, $400 million a year to invest back into the forests.
I'm proud of what we have accomplished. By working together in a cooperative partnership, we have developed the forest renewal plan, which for the first time gives us a long-term strategy to invest back into our forests. This government has a vision of a better future, a vision that we put forward in the last election. It is a more certain future, with a healthy environment and a prosperous economy. This forest renewal plan is a key part of the overall plan to solve the land use challenges we face in British Columbia.
As I mentioned earlier in my speech, we've done a tremendous amount already. A number of measures are already in place that together form very solid building blocks for the future. We have the timber supply review, the forest renewal plan and the Forest Practices Code working together. We have CORE and the protected areas strategy to set aside the lands that we need to set aside, and we have processes to deal with the very legitimate and longstanding claims by first nations. Together these initiatives form a comprehensive plan that will allow us, and hopefully the opposition Liberals as well, to set aside the conflicts and confrontations that have plagued this province increasingly over the last decade. Quite frankly, it's time to quit playing politics with the future of our forests and get on with the job.
The B.C. forest renewal plan allows us the opportunity to do that. It's based on consultation and cooperation and will only work with continued cooperation and partnerships. Through this vehicle, all of us in British Columbia now have the opportunity to work together. The plan is going to ensure that the forests and the forest industry remain a central, proud part of our economy and our society. It is going to ensure that communities like those in my riding that have had a very legitimate fear they will not survive, especially the communities around Lake Cowichan, not only will survive but will thrive.
In closing, I want to applaud the Forest Sector Strategy Committee, the members of this House who participated in the Select Standing Committee on Forests study of valued-added industry, my colleagues in cabinet, the Minister of Forests and the Premier for this far-reaching, ambitious legislation. This is a milestone in the history of forest management in British Columbia. It will give the forest back to the people of B.C. and begin to build the kind of future we all want to see. I'm pleased to support this legislation, and I urge the members opposite to look seriously at it and do the same.
R. Neufeld: I rise today to speak to Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act. It's interesting to listen to views from different members from all parts of British Columbia on how each one feels that the forests in this beautiful province should be renewed.
I can tell you that I support the concept. I have many times said in this House that I support the concept of enhanced silviculture. There's no doubt it's something we must do if we are going to continue to be able to enjoy the economy that we have and the services that we receive in British Columbia. I also agree with worker retraining in the forest industry. No doubt about it, there are going to be a number of forest workers -- in fact, quite a few -- who are going to be displaced by some of the initiatives taken by this NDP government, and some reasons will not be of their making. One of them is overharvesting. I would say that we're not overharvesting provincewide, but we're definitely overharvesting in some of the areas in British Columbia.
The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith acts surprised, but if she went back and looked at some of her homework, she would find it to be a little different than what she thinks.
[H. De Jong in the chair.]
The reduction in the annual allowable cut comes from increasing protected areas in the province such as the Tat, and all kinds of areas and parks, from 6 percent to 12 percent of the land base. Unfortunately, most of those areas that are protected fall right in the prime timber-producing parts of the province. I agree that we have to put aside enough land. I'm not so sure that if the international community says we need 12 percent, we should be saying: "Yes, we agree. We'll do 12 percent, we'll do 15 percent" -- or whatever.
[3:15]
Some parts of the bill I can support, and some parts of it I can't. When the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith talks about taking charge of the industry on behalf of the people, it makes me nervous. It should make almost every British Columbian nervous. That's more socialism than British Columbians want; that's more socialism than anybody in the world wants. Totally taking over the forest industry is not the answer -- no way.
That member thinks that government can run every industry better than private industry. If we go back to ICBC -- a brainchild of this government some 20 years ago -- and have a look at the costs that go along with it, we would see how well received that is in British Columbia today. Let's think about Ocean Falls, that other brainchild of the government of the day, and how well that worked. Let's look around the world at socialism and see how well it has worked.
The minister in his opening remarks.... In fact, the Premier and every member of the NDP caucus continually stand up in this House and talk about the terrible practices of the past. Everything was so terrible. They're the knights in shining armour; they've come along and are going to clean up everything, and everything is going to be perfect. They have a surprise coming. The surprises have been pretty
[ Page 10291 ]
evident in the last while, with the CORE report not being received quite as well as they thought it would be. The member talked about no more valley-by-valley conflicts. You've done a marvellous job in that -- I see all kinds of conflicts out there.
It's worrisome to me that anyone would stand up in this House and only talk about the bad practices -- and I'm not saying there weren't some -- and about how terrible it is in British Columbia. That's putting down our number one industry. The government we have today, the NDP, has done a remarkable job of trying to destroy what we enjoy in our forest industry. Not only are they doing a remarkable job while in government, but they did a remarkable job when they were in opposition. That's why we see the Premier and the Forest Alliance over in Europe trying to explain to them: "Hey, it's not all that bad. You know, you should buy products from British Columbia." They've almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg, and they still haven't woken up. That's obvious by the remarks we get from every one of them.
We should go into the record a bit. I'm not saying that the record is perfect, and I'll guarantee you that the record of this government will not be perfect 20 years from now, either.
J. Pullinger: Nobody said it would.
R. Neufeld: The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith says that nobody said it would. I'll tell you that that's certainly not what I read from them. They talk about everything being so great and wonderful and how everything is going to blossom under their administration. They want to hope that everybody's pocketbooks blossom, because that's what they're really into.
Let's look at the record. It took 50 years to plant one billion seedlings. Then from 1982 to 1989, seven years, there were another one billion seedlings planted. That's part of the record. From 1989 to 1992, three short years -- one of those years is part of the dark years that they've been in office -- they planted a further billion trees. That's part of the record. I know it's not perfect, but it's an awful lot of trees. In fact, British Columbia plants four trees for each tree cut, and it did so before these people came along. The survival rate is about 90 percent. That's not bad.
Instead of just saying that everything was bad, this is part of the record that this government should be talking about. In fact, as long as this government keeps the commitment made by previous administrations, all NSR lands will be replanted by the end of 1995. If only this NDP government would talk about some of the successes of the past and not just all of the failures, we might not have to be in Europe as much as we are, with the Premier trying to explain to Europeans and the Pacific Rim that they should buy our products because we do tend our forests.
The creation of another Crown corporation, which is happening, is definitely not needed to continue the work that's done in our forests today or to retrain the workforce. The member just before me talked about how the people of British Columbia should be giving the major companies more money out of the till to do more things in the forest. I think a bit differently. I don't think we should be creating a Crown corporation with -- how many? -- 16 directors right off the bat. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when this government promised change, they sure did it. The NDP have given a new meaning to the phrase "friends and insiders," because I'm sure that that's exactly what's going to happen on that 16-member panel.
On top of that, you turn the page and it says, "The board may establish committees," and it gives the mandate and everything. Then it says, just below it: "...the board must establish 5 committees...." It doesn't say how. It can establish 15 or 20, but it's got to establish five. There is an undetermined number of people on those five committees. It's just a little ridiculous.
I think the forest companies should be the ones responsible for this work, because the price of lumber is up now -- no doubt about it. My goodness, we're bringing in a Forest Practices Code, are we not? In fact, that's coming soon. I thought that how we were going to manage the industry and how government was going to tell the industry what to do was going to be part of the Forest Practices Code. Why not in the Forest Practices Code? Could they not lay out the parameters of silviculture and enhanced silviculture, road regeneration and the putting to bed of roads -- whatever? Why couldn't the whole issue dealt with in this bill be in the Forest Practices Code, to force companies to do that job? Those are the people who cut the trees down in the first place.
I can't for the life of me see why we would all of a sudden want to take most of the silviculture responsibilities and most of the worker retraining responsibilities away from those major companies, away from all forest companies and do them through a Crown corporation -- other than if they want to launder a bit more money through government. I don't know why. In fact, the forest companies that are out there should be responsible for retraining people who will lose their jobs because of some of the moves by this government to increase the parks and protected areas in British Columbia. The forest companies that are enjoying profits today should retrain those people. If it's in jobs within their own companies, in enhanced silviculture, great! Or if it's in other jobs in the economy, good! I don't have any problem with that. But here we are with committee upon committee upon committee, and we're going to do that as government.
Not only that, take all of these committees -- five, six, ten, 15 or 20.... I don't know how many there are going to be, and I guess nobody else knows. We know there's going to be one main one, and that's going to be appointed by the cabinet. They're not going to work on a back street back here; they're going to need space. They're going to need support staff, erasers and pencils, and desks, chairs and computers; and they're going to have to be paid to travel -- all of those things. When the government says that they're going to take $600 million out of the forestry revenue but only $400 million is going to go into planting trees, enhanced silviculture and those types of things, I guess the other $200 million is going to be spent on supplying offices, desks, computers and more bureaucracy and more members of the BCGEU -- you name it. The list goes on and on.
The other thing I think about is that the government talks about the Crown, and I guess this Crown will be treated no differently than the other ones in the province. It's going to have to pay a certain amount of revenue to support the government, just like B.C. Hydro and all of the Crowns do now. In fact, if you go to the records for 1991, Crown corporations and agencies paid about $500 million to general revenue. Look at it: in 1994, they are paying $1 billion. They've doubled it in just three short years. I guess another reason that we want another Crown corporation is so we can get a few more million dollars into that pot.
Yesterday the member for Nelson-Creston talked about money coming into general revenue just to get different governments elected. Obviously this was one of their silver
[ Page 10292 ]
bullets, which just fell out the end of the barrel. It hasn't worked too well. I don't know who that member was talking to, but people in my constituency are a little concerned. They agree with the concept. They have no problem with the concept of enhanced silviculture, but they have a bit of a problem with the way it's being done.
If you look at the amount of money that has come out of the Forest Service.... In fact, the member for Nelson-Creston talked about money being taken out of the Forest Service for election fever or just for general revenue, to be blown wherever. Well, let's just look at the forest sector a bit. In 1992-93 this NDP government took out $41 million into general revenue. In 1993-94 they took out $273 million into general revenue. In 1994-95 they're projecting to take out $441 million into general revenue. On top of that is the other $600 million that they're talking about with the BC Forest Renewal Act.
They talk in the act about putting forward a business plan, something similar to B.C. 21. Nobody today has seen a business plan for B.C. 21, yet they've expended massive amounts of money up until now. In fact, if we go back to 1993-94, we'll find where B.C. 21 was putting money into the forest sector to replant trees. For some reason, we were borrowing money to replant trees through B.C. 21, yet the forest sector had a net profit of $273 million. A lot of this doesn't add up.
We heard lots of talk about the small business forest enterprise program and value-added. I was on that committee, and I enjoyed being on it. When we started out, the NDP members -- not all of them, but most of them -- thought that the small business program was not working, that it was a bad program put together by a bad administration. As we travelled the province, we found that there were many people in the small business forest program who said it was working well. There could be some tinkering to change a few things, but I would say that on average most of them basically didn't have any problem with the program. It seemed to work quite well.
The member for Nelson-Creston said that only the majors get the wood. Well, certainly the majors get the major part of the wood, but he told only half the story. Some person out there making value-added products like spindles or doors and windows cannot use the whole range of forest. But he bids on a program for one or two years, or whatever. In fact, that was an issue with many of them, that it wasn't long enough; a five-year program wasn't long enough. But those small value-added businesses couldn't use the whole range of wood out there, so naturally they had to trade with the majors. The majors are an important and integral part of the small business program.
[3:30]
The other issue they had was developing markets for their products. It's easy to say you can build four million widgets, but you have to sell them to somebody. You can't just make them, because if you can't sell them you can't afford to make them. Markets were the biggest problem. We also found that many of the major companies do an awful lot more in value-added than they're given credit for. The MacMillan Bloedels, the Canfors and the Weyerhaeusers do a tremendous amount of value-added.
The other issue was investment money. Grants? No, they don't want grants. But I see part of this new bill's mandate is: "...subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, provide financial assistance by way of a grant, loan or guarantee...." I thought I listened to this government about two and a half years ago talk about how terrible the last administration was with loans and grants. But what have we got in the new bill? Loans and grants.
Well, I'll tell you that with the price of lumber today, if somebody wants to get into a small business but can't go out there into the marketplace and put together a good enough program to show people who finance those kinds of programs that they can be successful, then I don't see why the people of British Columbia should finance them. I don't agree with that one bit. If there's money for research and development we can do some of that, and maybe a bit with marketing, but don't give grants to people to start businesses, because all they're doing is going into competition with some value-added business down the street. It's no wonder that we have confusion out there.
In fact, it was interesting to listen to the minister talk about new markets. He happened to say that there is a brand-new market in Japan for component building products for housing. He should talk to the Slocan group. That's certainly not new; it has been going on for a long time. In fact, they do an awful lot of it in Quesnel -- and have done for quite a number of years. It's nothing new. Maybe it's new to the Forests minister. That wouldn't surprise me.
Then we listened to the former Forests minister from Prince Rupert talk about wood products in British Columbia being a bargain. It absolutely astounds me: every time one of those people gets up and talks, everything in British Columbia is a bargain. Walk out on the street and talk to the person who is earning wages and going to work in these industries, and ask if everything in British Columbia is a bargain. They're not going to confirm that -- of course they're not going to. Try going down and buying a 2-by-4. But that is how out of touch this government is. They may think it's not enough. Maybe hydro rates aren't enough -- we're just going to increase them every year by 2 percent or 3 percent until we get it up to what seems to be the average or what's normal in, say, North America. Next thing you know, we'll have them saying that the price of gasoline should be the same in British Columbia as it is in Europe. Who knows?
There's freedom to move with that government in everything, and especially in taxation. They think there is no end to what people have in their pockets to pay, but let me tell you that the person on the street who is trying to raise a family, working for wages and paying 50 percent or better of his or her cheque to the government is not happy and will certainly not agree with the former minister, who said that wood products are a bargain.
Then we talk about bringing people together. I heard many of the members talk about bringing people together and what a wonderful job this government has done. Then we listened to the member from Prince Rupert, the previous Forests minister, put down the whole industry and call them a bunch of free enterprise nitwits. You wonder just where that government is coming from. Is that bringing them together?
Long before this government came along, workers and industry were starting to get together, because both sides, not just one, have learned that they can't continue in the confrontational spirit that they have had in British Columbia for many years. They have realized that if they're going to continue their work, if industry is going to be able to continue providing the jobs, they're going to have to get along. We're seeing that.
In fact, I was in Fort St. John recently at a trade fair, and a millwright for Canfor came up and talked to me for quite a while about how things are totally changing, and how they have been for many years. You can't just blame the big companies for what has happened in the industry and for all the layoffs. Corporate profits and high wages and benefits are to blame. There is a meeting of the minds with those
[ Page 10293 ]
people -- without government intervention from the NDP, who think they can solve everyone's problems.
While talking about bringing people together, I want to read a few quotes from the Vancouver Sun today, starting with the headline: "New Timber Fees Wrecking NDP, Forests Alliance: Decision Called Money Grab." All of a sudden, more things are coming out. I'm going to read verbatim from this notice in the Vancouver Sun. It comes from Peter Bentley, the person who stood with the Premier and the IWA and said how great a program this was.
"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.
"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. He even said the deal should be supported by all British Columbians.
"Monday he said: 'While the concept is a good one, it is imperative that the government act in good faith'."
I know that's a little tough for them, but "it is imperative that the government act in good faith."
"To fund the plan, the government announced stumpage increases that are expected to raise $600 million a year from Crown timber lands. But the royalty increase will push this year's total closer to $700 million. Bentley urged the government to reconsider the royalty hike."
So all of a sudden they're sliding another $100 million under the carpet. On top of that is the cost of the Forest Practices Code. That's unknown yet, but industry says it's going to cost a few hundred million. I think the government agrees with it, because in their last budget they budgeted some $74 million or $76 million to the Forests ministry to implement the Forest Practices Code. So it's going to be relatively expensive.
Another problem I have with the forest renewal plan is putting the money that's generated back into the regions. Coming from the north, I can tell you -- and it didn't matter one bit what administration was here -- that this one is no better than the last one when it comes to taking money out of the north and spending it in the south. I listen to people talk about how tough it's going to be on Vancouver Island, and how we can support Port Alberni and every other place on Vancouver Island in the forest industry. That's wrong, because the north devotes an awful lot of money to British Columbia. In fact, I asked the Minister of Finance about a year ago, when it was pretty evident there was an awful lot of money generated in the oil and gas industry, to put a little back into the infrastructure. But no, they just took $169 million out of the north and put it towards their deficit. That's not right, and the people of the north are very afraid that the same thing will happen here.
I support the concept, but I cannot support the process. It will not work. I guess I understand why the forest industry would accept what's happening to them today, because an awful lot of the responsibility they used to have was taken away from them. That's not right. Those industries should be responsible for enhanced silviculture. All we have to do with the forest industry is lay out the parameters in the Forest Practices Code. I think this is a bit of a slap in the face to the people who work in the forest industry, because it looks as if they can't be trusted to look after the forest industry. Is that what the Minister of Forests is telling the people in his ministry? "You can't do it. We're going to have a 16-member board, five other committees and five other whatevers look after it." Some very dedicated and good people are working in the Ministry of Forests. We should take advantage of that. We should be telling the forest companies what they should do and how they should do it. We shouldn't be loaning out money to start industries in opposition to others that are already there. We should put the responsibility directly with the industry that takes the trees out of the forests. I see my time is up.
J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, it's nice to see you sitting up there. Maybe later on you'll welcome the opportunity to participate directly in the debate.
The Forest Renewal Act is well-intended, but no doubt, like everything else this government attempts or does, will not be managed properly. This bill is about control. It's about more control by this government, and we see evidence of it in every other ministry and field of endeavour that they undertake. There is more control and less accountability. This province certainly does not need more government control at this time, and it certainly demands far more accountability from government.
As all members know, this government manages a $19 billion operation. Sometimes I wonder why we're not bankrupt, when I see the lack of direction, the lack of a business plan and the lack of a game plan that this government continually demonstrates. I can see nothing in this forest renewal bill to change my mind that we're not going from bad to worse. I would submit that this bill is symptomatic of this NDP government, a government that seeks to control our lives and overregulate us. Unfortunately, as they endeavour to do those things they are also mismanaging our lives.
Let me cite a few examples that I, other members in the opposition and, more importantly, members of the public have observed. We speak on behalf of the public, of course. I don't know who this government speaks for other than their few friends and neighbours, the ones they appoint to every board and committee with every opportunity they have to place people of their own ilk in positions of power. What do we see happening in this province and in our society? If I may, I'll put the actual bill aside for the moment, but I will make reference to it in my other examples.
[3:45]
As one example, I would submit that we are facing a crisis in the management of education in this province. Public education is going through the throes of crisis almost. In fact, maybe it's not overstating it to say that. What do we see? We see the British Columbia Teachers' Federation warring with itself as to whether it should or should not sit down and negotiate with government. We see a government that is hinting at important issues such as provincewide bargaining, and yet we have no game plan. We have no idea what the implications of that are. We see the British Columbia School Trustees' Association facing the unpleasant prospect of member districts having left it or announcing that they will leave it. We know that an employers' council has been structured, supposedly to deal with labour relations issues in education. But nobody in this province, at least not on this side of the House, has any sense of what that will be.
My point with that example comes back to my point about the Forest Renewal Act. It's an attempt to further impose management and control, yet there's no game plan. Forestry is far too important to this province -- just as education is -- for this government to tamper with it or to just gloss it over and pretend, with all the hype and the lockups and the news media and the releases, that legislation like this will be the answer. The industry was allegedly onside, and now we see evidence -- it's in the Vancouver Sun today, and another member referred to it -- that the industry
[ Page 10294 ]
is having second thoughts. I'll make some more comments on that later.
What we certainly do not need, as this bill illustrates, is more control by a government that doesn't have the managerial capability to control. We certainly do not need less accountability, which is why we legislators are here: to ensure that the public dollar is best spent. How in all honesty can we argue about accountability when you see the things that are contained in this bill?
Just before I get into some of the detail in the act itself and what's wrong with it.... It's well-intended, but many things that this government does are well-intended. They have the best of intentions, I'm sure. I'm not questioning the motives of this government; I'm questioning their lack of ability to carry out those motives.
Health planning. Let me for a moment make reference to the regional and local health planning that is going on. I've had occasion to attend meetings on the North Shore with many well-intentioned and community-minded people who gather monthly to discuss regional health planning. Quite frankly -- and I've talked to these people individually and collectively -- they don't have a real sense of what health planning is about. They want to participate, and they are doing so. They know that deadlines are looming in October. They have to have a plan in place for how the North Shore -- as just one health region -- will be managed. Without the government's assistance to provide a true business plan -- and health planning is no less or more a business than any other.... We're talking in this bill about forestry, which is the number one economic generator in the province. But health planning is far too important for this government to tamper with in such a loose manner, as I'm indicating.
This is a statement that is coming from all over the province; it's not coming just from my communities in North and West Vancouver. Every member in this House -- and if the government were honest, it would admit to it -- is aware of demonstrated concerns. I'm hoping that members have the opportunity, as I have, to actually attend some of these meetings and see firsthand the hard work that people are putting into the health planning process. But with no game plan in mind, it's very difficult to reach the target and accomplish what this government says it's trying to accomplish.
We come back again to what Bill 32, which is before us now in second reading, is supposed to do. It talks about the renewal of the forest economy. That's certainly a well-intended statement. It talks about enhancing our productive capacity. That means things such as silviculture, which the industry knows is a vital component of its future. If this government is suggesting, through bills such as this and the Forest Practices Code, that the industry has learned nothing from the past and is incapable of managing its own future, then I submit that this government truly has no understanding of the importance of business.
Again I remind all members that forestry is the number one industry in this province. My colleague for Chilliwack would probably take issue with me on that, because he was telling me over lunch today that agriculture is actually number one. Maybe that is so; there's room for a debate another day. It is unfortunate, as all members will be reminded, that there was not one reference to agriculture in the throne speech this spring. So a major industry such as agriculture is ignored by this government. Now what do we see? We see all this tampering, I submit, with what is still the number one industry, forestry.
One other example, and then I'll get into some industry concerns that have been expressed to me. I'll also comment on the contents of the bill itself. The B.C. Trade Corporation has been in the headlines recently for some of the internal problems that it's had, though I won't comment on those. Again, I've had lots of people, including constituents in my riding, tell me that B.C. Trade is not realizing the mandate that the Premier and this government would tell us it is. I think we're going to be finding some specific evidence in the days ahead that B.C. Trade is not the glorious and wonderful operation that the Premier would tell us it is. My argument is that that corporation is not being well managed. I fear that if Bill 32 goes through as proposed, with no amendments -- ideally it would be defeated, as we are arguing -- then we're going to have further mismanagement, and in the most important industry in this province.
Again it comes back to control. That's the mandate this government feels that it was given in 1991, but it is not. However, they are exercising more control and are certainly allowing less and less accountability within the structure of government. I remind all members that a $19 billion operation is not one to be lightly tampered with. I just wish, for the sake of all British Columbians, that the members opposite who have formed the government had more business sense and more of an idea what making a profit is and how important that is to British Columbians. Quite frankly, I don't believe they have those capabilities.
Let me just share with the members for a few moments, hon. Speaker, some of the comments that have been brought to my attention since this bill hit the floor. I am told by people in the industry, people who are in the business of supplying logs to mills and pulp mills, that log supply will be under severe attack by this bill -- and, of course, by the Forest Practices Code, which we have yet to see. So the industry, I can assure you, is unsettled over the availability of the annual allowable cut. I do not feel -- and I'm not speaking alone; I'm speaking on behalf of the people in the industry who have shared this with me -- that the very important component of log supply is going to be in any way enhanced by Bill 32.
As I commented earlier, and as other members have made reference as well, we see on the business page of the Sun that Peter Bentley, one of the chief advisers on the committee that was structured last year.... I know some of the people on that committee personally, know how well-intentioned they are and how well they endeavoured to work together to produce some of the direction in forestry management that is certainly needed in this province. But what do we see today? Peter Bentley is having second thoughts about the extra $100 million grab that is now surfacing from this legislation. So one day we have the captains of the forest industry standing shoulder to shoulder with the Premier, applauding the legislation and, again, the well-intended vision and purpose stated in it; and now they're having second thoughts.
In fact, it reminds me, as members will remember, of one piece of legislation, the Labour Relations Code, that we spent two and a half months debating in the fall of 1992. Unfortunately, the people who would be directly affected by the Labour Relations Code did not fully appreciate the implications and some of the almost insidious nature and qualities of that bill. But they know it now, and they are voicing those concerns.
I know that the forest industry will be coming forward with other concerns, and certainly this government had better be listening. The number one industry in this province generates far more income for these people to waste and throw away as they please on skyboxes, cocktail parties to celebrate transit expansion and all this other nonsense
[ Page 10295 ]
that we see. They had better realize, if nothing else, that the social services, education and health delivery that are so important to all British Columbians rely on the forest industry, the agriculture industry and the other revenue generators. Through mismanagement, all it will mean is less revenue, and I'm afraid that that is what this bill will invite.
Let's examine the bill for a moment. I presume members opposite have read the bill. It's interesting to go through; it's not a lengthy bill. Of course, what lies behind it, in the regulations and, I think most significantly, in the power that is given to the executive council, is why I come back to my earlier comment about the lack of accountability. What do we see in this bill? We see that a new Crown corporation is formed. Isn't that just about the last thing we need in British Columbia -- another unaccountable Crown corporation controlled, as we also see in section 3, by the executive council? The board of directors will be made up of one or more members of the executive council. There will be no more than 15 other directors, all of whom are appointed by order-in-council. So our blessed cabinet, of course, will be directly controlling a Crown corporation that will not be accountable to this Legislature.
I guess it would be fair comment to say that the Crown corporation that is formed will be no more accountable to this Legislature than the cabinet is. I do not see any great evidence these days of this cabinet's accountability. Sure, we have estimates, some of which, as we know, get put on hold for various reasons; hopefully, one day we'll get back to them. But back to this Crown corporation. Forest Renewal B.C. is an interesting little title. We have B.C. 21, and now we have Forest Renewal B.C. Next week it will be B.S. something else -- no, sorry, B.C. something else. We don't need another Crown corporation that is not accountable to this legislative body. I submit that this is not the direction the forest industry should be taking -- not with this kind of control.
The mandate of Forest Renewal B.C. is set out in section 4. My colleague from Chilliwack commented on this earlier today, but I wish to again draw it to members' attention. We are told in section 4, under the mandate, that among other things, Forest Renewal B.C. will be entitled to enter into contracts with first nations, which is fine. All of us in this province recognize and applaud the efforts to give more validity to the claims of first nations and allow them to become a true partner in British Columbia's business and economy. But how does that fit into the treaty negotiations now taking place? As we know, there are over 40 tribal units already registered with the Treaty Commission, and more will register. I do not understand, and it's certainly not explained in this very brief statement, how Forest Renewal B.C. contracts with first nations will in any way fit within the treaty negotiation process.
[4:00]
I would also refer the hon. members to section 5. I'll be commenting in a moment about the main part of section 5, but there is a reference in section 5(3) to "...the need for increased participation of first nations and aboriginal persons in the forest economy." Again, we applaud that. All British Columbians recognize that as a valid purpose. But I submit once more: how does that fit within the purpose of treaty negotiations? We don't know that, and this bill does not address it. All it does is raise the prospect of possibly more confusion in that very important field of British Columbia life.
Before I get to section 5, I've spotted another control item at the end of section 4: Forest Renewal B.C. must comply with any general or special direction that is set out by order-in-council. Again our friends in cabinet will be setting out general or specific directions, and Forest Renewal B.C. must march to their orders. If I had any confidence in the cabinet, I guess I would be happy to see that that kind of control is in the legislation. But having no confidence in the cabinet, I'm afraid I have no confidence in the statement made in that section.
Section 5 -- committees. Well, here we are. Not only do we have another Crown corporation....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I would just like to remind you that we are on second reading, which is basically the general intent of the bill. We do not take it apart section by section. Please proceed.
J. Dalton: I respect that ruling, hon. Speaker.
Remember my main themes when I started: more control and less accountability. I see in one part of the bill that at least five committees will be established. What do we already have? We have a Crown corporation which we don't need, and now we're going to have at least five committees under that Crown corporation. Quite simply, that's going to produce more people at the trough. More NDP hacks will be appointed to these Crown corporations, boards, committees and agencies, and to do these studies. I don't know where it will end. I would have thought they would have run out of hacks by now. They must be dipping into Nova Scotia by this time. They can't have any more in the western part of the country. I guess the people of Ontario don't know what to do. They don't know whether to flee from Bob Rae and come to this disaster or leave the country. However, I digress.
We don't need more committees. I again submit that more control is certainly not needed. In fact, I'm sure that British Columbians would applaud what the Liberal caucus has in mind. What we ultimately need in this province and country is less government, less control and fewer regulations, not more. Big government doesn't really do any great service to the average British Columbian or Canadian. The government has a mandate and responsibility to deliver the essential social services that we all enjoy and depend upon, such as education, health care and income assistance. In fact, ideally we could probably stop right at that point and government could get out of our lives after that. But, no, not this government; it wants to interfere in our lives during every waking moment -- and every sleeping moment too.
I stand here and argue that what we don't need in our lives is more control, but when I look at this bill, unfortunately I see that it will mean more government control. I stand here and say that what we need in public life is more accountability as to how public dollars are spent. What do we see here? We see less accountability as to how our dollars are spent. This bill, even with the best of intentions, is unfortunately taking British Columbia in the wrong direction.
I will simply conclude by again stating that even though the NDP government of the day perhaps has good intentions -- when I look at some of the statements in the forest renewal bill, I can see good intentions reflected -- but I have no confidence whatsoever that those intentions will be manifested. So I, along with the others in the official opposition, have to stand and speak against this bill. Hopefully, some of the members opposite will at least tune in and realize that the path they and the government are on is a path to economic disaster.
D. Lovick: I don't normally make use of a lectern; indeed, I haven't done so in this chamber for about six or seven years. However, I was rushing madly to put some notes
[ Page 10296 ]
together, and for fear that I would lose them between the cracks in the desk, I decided to do so.
We're on second reading, the principle of the bill, and I want to confine my remarks to the principle. I also want to talk as much as I'm able about this bill and its aims, objectives and purposes, without much regard to the opposition. I don't intend to engage in partisan debate on this one, however much of a temptation strikes me. However, for clarification's sake, given that the member who just spoke spent considerable time on the subject of accountability, may I simply educate him in terms of what the bill actually does.
Accountability in this bill is ensured in three different ways. First, the broad goals and objectives for Forest Renewal B.C. are set out very clearly in the legislation. It isn't as if they're going to be decided by regulation. Second, the provincial government will be represented on the boards and committees of Forest Renewal B.C. and will be involved in planning and decision-making. Note that that is government -- any government, any time, not necessarily just this government. It is ultimately, of course, government's role to protect the public interest rather than the committee's role or private industry's role. Third, the annual plan, the annual report and the financial statements will all be public documents. Moreover, the legislation requires the Minister of Forests to also table the agency business plan each year before the Legislature for review. To suggest that this measure before us somehow diminishes accountability in this province, I suggest defies credulity. It goes beyond any boundaries, it seems to me.
However, as I say, I do not come to engage in partisan debate today, and therefore I'm going to ignore much of what I heard. Instead I want to talk about the principle of the bill. When we talk about second reading of a bill and about the principle, there's an old joke that has been used in this chamber, Lord knows -- from the beginning, I suspect -- namely, how can I talk about this bill, because it has no principles. Yuk yuk, nudge nudge, wink wink, etc. This bill, curiously enough, is very much a bill designed to enunciate and embody a principle.
The fundamental principle that's embedded in the Forest Renewal Act, the measure before us, is one that today we all know, I think, without question -- though even ten years ago it was a phrase that nobody, frankly, would have identified. I'm referring to the phrase first quoted in the report that was produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, which was chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland. That's where the phrase "sustainable development" came from. The book, as we all know now, is called Our Common Future. As defined in that book, sustainable development means essentially that we in the present generation have an obligation to treat the planet and its resources in such a way that future generations' demands on the planet will not be compromised. Development that allows room for the next generation to fulfil its legitimate objectives is then sustainable.
It's interesting to note that that concept of sustainable development is: (1) a new thing; and (2) very much in. In fact, a number of people have written that sustainable development is an idea whose time has come. That, of course, is an allusion to Victor Hugo and: "Greater than the might of armies is the strength of an idea whose time has come." I think I am correct, but if I'm wrong in my citation, Mr. Member, please let me know. That concept is so in that most of us have difficulty with it when we start to talk about implementation.
First, let us recognize why the concept is in. The reason the concept of sustainable development is in and why everybody claims to believe in it is simply that the evidence is so overwhelming. It is painfully evident that we, as a species, cannot continue to live as we have since the beginning of the industrial and technological revolutions. I want to quote an interesting book that came out only five years ago by Paul Ehrlich and Robert Ornstein called New World, New Mind. In that book they make the point -- and it's been made by a number of authors since -- that we are squandering in decades an inheritance that it took billions of years to assemble. And they're right; we are doing so.
A few years ago I wrote a paper that had to do with transportation. I made an observation that all public policy decisions we make today and in the future are going to have to be made in the light -- or perhaps the shadow -- of Brundtland. Nobody that claims to be responsible can any longer make public policy decisions that don't take into account the impact of those decisions on our environment. In short, there has to be what a good friend of many of us in this chamber, a man by the name of Dr. Bill Rees at the University of B.C. -- the head of the planning school there, as I recall -- referred to as an environment-economy integration. That's the new economy. That's the new way of doing things in this province. In short, there is no question about what we ought to do as a matter of public policy. We know what we ought to do about the environment. The question, however, is what the political response to the environmental problem or environmental crisis is and ought to be.
I am pleased and proud to say -- and unreservedly will say -- that this bill is a political response to environmental crisis. It's gutsy; it's brave. About five years ago I made a speech at Malaspina College, where I used to work for some 15 or 16 years in another life. My speech was entitled, at that time, "The Political Response to Environmental Concerns." Predictably, Mr. Speaker, you as one politician listening to me as another politician will appreciate that I played with the double meaning of political -- the political response. We all know that in common usage, political means the chicken response. It's not really the right thing, but rather what you do in order to succeed.
I'm happy to say today that as a government we are making a political response to environmental crisis that isn't chicken and isn't doing what you can get away with, but rather is taking the gutsy and difficult decisions. Brundtland said -- back to that interesting book -- that in the final analysis, sustainable development must rest on political will. Truer words was never spoke, as they say. Political will, however, is one of those unfortunate phrases that everybody wants a piece of, but we're not really sure what it means. It's one of those things that every red-blooded American and Canadian kid will stand up and say: "Yeah, courage; that's what we need. Leadership; that's what we need. Political will; let's have some. Guts." Stuff like that. The trouble is that those who happen to agree with whatever is being said will tell us that we have guts and courage and we show leadership; those who disagree with us are more than likely to tell us that we're being dogmatic, tyrannical, undemocratic or unresponsive, etc. There's the problem.
[4:15]
I suspect that anybody who has ever reflected on the nature of politics and politicians must come to the conclusion that by definition it is very much preoccupied with the present, and it doesn't really have time to concern itself very much with the future, especially the distant future. That fundamental and obvious truth hit me with a resounding clunk one night, standing here in the Legislature a few years ago when we were having a late night sitting.
[ Page 10297 ]
Everybody was engaged in the debate, passions and tempers were high, and we were fighting about a cause that we all thought important at the time. I remember thinking, as I was sitting here in my place, that the issue we were debating was absolutely superficial and was begging the real questions that ought to be discussed and ought to come before this chamber.
The real questions, however, are ones that deal with the longer term. They don't deal with what we are confronted with today. As politicians, we are so busy coping with the crises of the present that we seldom take the opportunity to look at what lies beyond the horizon. That's a point made by Ornstein and Ehrlich in that wonderful book I quoted some minutes ago. I want to quote them again, if I might, because their words are instructive for all of us who serve in this chamber. They say: "Politicians are the ultimate creatures of the moment. Their post confronts them with a constant stream of problems that must be solved now, without regard for the next year. At most, their time horizons reach until the next election."
I must say -- and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have the same response as I do -- that when I first read that I thought, how dare you say that about me as a politician. Of course I'm thinking about the future and the distant future. However, as I think we'll all agree on reflection, the point is that they're quite right. Let me quote them some more:
"As a result, politicians have little incentive to tackle or even identify and analyze long-term trends. Even if elected officials could perceive those trends, they are unlikely to be able to influence such slow events before the next election. And since their constituents can see only short-term caricatures, politicos garner little credit if they try to do something for posterity. Better to wage a quick, clean war on something that has already registered on our minds, such as poverty or drug abuse, better to make bellicose speeches about the death penalty, or simply serve the day-to-day needs of the most powerful voters. That requires much less perspicacity than trying to solve long-term social problems and is much more likely to lead to re-election. And re-election is what it's all about."
That may sound cynical, but it's absolutely correct, and let none of us apologize for the fact that re-election is what it's all about. The issue is: we need to get re-elected to do the good, noble and decent things we believe in, and therefore, by heaven, we'd better be smart enough in what we do to get re-elected. So no politician should apologize for being political.
The problem, however, is how we do the difficult things. How do we do things for the future, for posterity's sake, and still get elected by people whose horizon is more likely to be short term? It's the old story that we all have to do something for posterity -- but what did posterity ever do for me? That's the predicament. It hasn't done anything for us. All we can do is hope and conceptualize that a posterity is there and that we have obligations to it.
I took a position some years ago, when I made the speech at Malaspina College that I referred to -- I remember that I was an opposition MLA leading up to an election -- that we probably were not going to make it, because politicians and governments would likely be unable to find the courage to make those sorts of decisions. Thank God I was wrong. This government and this Minister of Forests have taken a step that I think is an amazing departure from tradition and a break from the past. It's gutsy, it's innovative, it's exciting, and it just may give us a fighting chance to actually carry on a society and an economy in the next century. I didn't think governments could find that courage -- I truly didn't -- for all the obvious reasons.
The whole notion of how we relate to our environment in western civilization, and especially in North American civilization, argues against our doing anything like the BC Forest Renewal Act. We've grown up right from the beginning to believe that we had a conquering relationship with nature. We'd whip it into shape; we'd just get out there and fix it up. You see it in neighbourhoods all over the place. People move to the wilderness or the countryside, and the first thing you see is vinyl siding and asphalt and so forth in the middle of the bush. It's that powerful impulse to conquer, to civilize, to tame and to subdue nature. That's the culture we've been brought up in. It even has a religious basis. We're told in the Bible to be fruitful and multiply, that humankind was given dominion over all creatures and that, demonstrably and obviously, we should go out and use it.
I want to be fair. Let's recognize that that muscular idea of what human life was about has produced some tremendous results. Western civilization is the most prosperous and the most material, because it has done what it was designed to do. The problem is that we have been playing a short-term game. We've been squandering our capital; we've been beating up on the planet instead of working with the planet. So much of our culture is based on rugged individualism -- the notion of get out there and let business do it; let those entrepreneurs take the risks and fight the good fight -- that we've forgotten that maybe that mode of thinking is totally, completely and irrevocably outmoded. I'm suggesting that we can't afford that kind of thinking anymore.
We've taken our forests for granted for a very long time in this province. I think it's safe to say, and I don't think anybody in this chamber would disagree, that we're now paying the price. It has been obvious for at least a couple of decades. I don't blame any government, because we've all been in the same position: there's an incredible demand curve for more and more resources at the same time that we're wondering about supply. That's the predicament that every government in this province has faced and will face.
The predicament that we now recognize is that we are confronted with the prospect not only of fewer jobs but of fewer trees. In short, even if we went back to the old model and said, "Let's go into the next valley," we know we've only got about 20 years if we did that. We are not going to be able to carry on the way we have in the past. That's the crisis we face. The timber supply review -- another major initiative of this government and of the Ministry of Forests -- is coming up with evidence that suggests the harvests could decline by 15 to 30 percent over the next 50 years, unless we take some dramatic steps.
The government, I'm happy to report, has taken a number of what I would refer to as gutsy steps. Some difficult decisions have been made. We are vulnerable, because they are politically dangerous courses of action. Let me list them. Members opposite, if they're feeling in a combative mood, may well want to do what they often do, and suggest: "Aha! There's the evidence of what's wrong."
The protected areas strategy. We said that we have to protect certain areas even if it has a negative impact on workers and communities. The timber supply review is where we said: "We'd better find out how much we've got, so we know how much we can cut." The CORE process was pretty gutsy -- especially to give Stephen Owen and his committee free rein to come up with what they perceived to be the best land use plan for Vancouver Island. It's also pretty gutsy for this government not to run and hide from it but to say: "Here's the report. We're going to look at it, and we're certainly going to carry on with the broad mandate that Stephen Owen was given." To face 20,000 people on the
[ Page 10298 ]
Legislature lawn and make no apologies for Stephen Owen and that report was also pretty gutsy. Biodiversity guidelines. Twenty-five years ago nobody in forestry knew what that meant. Today we're saying that maybe we can't log it the way we used to, because we may not be paying sufficient attention to values that we didn't even know were there. And then, of course, there is the Forest Practices Code. All of those things are working together for a long-term rather than a short-term interest, and all of them represent a clear and present threat to the status and the happiness of individuals today. That's politically courageous. The plan to renew our forests, the BC Forest Renewal Act, is just the end of a whole series of activities that this government has introduced.
The important point to recognize is that the primary emphasis of this legislation is not on the forest sector or on workers; it's on forests. That's an amazing jump, you know, because forests do not vote. But we are making forests and the land the primary player in the exercise. I am very proud -- indeed, I'm surprised -- that we have done what we have in this bill. People in years to come are going to look at this measure and say that it was the moment in this province's history when we said that we were giving up the old conquering relationship to nature -- the one where we got what we could while we could, and future generations could look after themselves. Instead we're saying that we have an obligation to those generations to harvest our resources in such a way that the present may suffer so the future will benefit.
I think this is watershed legislation. I am truly looking forward to the process of committee stage, because I want to see all those questions answered that the members opposite have posed. I also want to see refuted -- as they should be -- some of the comments that I think are facile and not based on a close reading of the legislation.
How am I doing for time, Mr. Speaker? Will you give me some idea? I've only been here seven years, and I always forget to check my watch. It's one of those bad habits of mine.
Deputy Speaker: Eight minutes yet.
D. Lovick: Thank you. Okay, I can indeed, then, talk about a couple of the more specific parts of this bill. I wanted to....
An Hon. Member: I think he said two minutes.
D. Lovick: My colleagues are telling me it's only two minutes, as opposed to eight. Thank you very much, colleagues. I appreciate that vote of confidence. Happily, senses of humour still live in this chamber, Mr. Speaker.
When the minister was introducing this bill, he said that this represented an unprecedented partnership, and he's absolutely right. We have not seen a partnership of this kind ever, I think, in this province's history. I know that sounds a little hyperbolic, but I think it's true. I don't think we have ever seen people who are normally adversaries, who function in an adversarial relationship, standing together and saying yes, we must in fact all compromise and give up something. It's remarkable.
It's also worth noting that the minister made the point -- and it's probably the crucial one to corroborate and emphasize the point I've been trying to make -- that this is a long-term investment. It isn't a short-term thing. There is no political gain in this, quite frankly, for the short term. What that means, of course, is that it's foolish to try to measure this bill and what it sets out to do in terms of how many jobs will be created. As I said earlier, the fundamental focus, the primary ingredient, in this legislation is the forests. Obviously, all those who are involved in the forest and who earn their living by it rank very high, but most of all we're concerned with ensuring we still have a forest in the future.
[4:30]
It's therefore a bill that involves some fundamental changes. Let me just list a few of them, if I might, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of priorities that the BC Forest Renewal Act sets for itself. The first, of course, is the whole concept of renewal: to take the forests and ensure that we will have them in the future. Nearly one-half of the forest renewal plan investments will go to improved reforestation and tending of our forests. This bill allows for the increase of lands available for forest, for forest harvesting and for the planting of new trees. This bill provides for research and development in improved silviculture practices. That's just the first priority.
The second priority is to restore and protect the environment. That's the larger construct, the environment, as separate and distinct from forest. We're talking about cleaning up the damage that's been done. I logged 30-odd years ago in this province, and I can tell you that at that time nobody thought about streams. Streams were something that you felled logs into so you could get across them more easily, and we used high-lead logging in those days. Today we're talking about cleaning up that kind of damage. We're recognizing that those streams are important and significant and indeed renewable, valuable resources. We're talking about protecting fish and wildlife. We're talking, moreover, about research into environmentally sound logging practices, as opposed to the bad old days.
The third priority is about making significant policy changes that will strengthen our plan. For example, we're going to make better use of forests. We're going to use the full range of forest types, of different materials to harvest. In other words, instead of going in and monocropping or creaming, we're actually going to look at harvesting some other crops that we didn't think had commercial value. We're going to see about finding those other values and using them. We're talking about better use of every tree. We're talking about giving the little salvage operators access to wood that they certainly never had in my days, many years ago in the industry. We're talking about commercial thinning, something the Norscan countries have been doing very well for decades.
The fourth priority is creating more value in what we harvest and also strengthening communities. We're talking about the need to get more jobs and value from every single stick we cut. We're talking about assisting value-added companies. By the way, the measures of this bill are friendly to business and commercial development in this province as well. We're talking, moreover, about research and development in value-added activities. We're talking further about investing in forest worker training. We're talking about first nations participation, to give first nations people the sense of dignity, purpose and worth -- and dollars in their pockets -- that will enable them to play a meaningful and significant role in our economy and society, the kind of role they've been arguing they wanted to play for many long years. We're talking, moreover, about strengthening communities that rely on forests and that had a very difficult time -- they've taken a beating -- in the last decades.
This measure is radically different from the past. We're talking about a measure in which all the players are involved. All the interest groups have been consulted. All the interest groups are onside, save one. The only interest group
[ Page 10299 ]
that doesn't seem to be onside -- and I choose my words carefully, because some of its spokespersons appear to be supporting the measure and others seem to be suggesting they're not going to support it.... I'm referring, of course, to the official opposition.
I just say to those members that they too ought to consider what I quoted earlier, in terms of the short horizon of politicians. I think that just as governments have to recognize they're in it for the long term, so do oppositions have to recognize that maybe they ought to let go of the short-term political advantage, and talk about supporting the government when it deserves support and choosing real targets to speak against.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's difficult when talking about this BC Forest Renewal Act to choose just exactly which of the qualities one wants to talk about, because it is a very positive act.
An Hon. Member: There are so many.
Hon. A. Edwards: That's exactly it. The member across the way says that there are so many positives about it, that's why I have difficulty. But I have decided to limit my discussion to three phrases that I think are key to what we hope to achieve and what can be achieved with this act. They are that this legislation represents a new approach, a cooperative approach and a positive approach.
It's new in the way that it came together. It's new in that it takes the long-term view, as the previous member, the member for Nanaimo, pointed out.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Certainly I'm going to take the opportunity to quote, as has been done previously a number of times. Peter Bentley, the chair of Canadian Forest Products, says: "It's the first instance I'm aware of in my 45 years in the industry of any provincial government coming up with a plan that goes beyond the political cycle between elections." That's definitely new. Mr. Bentley says further: "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."
An Hon. Member: Rejoice!
Hon. A. Edwards: I didn't choose the words. These words were from the forest sector on the day it was announced. It was the same day that we had this kind of response from Vicky Husband of the Sierra Club. This is a major step in the right direction.
Interjections.
Hon. A. Edwards: Everyone is awake today, hon. Speaker; everyone is really there.
George Watts of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council said: "I've reviewed every resolution that Indian bands have made since the 1970s, and this plan is consistent with all of them." These are statements of clear support from a wide range of people and interests. Therefore it's interesting to look at it as a cooperative venture. It will allow us to look at what we hold in common and to approach it with a cooperative mood and cooperative activities.
In order to get a sense of the direction and common goals that we have, I refer to the purpose of the bill: "The purpose of this Act 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 is something we all hold in common, and it is a tribute to the framers of this bill and this initiative that it will be approached in a cooperative way.
Finally, it is a positive bill, and that is fairly new around this place. Sometimes one wonders if there is any positive bone in anybody around here anymore, but there are lots of positive things in this bill. It's good for the ecology of the forests, the lands and the rivers; it's good for the economy; and it's good for democracy. I want to talk about those three things in order.
An Hon. Member: Democracy?
Hon. A. Edwards: One of the members across the way doesn't seem to know what democracy is about. I hope he's listening when I discuss it.
First, I want to talk about the lands, forests and rivers, and the fact that this bill reflects a passionate regard for those things -- the kind of passion expressed by the member for Nelson-Creston yesterday afternoon, and in various ways by a number of members in this House. It's a passion that is held not only by members from the rural ridings but also by members from the urban ridings. Part of modern activity is to recognize the passion that we have as Canadians. It's almost a Canadian nature to care about our forests, lands and rivers. This bill is very much an expression of that.
It is also an expression of another characteristic of Canadians, that of common sense. This bill makes the kinds of commonsense compromises that will make it successful. This bill looks at using the skills that we already have to do something different: to expand the resource and the impact the resource can have on our economy. It talks about using what we have on an appropriate scale, so that we don't have some grandiose idea that goes far beyond what we will ever accomplish. Therefore this bill represents the kind of common sense that is another characteristic of the Canadian psyche.
When we go beyond the ecology, we go to the economy. We have to see that the benefit it gives our economy is represented by the fact that there is a broad understanding that the status quo is simply not sustainable in our forests. That understanding is very clear in a number of groups. Workers, corporations, communities, first nations, environmentalists and the government know that the current practice is not sustainable. All of those bodies have clearly been here, because they know that it's not sustainable to go ahead. Therefore they're willing to work with groups that they don't usually work with. Only when the goal is enough to overwhelm their disagreements can these groups come to an agreement to work together, and that is what has happened here. That will allow a plan to go ahead to make the forests sustainable and give us the kind of economic result that we need to make it successful.
[4:45]
I also said that this bill is good for our democracy, and I think that that's really one of the crucial parts of the bill. That's one of the ways in which it's so new and positive. With this bill, we will no longer see the government as being the only guy who can hold the channel changer. This really passes the control around. It devolves power to groups that represent factions, beliefs and understandings other than those represented here in the House, and it gives power to other people in a different way than simply feeding it through their provincial representatives.
[ Page 10300 ]
This bill represents a new way to administer public funds. It recognizes that the funds that come in from the increase in stumpage are going to go right back into the forests. Therefore it has to have a new way of dealing with that, and it will set up a method for that. As I said, it represents a new way to make very practical decisions. The crucial part of that, which we need to be careful of if we're going to be able to make it work, is to recognize that it all depends on trust. Trust isn't totally new in this chamber, but it's rare. In order to get the agreement, it required a significant degree of trust. If there had not been trust among the people who put the agreement together, it could not have been made. The success of the plan will depend on trust, and unless we keep the trust that is already there, this plan won't succeed. I would be very disappointed if there were any attack on the delicate trust that has been built up with this agreement and the kind of trust that is needed.
Trust is an essential in most of the relationships we know about. It is essential to friendship, and it's essential in families, businesses and government. I would suggest that this is one of the better examples of where we have been able to establish trust and have an explicit result come from that trust. If the trust continues, we will succeed in grasping the opportunity we have in front of us. That opportunity could disappear if we don't take advantage of it. But the trust is here, and the opportunity is here to renew our forests and to hold onto the values of those forests for this generation and future generations, which is the part that wouldn't otherwise have been there. Those values are not only values to our spirits; they are also values to our stomachs. That's an important double value recognized in this agreement. It brought us to put forward the act and contributed to the success of the act.
Therefore I would encourage a significant amount of the credit to go to the aboriginal leaders, the municipal leaders, the corporate owners, the workers, the environmentalists and, I would say, the government as well. I firmly believe that there is not another leader here who could have put that kind of thing together as our Premier did. Without his work, this group of people would not have been together and had enough trust to stay and work for that agreement. The work is only beginning. It will take every bit as much sweat and effort to make this plan go ahead as it did to put it together in the first place. The goal is far too precious to all of us for it to fail.
I would encourage the opposition to apply their most critical eye. They should, because this is new. This is what we think is highly positive. This is cooperative, and it involves taking us in one of the most significant directions we can go as a province. I would also urge the opposition not to destroy that fine balance of trust that the plan signals and represents and that is embodied in this legislation.
M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the various speakers this afternoon, yourself included at an earlier time.... I might say, Mr. Speaker, I thought a number of your quotations very eloquent indeed. The one that came to my mind as you addressed the chamber was the old question: if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make any noise? I was here. I heard the noise and appreciated the comments.
Pity the poor public who receive the information that the government presents to it in fine glossy fashion -- British Columbia's forest renewal plan, and all the accoutrements and accompanying documentation that go with it, wrapped up in a fine glossy folder with the British Columbia emblem proudly embossed on the front and the title BC Forest Renewal Act. Who is going to argue with that? It's like: "Join us as we present our all-new, improved health care plan," or "Join us as we introduce our all-new, improved justice plan."
Much of what we have heard from government members during this debate has necessarily focused on that very general and thematic approach to this issue. After all, who can argue with those themes? Who can argue with those principles and any government's attempt to apply them? The fact of the matter is that significant changes have taken place within the forest industry. There are members opposite, indeed members on all sides of the House, who participated in the forestry industry in its former days, with the old practices that have left us in our present state: a province all but bereft of our former tracts of lumber. Members have participated in that process in years past, and know that we find ourselves at a point in our history where that cannot continue. Communities themselves are threatened -- not just by world economic conditions and mechanization, but simply by virtue of the fact that there ain't no trees left for them to cut down. That's the fact of the matter. It's a situation that we have placed ourselves in.
I have heard speakers, particularly those on the government benches, decry the opposition's partisan, or what they perceive to be partisan, approach to this issue. For the moment, I will only suggest one other approach that most members in this chamber may be equally uncomfortable with: the comments and criticisms that we should receive, and do receive, as the older generation. Let's not forget that we find ourselves in this position because we have put ourselves here. It was those of us, I would submit, who naively traipsed into the forests under the direction of our foremen and logging companies who did this to ourselves.
We should all be mindful that we are being looked upon with something of a cynical eye by the younger people in this province, who question all of our commitments to forest renewal. Some of them say to themselves and to others: "Why should we believe you? You got us here. How recently have you come to this commitment to sustainable forests? Is it a sincere commitment?" Or, Mr. Speaker, as you said earlier, is it simply the politically correct approach to take at this time? Is this another example of politicians simply holding their nose to the wind to see which way it's blowing at present? In fact, all of that is irrelevant.
Those young people know one thing, and they know it for certain: our environment has been damaged, perhaps irreparably, in many instances. Quite frankly, they aren't interested in the partisanship; they simply want something to be done. They reflect a heightened awareness, and they have been, in many instances, the impetus for that heightened awareness.
I attended Earth Day celebrations in my riding on the weekend. The vast majority of people who attended those events were young people who genuinely care about the environment and what's going on around them in terms of our natural resources. I might say that unlike the member for Mission-Kent, who is here, the part of the province I come from doesn't have a lot of trees left. We have to look across to Mission or east towards Chilliwack. We don't have any trees, because they were all logged off about 100 years ago and there aren't any left. That same scenario threatens many places in the province. Those young people point at you and I, and ask: "What are you going to do about it? What are you going to do to ensure that this situation isn't re-created elsewhere in the province?"
They look to this chamber for that direction, for some imagination and for a new approach, and in introducing this
[ Page 10301 ]
forest renewal package, the government stands up and says that here is their attempt. In fairness, the government deserves some recognition for at least making the attempt. I'm certainly prepared and happy to acknowledge that the government has made an attempt. The official opposition takes issue with portions of that attempt, because in our view the government falls short and hasn't met the test. But I will preface my remarks with the acknowledgement that in presenting this plan, the government tried. In my view, in most instances it fails to meet the test, but the government has tried.
That's a fairly easy thing to say. It's as easy for government members to stand up and say, "We are in favour of forest renewal," as it is for opposition members to stand up and say: "Well, you may be in favour of that, but you've failed in your attempt to implement it." The question is: why has it failed? Part of the reason it has failed is the process that has been followed, the process leading to the creation of this bill. That is, again, an example of this government meeting secretly in back rooms -- the unholy alliance, if you will, of big government, big labour and big business in this case -- and then presenting the results of its work to an unsuspecting and unconvinced public. It leaves one mindful of the process that was followed with the Island Highway project, where similar secretive dealings took place and then the results were brought to the unsuspecting public and presented as this great triumph. "Rejoice, rejoice!" the minister said.
[5:00]
Let's be mindful as well of the manner in which this bill was presented. This grand triumph that should withstand such close scrutiny was tabled in the House with an orchestrated press conference occurring just outside the door and with budget-style lockups. Far from representing a document that will withstand the closest possible scrutiny, that suggests to me some desire on the part of the government to hide portions of the document, consistent with the manner in which the deliberations themselves were hidden.
But what does the document do? As you read it, you ask yourself: where were the small, value-added manufacturers? Where were the representatives of that sector of the economy when this plan was being developed? We hear so much from this government about its desire to promote diversification and secondary industry. Yet when you examine this piece of legislation, you wonder how that is to be brought about. How will this bill, if enacted, foster that diversification and that secondary industry? Well, it won't. Members opposite mouth the words. They talk the talk, but will the legislation walk the walk? I don't think it will. I've heard nothing from members opposite that articulates in a meaningful way how that is going to happen. I'm not convinced. Where was the private sector silviculture industry when this bill was being talked about in the formative stages? Where were they?
An Hon. Member: They sat with us for 18 months.
M. de Jong: The member says: "Oh, they sat with us." Then the member deserves a great deal of credit for having ignored them for 18 months, because that's what they have done.
Members opposite conveniently ignore or refuse to acknowledge the concerns of those young people who have formerly played such an important role in the silviculture and tree-planting industry, and who have worked and continue to work their way through university. Members proudly stand up and proclaim: "We're going to find work for some of these displaced loggers." Aside from the image that conjures up of the 60- or 65-year-old logger traipsing through the mountains with a sack of seedlings strapped to his side, match that with the sight of the unemployed university student looking for work, because that's clearly what is going to happen. We haven't heard a thing; in fact, far from hearing how that is going to be addressed, we're hearing members opposite simply refusing to acknowledge that it could be a problem.
I saw one member speaking with two students visiting our country on the plane over from Victoria the other day. They were tourists and students, and I presume they had a job somewhere in Asia, because they were able to afford a trip over to Vancouver. That's something that many of our university students won't be able to do, especially those formerly involved in the silviculture industry, because those jobs won't be available anymore. The government says that's where they are going to put the displaced worker; that's where they are going to find some activity. I don't believe it. I think that the legislation as it is presented today before this House simply does not take that eventuality into account -- that is not to say that it couldn't be amended in a way that takes account of those concerns.
When the process is undertaken in a secretive way, the results as they are presented to the House necessarily will lack legitimacy. That's what we find here today. The results, as embodied in this bill, simply lack legitimacy, because the process lacks an air of accountability. It just doesn't have the legitimacy this government pretends it has and would like to have; by virtue of the way they have undertaken these negotiations, it just can't have it.
That lack of accountability, as so many members on this side of the House have already commented, manifests itself in another way: this government's insistence on incorporating a new Crown corporation that will instantaneously be the fourth-largest Crown corporation in the province. It speaks to the issue of this government's commitment to further state intervention in the economy and the lives of British Columbians.
A cynic might say that it is simply another attempt by the government to create a party wagon for its friends and acquaintances to clamber on board and have a good time with. There is certainly precedent for that view when you look at what's taken place over the past several years at B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Members say: "Oh, that's not what's going to happen; that's not what the purpose of this legislation is." But the cynical view is that that's exactly what's going to happen. We've got directorships that will have to be filled. I note that the legislation certainly provides for stipends to be paid to those directors -- stipends, a pension, who knows how much, who knows to whom. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we fully expect our suspicions will be borne out about who will occupy those posts.
Another member who spoke previously did some of the mental math; it wasn't too difficult when you talk about five committees. There is no indication of how many committee members there will be, but each of them is apparently entitled to a stipend and to certain perks and benefits. We know who's going to staff those positions. The cynical view is that the Crown corporation aspect of this represents nothing more than this government's ongoing attempt to create receptive bodies that will find occupations and things for its friends to do while it occupies the government benches. But there's another....
Interjection.
[ Page 10302 ]
M. de Jong: The member mentions the school board. Of course, I'm always delighted to hear the round of double-dipping calls that come from the other side of the House and further down the House. But it's not going to be an issue much longer. If this government has its way, there won't be any more school boards, because the Minister of Education has slid into a little piece of legislation the fact that financing for school boards is going to be centralized. It's a cowardly attempt by this government....
Deputy Speaker: Mr. Member, as much as I enjoy the passion and enthusiasm of your remarks, I would remind you that we are in second reading of Bill 32, the Forest Renewal Act. I'm having difficulty seeing the trees, let alone the forest. Would the member please pick it up from there.
M. de Jong: The difficulty, aside from the cynical view that one can take as far as this Crown corporation is concerned, is that it also speaks about an approach to government. It necessarily implies a willingness to approach problems and to seek solutions by creating more government. To a certain extent it represents a recognition of failure. Members on the other side of the House stand up and proudly proclaim how this has represented a grand example of cooperation and of co-opting the various forces of the economy: labour, business and the government. In fact, the much more difficult task is to create a legislative framework that enables those elements of the economy to work uninhibited by government and to allow them to truly reach solutions on a day-to-day basis, free from the hand of government -- because the Crown corporation represents the imposition of government at its worst. It introduces the hand of government into the economy without allowing the accountability that follows when ministers and members are required to stand up and answer questions in this chamber before the public, and therein lies the difference.
For all the talk about cooperative government, the government is acknowledging, in my submission.... By introducing the Crown corporation, the government is acknowledging that it was unable to create a legislative framework which would achieve its objective. We may quarrel with the objective. In fact, in this instance I'm not sure that we do. The government mouths the right principles. It speaks of the need for forest renewal, biodiversity and sustainable forests. It speaks of all those things, and in this instance I don't think the objectives are necessarily an issue. But the course we follow in getting there certainly is, and the Crown corporation and what it represents in terms of a further imposition on the economy by government is one aspect of this legislation that troubles us greatly.
Interjections.
M. de Jong: The member asks about the forests in my riding. If she had any appreciation of the geography of the province, she would know about the logging that takes place in my constituency. From her comments and those of members opposite, I can only presume that they don't have an appreciation of the geography and economy of the province and of my constituency in particular, or they would know about the logging activity that takes place there. So I'm sure that the member will restrain herself and restrict herself to matters of which she may even have a smattering of knowledge.
Where is the government going? We have the CORE report, the Forest Practices Code, the timber supply review and this other animal that members opposite are quite reluctant to speak of: the ongoing treaty negotiation process. The question that British Columbians have is: how do they fit together? Or do they at all? The answer that one is compelled to give is that they don't. The government staggers from issue to issue, attempting to mollify and keep content its various constituents, shrinking supporters and special interest groups.
[5:15]
Insofar as its approach to this issue is concerned, the criticism that one feels compelled to levy at the government is that it continues to be dishonest not just with the people of British Columbia as a whole but with those special interest groups that it purports to represent. Workers are told that thanks to the legislation before this House today, they won't lose their jobs. We know that's not true. We heard the Premier say that on the steps of the Legislature: "Fear not, we will protect you. You're all right by us." If this approach to forestry is to be enacted and pursued in a meaningful way, we know that there will be implications for the forest industry and for the employees of the forest industry. Those members who deny that are simply trying to mislead individuals employed in the forest sector.
The fact of the matter is that the government doesn't know what the implications of this strategy and its forest practices strategy will be for the industry. We on the opposition side chastise the government for that fact, but there's nothing wrong with admitting that one doesn't know. There's nothing wrong with admitting that we're embarking on a new strategy, but they're not prepared to do that. Instead, they're content to offer pie in the sky, knowing full well that they can't deliver on that, and to fall back -- as you yourself pointed out, Mr. Speaker -- on that old cycle of: "What can I say or do that will get me elected? I'll sacrifice my principles and my vision, if I have one, because members on the government side say that we have a vision." What is the vision, and why is the government constantly and consistently abandoning and sacrificing that vision when it's convenient to do so?
The government says: "We did this with the assistance of corporations. We embarked upon negotiations involving corporations, big government and big labour." On the day that this was tabled, I heard the minister speak, and I thought of the quote we've often heard by Churchill. When he heard that Germany had invaded Russia, he said: "If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil...." That's what we hear from this government now.
The government is content to rely upon what it felt was support from the industry, but when it talks of support from the industry, it means those three or four large corporations that initially mouthed support. What about the small producers? Is it $400 million, $500 million or $600 million in additional stumpage? Maybe there are three or four large corporations that can weather that storm, but what about the small producers? Where are they going to be left in this scenario? Now even those larger corporations have had an opportunity to study this document, and they're saying: "Wait a minute. Where's the government taking this? This isn't what we had in mind."
It's like the Island Highway project. Government is holding a gun to the heads of industry and saying: "This is the way it's going to be. Get on board, because we're going to steamroll you. My way or no highway." Now they're backing out. The whole house of cards built around this concept of cooperation is coming apart, because it was never there in the first place. It was government imposing itself in a way that wasn't received well by industry.
[ Page 10303 ]
There are no guarantees, and what the people of British Columbia would like is a government that acknowledges that there are no guarantees.
T. Perry: I've given my share of boring speeches in this Legislature. Believe it or not, I'm humble enough to admit that. But I think that the previous speech set some kind of record. Perhaps I will embark on a speech that will exceed even it. One thing that I think the rookie member for Matsqui has yet to learn is that you give boring speeches when you're filibustering a bill that's bad; you don't give them when you've got a really good bill that you could support. We may get into the long summer nights in here, when it gets really boring. You want to save some of that boredom and use it then to try and stop the bad bills.
Interjections.
T. Perry: They want to know what the bad bills are, hon. Speaker. I think they'll have to figure them out for themselves. That's the job of the opposition, after all. I submit that this isn't one of them, but we'll let the people decide that. The reason I want to speak in favour of Bill 32, the BC Forest Renewal Act, is....
An Hon. Member: Because it's your turn.
T. Perry: Yes, it's my turn. That's not a bad line. The Reform Party may have a future after all.
It is the people's turn, and I think they are going to be excited not so much about the bill -- people don't care about the bill per se -- but about the initiative and foresight.
F. Garden: And the jobs.
T. Perry: And the jobs, as the member for Cariboo North says.
One hundred or 200 years from now, they're going to look back on this moment. They won't remember the exact moment, they won't remember my speech or my name, and they won't even know that any of us ever existed. I hope they don't have to reread the previous speech in their social studies or history classes. But they will look out at the trees in the forests that will still exist in British Columbia at that time. Those who think back with some sense of history will look back on this moment. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not as erudite as you and can't quote Shakespeare at the tip of my tongue, but those of you in the audience who are will remember the line from Henry V and think what a great day it was and how bravely we defended our future in those forests. If someone will supply me with the quote, I'll be glad to read it into the record later in this speech.
Interjection.
T. Perry: They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. It never occurred to me that the heckling I'm receiving from the opposition benches could be interpreted in that way and that they really were fond of the occasional idle heckling I indulged in earlier this afternoon. I am flattered.
I have some serious points to make as well, though. I looked back on the first speech that I made in this assembly, when I was welcomed as cordially as the hon. member for Matsqui was welcomed recently. I found that I had talked more briefly about forestry than I remembered. I remembered a wonderful speech -- something like the one the hon. member for Nelson-Creston gave yesterday -- and it turned out that there was only a small paragraph in Hansard, but it was the thought that counted.
In that maiden speech I described the annual allowable cut in British Columbia as far too high -- the sustainable cut was probably about 60 percent of what we were then cutting in 1989 -- and I decried the callous disregard of the then-Minister of Forests, Dave Parker, who seemed to believe that simply leaving his boot tracks all over the hills of B.C., as he put it, was enough to secure the future of the province. He seemed to give very little thought to what was really needed to ensure that we would have a sustainable forestry industry. In my maiden speech, I said that one of the leading reasons I entered electoral politics was to work for a long-term sustainable forest industry in this province.
That's why, fellow members -- through you, Mr. Speaker -- the announcement of this legislative initiative, of the Forest Renewal Act, and of the forest renewal strategy two weeks ago was the proudest moment in my five-year political career. It has been a brief career, but it has been an eventful one. No event was more important to me -- practically, theoretically or emotionally -- than that day in the Legislature. That's what I want to speak about: why it was so important to me. Although in my political career I've tended to focus on health, education and, more latterly, science and technology and rights for people with disabilities, that was the most important day of my political life.
I felt that it gave us as members a chance to participate -- even vicariously as part of a movement, a Legislature and a democratic government -- in something which people will look back on hundreds of years from now. For the first time ever in my political career or my career in environmental activism in this province, in that paper released to the media I saw a graph with a time scale of hundreds of years in it -- a graph leading out to the year 2130. I've seen that in textbooks before. I've seen it in books like the famous Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, published in the 1960s, or Population, Resources, Environment, a textbook Paul Ehrlich published in 1969 or 1970. I have never seen a graph in any government document going out to the year 2130 and indicating that some thinking had been given to that time scale. I submit that, like the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the establishment of the land reserve in 1973, future generations will look back and see this as a critical turning point in British Columbia history, and will recognize it as such regardless of their politics.
Let me trace a little more of the history of how we got to this point, without trying to go back earlier than my own attempt to follow the history beginning in 1989. Of course, there's the Sloan commission. Before the Sloan commission in the 1950s, there was the chief forester so sadly killed in an aircraft crash during World War II, Mr. Manning, who saw the same problems and prescribed similar solutions. There were earlier foresters. I remember an earlier member of the Legislature for Nelson-Creston or the equivalent area, Mr. Ran Harding, mayor of Silverton, describing foresters in the British Columbia Forest Service in the 1930s when he grew up in that area. They were out in the land and the forest on a daily basis, inspecting the cuts and ensuring that they were made sensitively, and their function was later gutted in the 1950s and 1960s and, worst of all, under the so-called sympathetic administration -- a euphemism, if there ever was one, for brutal destruction of the forest land base during the recession of the 1980s.
[5:30]
Let's look at the more recent history. There was the Parker review chaired by the then-Social Credit Minister of Forests
[ Page 10304 ]
in 1989 -- the same one who brayed from his seat along the row, "Sodomy forever," when the AIDS issue was first raised in this chamber; who said that his boot heels were left all over the hills of B.C. and that was enough to ensure that our future was secure. He took a beating when he went on the road and held public hearings. I remember attending one where people as diverse as environmentalists, forest workers and small business people attended. Even a famous dedicated British Columbian like Dr. Bill Gibson, a former chancellor of the University of Victoria and president of the Universities Council, came up as a non-forester and dedicated patriotic British Columbian, and blasted Mr. Parker to smithereens over the failure to plan for the future. Mr. Parker smiled and ignored it.
In my maiden speech here, there was a call for a royal commission on forestry. In effect, the former Social Credit government appointed such a commission -- the Forest Resources Commission, chaired by Mr. Sandy Peel. In 1991 Mr. Peel brought out a landmark report which devastated the notion that our forest management was adequate for the future. It pointed out that the cuts could not possibly be sustainable. It pointed out that the administration of the Forest Service was woefully inadequate, not necessarily through its own fault but through government neglect -- government after succeeding government. It pointed out that silviculture must be intensified and that investment in the land and forest base must be made if we were to have a sustainable future. It was bold and it was frightening, and it was not immediately implemented.
But this government has been thinking about it. It has been working behind the scenes over the last year to bring about the consensus necessary to produce that extraordinary moment which yesterday the member for Nelson-Creston described so eloquently as a miracle. I think the public ought to have the chance to have highlighted for it the eloquence of the member for Nelson-Creston. I heard him over the loudspeaker and came in to listen. Unfortunately, I missed all but the last few seconds of his speech, so I've reread some of what he's said, and it's very dramatic. He began his speech yesterday by saying:
"I'd like to start by suggesting that what happened in this building two weeks ago was a bit of a miracle. I don't think any of us of any political persuasion, or anyone watching or reporting on events here, can point to another event like it in the history of any government ever in British Columbia.... I'm not talking about the essence of the legislation. I'm talking about a moment when the Premier stands up and announces he's going to double the taxes on a sector of our economy; then he's followed to the microphone by spokespeople in the very industry that's going to be taxed. And what do they say? Do they say: 'Woe is me. Don't tax us. You'll destroy my industry'? They say: 'Thank God! It's about time. We've wanted it to be this way for decades'."
I can't possibly emulate the eloquence of the member beside me. Even though I can't, it's worth rethinking the point that he made.
He went on to say: "Then who came to the microphone? Act 3 in the miracle." Act 2 was Peter Bentley, the president of Canfor, one of the greatest forest companies in British Columbia. Act 3 was a representative of the forest workers' union who, as the member pointed out, was not saying that the government was going to cut into the profits out of which they hoped to gain a wage increase, but rather: "It's about time. Thank God! You should have done it years ago." The member for Nelson-Creston pointed out that the aboriginal, municipal and environmental leaders made the same point.
He went on to point out that he met a small logger. This member is someone who ought to know. In his own life, he has been a small truck logger operating at the economic margin. He pointed out that he met someone in the street and said:
"...I would like to say that I had the good fortune four days ago of spending an hour in the company of a gentleman who runs a logging company in my constituency. There's a sign outside that logging company which says: 'Take care of the land, and the land will take care of you.' This guy, who runs this mill, is my friend. And when we told the people in the meeting what the forest renewal plan was going to do in terms of stumpage, my friend -- understandably enough -- kept his mouth shut. Then we walked down the street, away from the madding crowd and the public eye, and my friend said to me: 'My only bitch is that you should have done it a year ago'."
He pointed out that the legislative committee on value-added in the forest industry heard that message over and over again as they toured the province: that people believed in the future of the forest industry in this province and for decades had been begging for government to believe in it and to transcend the political imperatives of re-election -- immediate cash to satisfy all those interest groups constantly begging for more money, to reduce the deficit immediately, to keep taxes low, or for whatever good purposes public money can be put to. That has always transcended the long-term future of the province. This is the first time in our history that we have transcended the political imperative.
I want to describe how a constituency like mine, an urban constituency, looks at this issue. I made a bargain with my own conscience when I came here that if I were to represent the interests of the conservationists who are so prominent in my riding, who see the forest as a resource for recreation and for sustainability of the global environment -- a so-called option resource; something they can appreciate, even though they never visit that forest, simply for its biological diversity and for the fact that it's always been there -- that I had a countervailing responsibility to explain to them the economic importance of the forest to our province and particularly to the resource-dependent communities in the rest of the province.
I've spent much of my political career trying to explain to my own constituents the dichotomy that legislators face: how differently people in rural ridings view issues from those in urban ones. I took a lot of heat over the government decision on Clayoquot Sound. I felt it was a reasonable and fair decision. But I understood those constituents who honoured their conscience and were arrested, some of them jailed, because they believed that the needs of the global environment came first. Had I not been exposed to the economic needs of the rest of the province, perhaps I would have been with them.
Yet here we see for the first time a government commitment that even they can respect. Even those who have gone to jail can see that perhaps they have achieved something. They have helped the government come to the point where it will deal with the threat of a boycott in Europe -- not by ranting and raving, not by ignoring it, not by the pretence of going to Europe and saying that everything has always been fine and is perfect, but by honestly admitting the mistakes of the past and planning for a future that is not only sustainable but is more sustainable than that of any other forest-dependent country in the world, and that will set the example that must inevitably be followed by other countries, placing us in a position of leadership worldwide.
[ Page 10305 ]
That's why I found it so exciting to see someone like Peter Bentley, chairman of Canfor.... He is someone with whom I would have many differences of opinion on many issues but for whom I have intellectual respect as someone who speaks his mind honestly. Peter Bentley, at the announcement of the policy and of the legislation, stated that he was impressed that a government, for the first time in his 45 years in Canada, had taken the bull by the horns and was willing to grapple with the future needs of the forest industry in this province. I thought it took great courage for Mr. Bentley to stand there with the president of the IWA, with a prominent environmentalist like Keith Moore, with Mayor Backhouse of Prince George and with the Premier and say that in a public forum. Few men of his stature and influence and position would have done so. And I think he was telling the truth.
I think it was very significant that Mr. Stoney of the IWA was able to deal with his members' fears of job loss and of the economic transition sweeping Vancouver Island and elsewhere in such a constructive way and look at the long-term future, not simply the immediate needs of the next contract. I thought it took equal courage for Keith Moore, the dogged environmentalist-forester, who has worked quietly in the conservation movement for at least two decades, to stand there as well.
The rehabilitation of the forest base is something that will make people like Walter Koerner proud. Koerner was a Czech refugee who rehabilitated the hemlock tree, formerly considered a waste weed, and made it the Alaska pine. He founded an enormous industry in this province and became a great philanthropist -- one of the few philanthropists for the University of B.C. -- did many other good works and is still, at age 95 or whatever he is now, pleading for the kind of investment in silviculture that was common in his native Czechoslovakia in the nineteenth century. He will be proud of this, I hope.
The commitment, finally, to honour the findings of the committee chaired by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston and put additional resource value directly back into stimulating the value-added industry is absolutely critical to our economic future. It's a disgrace to our province that we have achieved so little in this area in the last 100 years, compared to what the aboriginal people gained in the value-added transformation of forest products in their 10,000 years of habitation here. Compared to the technology that was available to them and what we have, we've achieved remarkably little. It's time that we start using what we've got.
It's exciting to see that some of the $400 million that will be available annually from increased stumpage will be channelled back into scientific research and development. I hope the government will consider using the talents of the existing Science Council to ensure that those funds are channelled back, in a competitive way, to the best proposals, and that we will get very high value out of that research and development funding.
I find it particularly exciting to see the enhanced investment in the retraining of forest workers who may be displaced from their jobs in the industry due to declining cuts or mechanization of the industry, the primary cause of job loss. I think it's exciting to see that the government has recognized what the industry itself has been slow to adapt to in cultural change: that work in creating, restoring and preserving the forests is inherently equally as valuable as work in cutting them down; that if human beings can assist in some minor way what nature has taken thousands of years to evolve, that is equally as dignified as cutting down and destroying that which nature has created. The ethos in British Columbia -- I see you nodding, hon. Speaker -- has been different: cutting has been good and macho; replanting has been marginal and wussy. It's time to change that.
J. Beattie: I was a planter.
T. Perry: I hear the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton saying that he was a planter. I'm proud of his planting background. I'm not suggesting that that is a wussy occupation, whatever that means, only that many people view it that way.
I want to respond to a point made by the member for Matsqui, who suggested that somehow the government is no longer committed to contract silviculture and the employment of university students, college students and other young people. The very night of the announcement I met a young man, an expert planter who will be spending the summer up in the Cottonwood River area in the Cariboo, who was afraid that he might lose his job. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those contracts remain in place. That silviculture commitment of the Ministry of Forests remains in place. The preharvest silvicultural prescriptions remain in place. All of the policy under the Forest Act and the legislative authority remains in place. This is a wonderful and long-overdue enhancement of that work which we have already been doing, but which has not been nearly enough.
So let the message go out very clearly to the young people who want to plant trees or who have been planting trees and have done a backbreaking job. When I worked in New Denver as a general practitioner, I used to see those people on workers' compensation claims. I know that it's as hard a job, or harder, as the mill work. Incidentally, it's very good for their cardiovascular health and conditioning. They will live longer than many of the sedentary millworkers who decry them as wussy. Let's see who's wussy when you're dying prematurely from a heart attack in your forties or fifties, or you're living with -- and, unfortunately, perhaps dying of -- Alzheimer's disease in your nineties.
[5:45]
I attempted to begin on a humorous note. I think I'd better cut my losses and end while I see a few members smiling. But I want to tell you that I'm very proud of this bill, and I really look forward to voting for it soon. I hope that opposition members will join the courageous member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who gave this bill his own support in an act of intellectual honesty that transcended his political imperative.
Hon. J. Pement: I would like, first of all, to start off by recognizing the speech that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain just gave with regard to looking at the urban and rural sides of the issue of the forest industry and the concerns with regard to the renewal of the forests. There is a common goal, and for some reason we tend to forget that. I see the BC Forest Renewal Act as a way for us to look at that common goal and work towards investing in the land. The initial thrust of this bill is investment in the forest land base, and back into a better forest industry in the process. The hon. member pointed out the rural and urban sides of the issue, and how we all view the forest in our different ways, but that we all want to see the forest base there and we want the ecological stimulation of the forest as well. So the member has brought forward the issue of this act: the fact that we all want to see investment back into the forest.
I would also like to say that this act is of utmost importance for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, and we are looking at all aspects of the industry, from small business and
[ Page 10306 ]
value-added to the larger, major industry players. When we speak of this act we must remember that people, communities and the forests are involved. We need to bring it back to the community level. Somehow in the discussion, with the aspects of the overriding politics of the day, we forget that this act is for people, communities and forests. We have to bring it back to that type of discussion.
I want to talk a little bit about my constituency and what the industry has meant to a particular area of my riding. I'll refer particularly to the Lakes District, which is a community to the south of the Burns Lake area -- Francois Lake, Ootsa Lake -- where a tie industry started in the 1920s and 1930s. It was done with broadaxes and whipsaws, and that's how the industry developed in that area. The tie industry grew to a great degree right through into the 1950s and 1960s. There were many jobs, from the forest itself and the actual development of the tie to people working on the railway systems.
But then there was another development, the circular saw, and we lost some jobs in that process. We still made ties, but we made them with a circular saw instead of a broadaxe and a whipsaw. So with the circular saw, we had the introduction of mechanization in the forest industry. We still had ties coming out of the different communities, and the side wood that came off the ties was used in different industries as well. But the jobs decreased just a bit, and the volumes of wood that were extracted increased somewhat in that scenario.
We went from the circular saw to mills, small mills that we now call category 2 mills. At one time there were 128 mills working in the Lakes District, with an average of five to maybe eight employees. It was a really good industry for that area. The volumes of wood that were extracted increased somewhat, but still it was quite sustainable. We had something called the sustained yield unit, and we looked at developing the industry in that area with consideration of what volumes of wood we had to deal with. But along came the idea of more dimensional lumber, better saws and more portable units. We found that some of the sawmills fell to one side and were bought out. Before we knew it, we had bigger and bigger mills and fewer and fewer people employed. The end result, which you see today, is that there's about three times the volume of wood taken out with very few people involved, compared to years ago.
So if you look at the rotation of the industry to where we are today, you'll find reasons why we have to look at forest renewal, at jobs and at communities. The modernization we're dealing with today is ever-increasing technology. The fact that you can go out with equipment and do the job of five people with one operator says something that we have to deal with and understand. We have land use issues that we never had before. Before, it was just going out, finding your track of lumber, cruising it and putting it up for auction or sale. Now we're taking a look at what type of land we have, where it's situated, and what the values are as part of that. We then get into the conflicts that were outlined by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. We have the conflicts of different values and different ideas for the use of the forests. All those things are not new to anyone in this Legislature today. We all know that this is happening, and this forest act is trying to deal with some of the situations that have come up.
We have also had intervening government policy, when governments looked at the economic side only in terms of ever-increasing capacity of mills, and allowed more and more mills to come into our communities without looking at what we really have in terms of timber supply. I'll go back to the middle 1950s, when Ootsa Lake was flooded for the Alcan project and the timber was not used. The flooding happened, and even today we have timber standing in the lake. I was also told by many old-timers that the policy was to cut the trees down and burn them. That's how that development happened. Those were government policies. Those are the things we have to deal with.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I notice the time. At this point I would like to retire from my topic, hopefully to come back. I'd like to adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Edwards moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:36 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 9: minister's office, $319,041 (continued).
C. Tanner: In 1972, the non-settlement of the Nisga'a claim in court was the beginning of a process that started negotiation. It was initiated in James Bay and the Yukon, and eventually ended up with the most recent settlement in the Northwest Territories. As I understand it now, the minister presently has an agreement to make an agreement with the Nisga'a. In fact, the treaty people are negotiating presently with the Nisga'a people, and they are outside of this particular group of claims. I think the minister will agree that it is probably the most important claim that's going to be settled in British Columbia in that it will be a precedent-setting one. I wonder whether the minister is prepared to give us some particulars on how well that's going, what sort of actions have been taken and what sort of settlements have been made so far.
Hon. J. Cashore: The topic of the Nisga'a land claim negotiation has come up several times during our discussion, and so it should. The member makes a good point that there's going to be a great deal of focus on it, given its importance in the fact that it is the first comprehensive negotiation to take place in the province. I just want to reiterate that it's not a cookie-cutter in terms of being a
[ Page 10307 ]
model for all other claims, but it is a very significant portion of a body of information that informs us as we go into that process and gain from the experience of working on these negotiations.
I am able to advise the member that since becoming the minister, I have met with the Nisga'a Tribal Council in the Nisga'a territory on two occasions: I have met with them here in Victoria; and in my previous portfolio, I attended the meeting of their tribal council. I am leaving tomorrow morning to go to the annual meeting of the tribal council, where we will be discussing progress with regard to the negotiations.
I want to point out some of the things that have happened en route to the point at which we now find ourselves with the Nisga'a. There's an interim protection measures agreement that was concluded in July 1992, which has subsequently been extended to March 31, 1995. The reason is to enable that IPM agreement to be in place during a time slot that would enable the successful negotiation of an agreement in principle, which we refer to as AIP. We seek to have that agreement in principle prior to March 31, 1995, and if I have my druthers, we will see it before the end of this year.
The member makes a good point in saying we need the example of this agreement in principle to signal the range of issues and results that can be achieved in this tripartite negotiating process.
In the context of these negotiations, British Columbia and the Nisga'a Tribal Council have reached an agreement to develop a joint pilot project on pine mushrooms, which will complement the interim protection measures agreement and provide the province with critical information on this important forest resource. The parties have tentatively agreed on the provisions of the eligibility and enrolment component, a topic we canvassed somewhat this morning. That tentative agreement sets out the criteria and procedures that will be used to identify and enrol individuals who may be eligible to participate in the treaty. At least five regional third-party advisory committees and a provincewide treaty advisory committee have now been meeting regularly over the past year with provincial negotiators, and barring unforeseen delays, as I said, we hope to reach an agreement in principle this year.
C. Tanner: During the long negotiations that started in about '72-73 in the Yukon, negotiations were held in secret both on the government side and on the Yukon native brotherhood side, and come 1984, a circumstance arose where they put the tentative agreement to all 12 bands in the Yukon, at which time about seven refused it. They refused it for the simple reason that they didn't know what had happened until it was given to them. There had been a lot of suspicion, a lot of talk, but they never had anything in hand until then. To go to those bands at that time and ask them to ratify an agreement was probably an impractical thing to do.
The same subject came up this morning, and it leads to conditions that are happening, I suspect, in the Nisga'a claim and in the other claims -- and one that the minister has to guard against. There is a need to inform as many people as possible, while keeping in hand the negotiating tactics and negotiating secrecy.
What efforts are going to be made to broadcast the results of the Nisga'a claim throughout the province and to all interested parties, so that the same situation won't arise in British Columbia as arose in the Yukon in 1984?
Hon. J. Cashore: A number of things need to happen in order to address that. When the parties agree on issues that can be made public before their communities, that means some of the information can be released as the negotiations proceed. Indeed, some items I just mentioned are indications of that. As has been said before, we are learning from experience, such as the experience the hon. member just mentioned. We need, when at all possible, to make that information available so that the first nations people can go to their community and keep them as informed as possible. So, too, we have a responsibility to do that with the general public.
With regard to the Nisga'a, I want you to know that we have a federal-provincial-Nisga'a working group on public education that's been active since the early stages of the negotiations. This group develops information materials and advertising, and organizes special events and speaking engagements around the negotiations. Its activities to date include radio advertising, development and distribution of a Nisga'a media kit, media briefings with Nisga'a negotiators, public information pamphlets, and briefings for people in schools, community settings and councils. I have personally visited service clubs in the area and provided briefings. It also involves participation in local trade shows.
We are certainly eager for other suggestions on how we can expand our opportunities to interact with the public. In the coming year, a series of newspaper columns answering questions about negotiations will be introduced. An overhead presentation on the Nisga'a negotiations is being developed for use by ministry staff when visiting communities in the region. A number of special events are being organized.
[2:45]
I think the points of the hon. member are well taken. Where at all possible, we need to, where there's general agreement, discuss those issues publicly. Public dialogue enables a wider understanding of the issues. The point is very good that, as much as possible, we should avoid it's being a great big surprise when it comes to the time of the signing. I'm sure members do appreciate that in the nature of the negotiations is an element of confidentiality, which is a difficult issue. It's a question of where you draw the line, and how you do that in a way that maintains trust among the three parties who are negotiating vigorously on behalf of the mandates they represent.
C. Tanner: I know the minister is aware that there are some 20 third parties -- at least 20 of varying degrees of importance, I suppose -- who are interested in the outcome of these negotiations. In fact, in some respects, there are those whose economies depend on the outcome of these negotiations, not the least of which are the municipalities involved, the forest companies, associations of forest companies, fishing associations, and so on.
It's been an ongoing question in the press, in our caucus, and in various arms of government as to how we can involve those people -- not necessarily in the negotiations -- and keep them involved and get their input to your negotiators. How is that being undertaken?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think I've answered many of the elements of that question, if I understand the question. How are we ensuring that the interests the hon. member is describing are represented in this process? It involves these sectoral committees, and the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, which has a comprehensive provincewide responsibility to assist the government in advising on third-party interests in that context. At the same time, with
[ Page 10308 ]
regard to each treaty negotiation that will be taking place in different regions, there will be instruments set up -- similar to what I've just described with regard to the Nisga'a -- to enable that process to take place there.
As part of the process, it's also necessary that I as minister be available to connect with those processes as much as possible, to hear their concerns about the issues they very legitimately raise, and also to be able to foster a dynamic and healthy interaction on those understandable public interest issues. We need to be addressing it on the public education front and sitting down together in dialogue on the issues being negotiated and the mandates being advanced.
C. Tanner: My caucus has been solicited at least five times by various groups -- five times that I know of -- and I'm sure these third-party groups have requested information as to what's going on from many members individually. We get the distinct impression on our side of the House that the government is not doing a good job of getting that information out or of getting their input in. They're not getting sufficient information for them to make a rational decision. I would suggest that there's been a lack of input on the government's and on your negotiators' part, or to your communications services in this area, because there is no doubt at all that a lot of people are very nervous and worried about the ongoing process.
The settlement in the Yukon was about $60,000 per capita in round figures, plus some mutual community land, which was band land, and some elements of self-government. Is that roughly the same basis you're working on now with the Nisga'a claim?
Hon. J. Cashore: We are aware of that information. We have not completed that area of negotiations, so we are not going to be telegraphing anything through this process about our bottom line on that. We look to negotiations that have been completed, and we take that as part of the body of information that informs us as we go through this process.
C. Tanner: If a third party came to me and asked where they should look for guidance and what sort of settlement they could look at in the Nisga'a or any other claim in British Columbia, would I be giving good advice by saying, for example, that they should look at what's happened in the Northwest Territories, in Quebec and in the Yukon to get some indication, with inflation, of what you might be looking for?
Hon. J. Cashore: You have to be careful using an example in the context of a model, because the circumstances are so unique. At the same time, the information is public, and it helps to inform people that a body of information is emerging. Given the variables of terrain, the amount of fee simple land in an area, and other factors like the size of the first nations entity entering into negotiations, it would not be helpful to suggest that any one example would be in the form of a model. It would be helpful to look at the result of that process to see what has been learned and how it is working, and to benefit from that emerging experience.
C. Tanner: Very shortly, Mr. Minister, a large number of expert negotiators are going to be required for your department. While negotiations have been ongoing in the northern part of Canada for the last 20 years, they could not have created the number of claims I suspect you want if only 38 are presently being considered. What are you doing to prepare for that time? What sort of timetable are you setting up to establish priorities, and how do you expect to be able to cope with a large influx of negotiations all at once?
Hon. J. Cashore: Those are all very good questions, and it is indeed a challenging situation when you have over 40 statements of intent from a variety of first nations entities -- all the way from a small band of 300 persons to an entire tribal council. There has, for instance, been a statement of claim from a tribal council, where perhaps one or two other communities within that council's territory have also filed statements of claim. Obviously there arises an issue of the manageability of this process. It's my understanding that east of the Ontario-Quebec border there are 13 treaties in place; these are historical treaties. In terms of the total population of first nations people covered there, that is a much lower ratio of treaties to people than we would have in British Columbia if we were to have a separate treaty with all 197 bands in the province or even with all those who have filed a statement of claim.
Therefore, in the interests of manageability and recognizing that this must be done in the interests of the province, Canada and the first nations, it's in the interests of all to come up with a manageable process. We have always said that this is going to be handled in a way that is affordable. We are seeking to staff six negotiating teams over approximately the next 16 months. We believe that these teams -- the staffing-up of which is part of the increase in the budget -- would be most effective in functioning on some kind of regional basis. Therefore the process we're now working out with the summit and the federal government to get the treaty negotiation funding out the door, so that we can get on to the next step in the process, is going to lead to a manageable approach because of the mutual interest on the part of all parties. It is not, in my view, in the interest of first nations to embark on a process where so many treaties are being negotiated that it would be virtually tantamount to saying: "This isn't going to be done for 50 years; there's just too much of it going on." So it has to be manageable in order to have a sense that within a reasonable period of time we would start seeing agreements in principle that would lead to the final agreements and then the implementation.
G. Wilson: I'd like to come back to specifically look at this eligibility and enrolment summary, which the minister made reference to prior to lunch, in light of comments made suggesting that the Nisga'a model may well be the forerunner of many more. With respect to the eligibility and enrolment summary, it says, "A person is entitled to be enrolled if that person is..." and then there are four primary considerations: if he or she is of Nisga'a ancestry and his or her mother was born into one of the four Nisga'a tribes -- i.e., Wolf, Eagle, Raven or Killer Whale. Can the minister tell us if it is possible to be of Nisga'a ancestry and not be born into one of those four tribes?
Hon. J. Cashore: It is possible to be enrolled if you are adopted according to their custom surrounding adoption, which I think we all recognize and respect as, in many instances, an aboriginal tradition. I think that could involve somebody who is not born into the nation, just as it would be.... I have an adopted daughter; she becomes a member of my family. I think that within their context a person from another nation could be adopted through the traditional practice of native adoption.
G. Wilson: I see there is an adoption category here, and I'll ask about that. But it says: "...is of Nisga'a ancestry...."
[ Page 10309 ]
That would preclude adoption, I assume. And then it says: "...and his or her mother was born...." It suggests that it's possible you could be of Nisga'a ancestry but not be born into one of the four tribes. I think it's possible, but I could be wrong. If it is possible, then perhaps the minister could tell us how a person of Nisga'a ancestry who was not born into one of those tribes is a beneficiary of this treaty?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't want to presume to be an expert on this. I have lived among the coast Tsimshian, and it's my understanding that among these people, when you are born into that nation, you are born into one of those tribes. I'm not sure if I understand the question. There may be some aspect of this that we would need to talk to our negotiators about, but it's my understanding that there is a very clear process there ensuring that when you are born, you are born into one of those tribes. I can tell the hon. member that when I was another kind of minister in a community on the west coast, when there was a death I knew exactly who would be making the preparations with regard to the funeral arrangements, because that was built into their clan and tribal system from the time of birth.
[3:00]
G. Wilson: Believe me, I'm not trying to trick the minister here. It's just that it's implied by the conjunctive "and" that it is possible for someone to be of Nisga'a ancestry but not be one of those four tribes. Otherwise they would just put a period after "is of Nisga'a ancestry." Perhaps the minister might find out and get back to us on that point.
With respect to the question of an adopted child of a person described above, I'm assuming that an adopted child is someone who may even be non-aboriginal and was adopted by somebody who meets criterion 1 or 2. But then it goes on to say: "...in accordance with Nisga'a custom or" -- the conjunctive is "or" -- "pursuant to laws recognized in Canada." The question is: what is the Nisga'a custom? Secondly, what are the adoption laws in Canada that are being referred to here? Are we talking about Canadian federal statutes or about Nisga'a law or tribal law which may in fact be recognized as such?
Hon. J. Cashore: Where it refers to Nisga'a custom, again, it is my understanding that there's a process of adoption that can take place without going through some of the bureaucratic processes that exist within non-Nisga'a society. I believe there is a respect for that custom, which recognizes something that goes deep within the roots and the very long history of that society. In regard to "pursuant to laws recognized in Canada," we are referring here to the laws relating to adoption that exist within the province and Canada, and I believe the province has the main responsibility in this area.
G. Wilson: The reason I'm taking issue specifically with the language of this agreement is that I understand that this is an agreement which is likely to be the blueprint for future agreements. What we're looking at here for the first time in Canada is one's eligibility or enrolment status into a jurisdiction within Canada that will have full taxation authority, political jurisdiction and legitimate lawmaking authority. That eligibility requirement is being set up under the terms of this agreement. I think, therefore, that this is indeed an historic document, and it's an important one for Canadians to understand. What I'm understanding is that you can be an adopted person in accordance with Nisga'a custom, even though -- because it says "or"; it doesn't say "and" -- you may not fulfil the legal requirements of the federal government or the provincial statutes of British Columbia. In other words, you can go through whatever the customary process is with respect to adoption into one of the four tribes -- it's spelled out a little bit below here, with respect to Nisga'a traditional law -- in a settlement or stone-moving feast, as they talk about here, witnessed by another tribe. I certainly do not pretend to be an expert on any of that, but it seems to me that this agreement is saying that there can be an adoption, with full benefits and full recognition, into the Nisga'a, if indeed the Nisga'a custom has been met, even though it may not have fulfilled legal requirements that would run with non-Nisga'as in British Columbia and in Canada. Could the minister confirm that?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the operative thing here is that the Nisga'a custom would apply. It could be that we should try to find more information on this from the negotiators for the hon. member, and we would be glad to do that.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and I would like to know what the details are. Clearly a customary adoption, as opposed to one that meets the legal requirements of the laws of the province, would have some legal implications with respect to children who are adopted into the Nisga'a, vis-a-vis their legal status in the province of British Columbia or in Canada.
The other matter concerns the matrilineal system among the Nisga'a. It becomes a bit confusing, in that it says that the criteria reflect the Nisga'a matrilineal system while ensuring that all persons of Nisga'a ancestry will be entitled to be enrolled, yet an enrolment committee is clearly going to have some kind of jurisdiction over determining that eligibility. The minister might want to discuss this committee of eight -- which I understand is going to be established for the first two years largely in conjunction with the federal government, because the provincial government is not going to be directly involved in the process -- and how it reflects on the ensured eligibility of somebody who may prove that there is a Nisga'a bloodline.
Hon. J. Cashore: If they're not enrolled, they have the right to appeal.
G. Wilson: I must confess that in light of the history under the Indian Act with respect to eligibility and status -- and there has been a great deal of movement on those issues over the last couple of decades.... The appeal committee is made up of two individuals: a civil servant from Ottawa and a person who is a Nisga'a, with somebody they jointly select as chair. That's hardly a full process, but I'm coming to that in a moment.
What I'm concerned about here is a young person adopted at birth out of the Nisga'a, who was therefore not brought into any of the four tribal groups referred to in this agreement and who may now wish to be eligible because they have the Nisga'a bloodline. It would appear that their status here will be in serious question, because they will not have fulfilled section 1. They will clearly have fulfilled section 2, but they will be subject to dispute under sections 3 and 4. They will have fulfilled only one of the four primary requirements and therefore may not be eligible under this particular agreement.
Hon. J. Cashore: Going by my understanding of the negotiations on those circumstances, those adults or children would be welcomed back to the Nisga'a.
[ Page 10310 ]
G. Wilson: That's not what this agreement says. It suggests that anybody who is a direct descendent will be invited back. But if a young individual who has been adopted out marries a non-aboriginal person and then has a child with that non-aboriginal person, there will then be a two-generations-removed bloodline. Will those people be eligible to make direct representation? They will not have directly fulfilled any of the four requirements.
Hon. J. Cashore: If the question is: if somebody who is adopted out has a child, would the child be eligible...? My understanding is that the answer is yes.
G. Wilson: If we could look specifically at the enrolment process, my question comes back.... Once this committee of eight Nisga'a has decided who is eligible to be enrolled into this, if an individual feels aggrieved and then appeals to the appeal board -- which is a committee of three -- and for whatever reason the appeal board upholds that decision, it suggests that a judicial review would be available under the B.C. Supreme Court. Then it says: "...on a question of law, jurisdiction or procedural fairness." Can the minister tell us -- given that this is a negotiated agreement between two levels of government -- how, and under what statute, the B.C. Supreme Court will be empowered to determine this on a question of law?
Hon. J. Cashore: I would think that this is a very good example that should be very reassuring in terms of taking a look at how the process works. Implicit in this is the Nisga'a government's recognition of the power and authority of that court.
G. Wilson: That's true, except I don't know under what statutes that court could make any decision. The jurisdiction of the court, clearly, is to interpret the statutes. On this question of adoption, is the court going to be empowered to make some kind of judgment on the basis of the language of this agreement? Or is there going to be legislation that will affect this? I note -- it's interesting -- that this documentation that has been provided by the minister, with respect to the overall settlement, suggests that prior to any final agreement having effect, legislation will be passed to enable this to take place. But there's nothing to suggest that there will be specific legislation with respect to this enrolment process.
Hon. J. Cashore: The enrolment process would be part of the context of the final settlement that would be legislated, so it would be covered in that.
G. Wilson: I have two more questions before I yield to my colleague from Peace River South.
With respect to the appeals board, the minister told us before lunchtime that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the Canadian constitution would apply. Yet the fundamental and democratic rights of every citizen in Canada make it clear that citizenship is a fundamental right and that all citizens will be treated equally.
This eligibility and enrolment agreement clearly stipulates there will be jurisdictions and authorities within Canada that will preclude the Charter being applied on an individual basis. While it's quite clear that members of the Nisga'a will have authority and jurisdiction in territories under their jurisdiction -- and I don't dispute that -- what is not clear is that those rights will apply evenly to Canadians who are non-aboriginal and may wish to enter into agreement with, or have some authority within, Nisga'a territories.
Could the minister direct me to that section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the Canadian constitution, which provides one authority to have the right to determine eligibility -- in effect, citizenship, because that's what this is? This eight-member group is, in effect, determining Nisga'a citizenship -- if I can put it that way. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where would this particular agreement apply? As a Canadian, I can not be of any ethnic origin other than what I am. But as one who is a fifth-generation Canadian, I am a Canadian. Because I can not be of any ethnic origin other than my own, it does not mean that my rights are any greater, or diminished, by the fact that I am what I am.
[3:15]
This agreement would imply that the benefits.... It spells out the eligibility for benefits under the agreement. It suggests that a person may only receive benefits from one agreement; that benefits in terms of direct accrual rights to individuals will be determined on the basis of their ethnicity. That is something new for Canada. It was clearly undesirable when people were denied access or rights under the law and when they were prohibited from the right to vote, the right to participate in some aspects of society or the right to land off a boat anchored in Vancouver harbour. Those were aspects of discrimination in Canada that we did not want. Yet it would seem that what we're doing to compensate for past indiscretions is institutionalize discrimination on the basis of this new system of citizenship determination. Could the minister indicate where, within the Charter, he feels this is consistent with what we've come to know and respect in Canada?
Hon. J. Cashore: This takes us back to a discussion we had this morning, when the hon. member and I agreed to disagree with regard to the basic, fundamental concept that we're embarking on here. It is recognized by the courts, by other processes and by government that there is an unfinished process of justice with regard to the lack of treaties negotiated with the vast majority of first nations people in British Columbia. There's no suggestion that all British Columbians are subject to those same historical realities. We accept those as historical realities. The hon. member has said that he does not accept those as historical realities, and I appreciate him making that point and being very clear and upfront about it. The fact is that we do accept those as historical realities, and we have embarked on a process whereby these issues are addressed through negotiations. As I said before, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would still apply to all those who reside within the province.
C. Tanner: Could the minister assure the House that there is no intention to exercise the notwithstanding clause of the Charter -- as they have done in Saskatchewan and Quebec -- in order to bring these agreements into force?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, that's not our intention.
C. Tanner: In the course of the negotiations you're presently undertaking, the responsibility that will be negotiated is roughly 80 percent federal and 20 percent provincial. Will the federal government have to use the notwithstanding clause? As a negotiator in a three-party negotiation and being only 20 percent of the negotiating team, do your negotiators find themselves in a junior position? Or is everybody equal around the table?
[ Page 10311 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: In that setting, we approach the table as equals. It's very important, in order to produce a positive result, that there be a balance or an equal weight on the part of those who sit around the table. But that is not to preclude what I've said before with regard to this being in the context of the Canadian constitution. That is the basis upon which the federal and provincial governments have come to the table. So we see as being implicit within the context of those negotiations that we're negotiating with people who would continue to be Canadians and British Columbians.
C. Tanner: I have two more questions. The first one is on the settlement that was outlined when we discussed the treaty legislation in the Legislature; it was going to be between 17 and 20 percent for the province and 80 percent for the federal government. Are those divisions of settlement the same as the divisions of cost in obtaining a settlement?
Hon. J. Cashore: The cost-sharing agreement with the federal government has two main components: one is the cost of negotiations, and the other is the settlement costs. In both cases, it's dealing with apples and oranges in a sense. So the general rule on the negotiating costs is 60-40, with the federal government paying the major portion.
With regard to settlement costs, there are a number of factors there, so to give a short answer is probably not all that helpful because of the complexity of it. Given the fact that the provincial settlement costs involve primarily Crown land, factoring in those values we anticipate that it would work out to the provincial share averaging around 17 percent.
C. Tanner: With this first attempted negotiation, has it been the experience of your negotiators that the expectations of the first nations people were very much higher than you thought they would be? Secondly, is there an anticipation in the membership of those people of a very large and, in my view, exorbitant settlement?
Hon. J. Cashore: Again, this is an area where we can get into a lot of angst. I really do not want to appear to be non-cooperative, but I am subject to the confidentiality of the process that has gone on. When I start going down that route of projecting the opening positions of the various parties around the table, then I have entered a process that is very difficult to deal with for the continued work that must be done at that table. I can tell you that the parties have entered into the negotiations in good faith and made representations that have enabled very responsible and sometimes lively discussion. It's our responsibility as a province to ensure that our provincial interest mandates are in place every step of the way. So it's essential that there be very healthy and frequent interaction between the negotiating team -- Mr. Jack Ebbels is the head of that team -- and myself, between him and officials within the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, and between him and other officials and ministers, given that there are issues relating to other line ministries.
J. Weisgerber: Before we get too far away from the Nisga'a negotiations and the eligibility document, I note in the document a couple of areas where I would seek some clarification from the minister.
One question posed here is: how many Nisga'a will participate in the treaty? The answer is estimated to be between 5,000 and 6,000 adults and minors. Can the minister give me a sense of how many members of the Nisga'a Tribal Council there are today? In other words, how many people does the minister anticipate will be added under this eligibility process? Does the minister have some sense of the numbers? If there were a census of the eligible Nisga'a community today, how many persons would there be?
Hon. J. Cashore: At the present time we don't have the answer to that in the detail the member requests. We'll seek to get current data with regard to the Nisga'a, and we will have to contact our negotiating team to get that. I'd rather not do that off the top of my head.
J. Weisgerber: Well, perhaps I can pose a number of questions which will smooth this process and move it along faster.
Can the minister tell us what kind of census he expects -- when the final numbers are reached? I'm curious to know how the government intends to manage these censuses. Is there going to be a central registry, perhaps with the Treaty Commission, of members of each tribal council or each claimant group? Are people going to be listed as members? How are they going to be listed? I ask these questions because the statement is made that a person will receive benefits from only one agreement. I'm curious to know how you would ensure that that is indeed the case. If someone's parents were of two different tribal councils, what assurance does the government have that someone isn't a participant in two or more claims? Surely the province has a very direct stake in this.
Let me finish this line of questioning by asking the minister whether he believes it's appropriate for the province to have a role in this process of eligibility. It seems to me that the size and the quantum of settlements will, at least in some degree, be based on the number of members in each claimant group. Therefore the larger the claimant group, the larger the claim and size of the settlement. So it seems to me that it's perhaps of interest to more British Columbians than simply the people who seek to be registered as members of the Nisga'a community or any other claimant group.
Hon. J. Cashore: The issue of how we deal with the claims of others, and the interface between different claims pursuant to the enrolment issue, has yet to be negotiated.
J. Weisgerber: There were a whole series of questions, and that certainly doesn't cover it. I don't know who you would negotiate with. It seems to me that we're talking about the interests of British Columbia in ensuring that people are claimants in only one claim; the province has an interest in the number of people being given eligibility or membership in any of the claimant groups. I don't think that's necessarily something to be negotiated. I don't know who the minister would anticipate the negotiations would be with. I'm curious to know how the minister intends to ensure that there's a recording of people who are given benefits under any specific claim and to ensure that they aren't claimants again, in another group.
Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with some of the points the hon. member is making. These are issues we have to deal with. One type of forum in which they can be dealt with is the policy tables with the summit and the UBCIC. It's true, though, that just as there are overlapping claims with regard to the land base, there are also overlapping concerns on some of these issues that have to do with enrolment and governance. Yes, those issues need to be resolved. I believe that the processes we have set up lend themselves to addressing that.
[ Page 10312 ]
J. Weisgerber: It's incredible that we're this far into the process, and the answer is: "Gosh, we're going to have to find a way of dealing with these things." I understand we've nearly reached an agreement with the Nisga'a. We're moving -- if we're to believe the reports -- into negotiations with 12 other groups in the province. Not only today but in the questions posed yesterday, the answer was almost the same in every case: "Gosh, we're going to have to look at that, find an answer and deal with it somewhere down the road."
[3:30]
I think it is going to cause a great deal of concern -- it certainly does for me -- that we're as far into this process as we appear to be either without having the answers or with the unwillingness to share with this committee and the Legislature the details of any of these things that are in place. We simply haven't gotten the kinds of answers I would have expected we would receive in these estimates. Certainly I'm prepared to take a little time, if that's what's needed, for us to get these details, if the minister perhaps wants to bring them back to us. But I can't believe that these kinds of fundamental questions, which beg themselves out of the documents released by the minister, haven't been dealt with. But apparently, unless the minister does have something further to add....
Let me ask something I know -- I'm absolutely confident -- the minister does have the answer to. I'd like the minister to tell us some details about the negotiating team that's representing British Columbia at the Nisga'a table. I can't imagine any group charged with a more significant responsibility or role on behalf of the province and the people in the province than negotiating the first claim. I would very much like to know....
Incidentally, I have an enormous amount of respect for the members negotiating on behalf of the Nisga'a. I've known them since at least 1988; I know their dedication. I know they have been there from the beginning of negotiations in most cases and are very committed. That's not for one moment to take anything away from the people negotiating on behalf of British Columbia, but I don't know much about them. I know there has been a considerable turnover in the members negotiating on behalf of the province, and that causes me some real concern. To begin with, perhaps the minister could tell us how many people are negotiating on behalf of British Columbia and who those people are. I'm sure this is something where the minister is not bound by confidentiality. It's not something that he doesn't know, because these folks are on the payroll of his ministry. Could the minister give us a bit of information on that area, which I'm sure is public knowledge?
Hon. J. Cashore: As the hon. member knows, Jack Ebbels is the chief Nisga'a negotiator. We also have an assistant chief negotiator on the team. We have four assistant treaty negotiators, and on occasion we contract with regard to particular services that are needed.
J. Weisgerber: I don't necessarily have to have the names read into the minutes. But would the minister be good enough to provide us with the names of all the members, past and present, on the negotiating team on behalf of the province and perhaps indicate the particular skills and experience that each member brings? I'm sure the minister would agree that all the land claims settlements in British Columbia are going to be critical governance issues in this province, but that the Nisga'a one will be by far the most significant because it's the first. Would the minister undertake to give us the kind of background information that would provide not only us but all British Columbians with confidence in the background, the experience, the knowledge and the bona fides that these individuals bring to the job?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we will make that information available to the member.
A. Warnke: I must admit, when we initiated the discussion on self-government, that I didn't realize it was going to be this elaborate. But it has been fascinating to hear the many different facets and aspects of it.
I want to focus on one particular concern expressed to me by the aboriginal community. Apparently the province has applied for and received leave to cross-appeal in Delgamuukw, and this leaves the impression that the province will be able to argue that aboriginal title has been extinguished by grants in fee simple, unless there are third-party interests. The impression that's left with the aboriginal community runs counter to the belief that the treaty -- which, of course, the Premier signed.... It suggests to all first nations in British Columbia that the province is willing to negotiate with them for aboriginal title. On this particular notion, I would really appreciate it if the minister could clarify or state for the record a response to this concern.
Hon. J. Cashore: The province would seek to negotiate rather than litigate. We assume that in the best of circumstances the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en would also. We recognize and respect their right to hold a place within the court process. That is a kind of pro forma thing, in order to file the appropriate documents at the appropriate time to represent the province responsibly -- should that route be required, which we hope it won't, because we prefer negotiation. Therefore it necessitates filing certain documents. However, my energy and the energy of the people within our ministry is clearly to work toward negotiated settlements. We believe that there is a real desire on the part of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en to seek a way to enable that to happen.
A. Warnke: My question still goes along the same line. I appreciate the minister's remarks, but I'm seeking further clarification. There is the impression that the provincial government made a clear statement that if a first nation is in the legal court system, the province will not negotiate a claim on aboriginal title with that first nation. It's with that, essentially, that many aboriginals have expressed concern. Perhaps the minister would want to follow up on that.
Hon. J. Cashore: We would negotiate for the purpose of finding a common ground that would keep it out of court. We would have discussions with the first nations on that basis. But, again, our purpose is to get into negotiations.
C. Serwa: The minister earlier today alluded several times to a modern treaty agreement. I have only a couple of questions with respect to that. Is the reference to the modern treaty agreement some indication that the treaties that were negotiated by Sir James Douglas or the two treaties in northeastern British Columbia, for example, would be opened up, and a modern treaty agreement discussed or renegotiated? Is that the intention in the use of the term "modern treaty agreement"?
[ Page 10313 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: Our government is currently considering this issue very seriously, but it is a future policy issue, so that's all I'll say on it at this time.
C. Serwa: The line of questioning is very interesting, because it opens up all sorts of options that I have very specific concerns about. Having a few years under my belt now -- almost 60 -- "modern" seems to be a moving target; it's not a fixed period of time. While I thought the forties or fifties were modern, I find that they certainly are not.
My concern is simply this: there will be a period of time for all negotiations to transpire, and there's a potential for whipsawing. The negotiations reached in the remote areas of the province may be not as good or sophisticated as those that will be reached with the Squamish people or the Musqueam people, for example, and they will want to see some sort of equitable balance, which is only fair and reasonable from the standpoint of the aboriginal people involved. So when you look at this -- that's why the question has fairly significant implications for the provincial government and the people of the province -- and if you really recognize the terms, what reason has the minister to conclude that any treaty negotiation will ever be concluded, regardless of the intentions of the moment? Will they be opened up? Will there be a clause, for example, that they will be reopened for negotiations every five or ten years to conform to the changes, and to this concept of a modern treaty agreement?
Hon. J. Cashore: Just as in any negotiations, the parties can insert a clause that would enable consideration at some set time in the future; that's standard contract procedure in many instances. That doesn't mean it would automatically happen; it could be a negotiated process. But I think the crucial thing is the implementation of the treaty that has been negotiated. That is where we find the proof of the pudding: in ensuring that we come up with modern treaties -- and I understand we need to qualify that word somewhat -- that are negotiated in today's context and that will have longevity built into them because of the quality of the negotiations. Therefore the member raises a very good point. You could assume that in some areas where people perhaps have greater resources than in another area, there might be an unevenness in the quality of the negotiations. But there's a fundamental principle here; it's not in the province's interest and it's not in Canada's interest to go into negotiations where there is a weak party of negotiators. We don't believe that will produce a result good for British Columbians and good for Canadians. Therefore we believe in the management of treaty negotiation costing factors, and the financing of the negotiating process and the teams which would represent first nations. We believe it's essential that they be enabled to field a team that is able to carry their issues well, so that the end product coming out of those negotiations is a product that will stand the test of time.
[3:45]
C. Serwa: Just a final question. If I've heard the minister correctly, the minister is prepared to undertake negotiating with bands in the lower mainland or on southern Vancouver Island perhaps -- on the east coast of Vancouver Island and the southern part of the Island -- who simply by their location have been able to actively participate in the strong economy in this province. From what the minister has stated, they would perhaps be most ably equipped in resources, both educational opportunities and employment opportunities, to negotiate the best possible agreements. Would the minister then undertake to move the direction of the negotiations so that the initial negotiations take part in the lower mainland area, in the greater Vancouver region of the province, for example, or perhaps on the southern part of Vancouver Island, for the purpose of establishing some sort of baseline for the other areas of the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure I communicated my answer to the earlier question well. The point I was trying to make is that it behooves government to ensure there are strong negotiating teams representing all three parties to these negotiations, wherever they may be. I would not extrapolate anything from what I have said that would give a regional implication as to where to start, or where we would be at any given point in time. Those issues are subject to a wide variety of considerations around issues of manageability. We recognize, however, that we're going to be judged at the end of the day on how well we manage. That means Canada, B.C., the First Nations Summit and the various first nations entities that get into negotiations will be judged on how well we manage it. It therefore behooves us, as the various negotiations get up and running, to ensure that they are representative of the length and breadth of the province.
A. Warnke: I'd like to move to a different subject, obviously somewhat interrelated with the concerns expressed thus far. There is an aspect we should move quickly on to expedite this whole general area of the ministry's mandate and where it's going. I refer, as I mentioned yesterday, to examining comprehensive agreements concerning land claim settlements and entitlement. There's a bit of history, and we could go into that. Land settlements and claims were first addressed by the Vander Zalm government in August 1990, but let's not pursue the whole history.
There are two opening aspects of this question I do want to explore with the minister. The first is the progression of the settlement of land claims, as the minister sees it. Another aspect is best exhibited by a statement from the Squamish nation in their March 3 release this year:
"Chief Mathias emphasized that treaty negotiations are not focused exclusively or even primarily on land claims. 'The issues here,' he said, 'involve land and water use, compensation, resource development, self-government and a structure for relationships between the Squamish nation and neighbouring communities'."
That may in fact come close to what the minister himself said yesterday. There's one telling comment I would like to add here as well.
"'We have no wish to reclaim lands where people have built their homes or businesses,' said Chief Mathias, 'but we do want to resolve conflicting interests in the use of lands, particularly unoccupied areas designated as Crown lands'."
As I see it, that exhibits the nub of several problems we face in British Columbia: the future of Crown lands and the extent to which those lands remain with the Crown for non-aboriginal or aboriginal use. There's a number of cases coming forth where that aspect gets a little intriguing.
I also want to express what many people in the non-aboriginal community feel about the possibilities of individuals' private property being interfered with. Perhaps something out there is being misconstrued, but the concern is nonetheless there. I'm somewhat buoyed by the remarks of Chief Mathias -- and, incidentally, of others -- that the sole objective of the aboriginal peoples is obviously not to somehow suspend the private property rights of individuals or anything like that. Nonetheless, many people are concerned that aboriginals tend to view property as being a collective thing, in that the quality of property is collective in
[ Page 10314 ]
nature rather than individual, as opposed to the western, European or North American concept of property. There's also a suspicion -- for what it's worth; it's a partisan shot -- that the socialist view of property is collective and therefore amicable to the aboriginal concept of property. It's this area of the concept of property I think we have to get on the record -- perhaps to address and alleviate some of these concerns and so on. So I would like to extend to the minister the opportunity to pursue this.
Hon. J. Cashore: Maybe the point of taking off on this one is where the hon. member referred to the collective. I don't think any form of government that wishes to have some element of the collective in its approach -- whether it's a first nations government or whatever that entity might be -- would preclude the belief that their reality is based in some measure on their relationship to the land. To support that point, I refer to the letterhead on the stationery of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. It states that the land is the culture. We could get into a good philosophical discussion as to what that means in the context of property, property rights and bringing the European tradition together with a tradition more in harmony with nature and all those sorts of things.
But the fact is that in today's reality we're dealing with an interface. Implicit in the negotiations is the recognition on the part of all three parties -- Canada, British Columbia and first nations -- that that interface exists. What comes together here is an amalgam of concepts around the meanings of land, property and all those other things.
I guess one of the ways that first nations people have survived the cultural onslaught has been by their adaptability. Therefore it is entirely possible to have a lively, vibrant and valid culture that, of its choice, takes on certain aspects that come from other traditions. That could indeed happen; I'm not saying that has happened. A culture is not something you find in a museum; it's dynamic and vibrant.
I think the stuff of a healthy culture is where there is choice and self-determination. The kind of cultural development that comes out of that reality of choice and respect and that would exist in the lively negotiations among the three parties would mean that, in that context, there is a much more hopeful future because of the element of choice people would have in determining how they wanted their culture to be dynamic and how they wanted to proceed.
Just to give an example, if I can go off on a bit of a tangent, I think anyone who's a student of aboriginal art would see a tremendously interesting history recorded and reflected within the evolution of that art, as various Iron Age tools or Industrial Revolution appliances became more available as time went by. That was then reflected in various renaissance activities with regard to the art of those people. In fact, there are some anthropological theories that that renaissance was in some ways encouraged by what appeared to be the destruction of a culture. But now we end up seeing first nations artists having incorporated a number of things, including the various artifacts available to them in post-contact times. What has emerged along with that has been their own decision as to how to express themselves in an art. Some of the basic themes and forms are still there, but the expression reflects the reality of today. So, too, I think we can apply that analogy to what happens in land claims negotiations in order to see something that might result in a people maintaining the integrity of their very being in that process. It's very hopeful.
To go off on another tangent, we can start to talk about the loss of languages from the face of the Earth. It's a tragic thing. Personally, I would link that to the loss of species in the context of biodiversity and say that there is a continuum that goes from biodiversity to the oral tradition of medicine that first nations people have. So there are many elements there, and I think it is in the interests of all of us to ensure that there continues to be that lively, vital, vibrant cultural development going on for a more hopeful future.
A. Warnke: There's another aspect that falls from this, and it revolves around the whole notion of compensation. Compensation takes different forms, such as the compensation that aboriginal communities expect as a result of some sort of land claims settlement. Connected with that is the question: what is being compensated? Resources, lack of resources and also extinguishment.... There's an expectation of extinguishment. If an aboriginal community is compensated in terms of its claims or whatever, connected with that is some sort of extinguishment on any sort of claim. There are those -- the UBCIC comes immediately to mind and some of the statements by its leaders, including its president -- who really are not enthusiastic about moving toward any sort of land claims or even about seeking compensation if it means that we extinguish claims and that sort of thing. So we have a bit of a problem there. Some simply do not want to be financially compensated. They have a concept of property that is collective -- the land is theirs. They're not interested in any move toward an extinguishment of claim, while others are negotiating with the two major levels of government to settle the land claims issues. I guess what I really want to focus on is the whole question of compensation and extinguishment, how that is related to the whole concept of property and whether the ministry has really thought that through.
[4:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: We prefer to look at the issue of compensation in the context of settlement costs, recognizing that the tripartite agreement relates to that process.
With regard to the issue of extinguishment, I would point out that since we have three entities, there are probably different perspectives on the part of those three entities. There is a difference between ourselves and the federal government on the issue of extinguishment. The federal government -- as far as I understand their position, and far be it for me to speak for them -- looks upon the process they are embarking on as one of extinguishment. We can see this in a number of ways, and that's why we are extremely wary about some of the initiatives toward doing away with the Indian Act. We see what's happening in Manitoba as a potential for off-loading of a federal responsibility under the guise of extinguishment or whatever the process may be.
We take a different position within the province. We believe that the issue of extinguishment is not one we wish to put out as a requirement. We look upon it, at the end of the day, as seeking to achieve certainty and a new, honourable future relationship. If we are able to establish that which results in the provision of certainty for all parties, we believe that continues to improve circumstances for first nations people in terms of such issues as health, poverty, employment opportunities for joint ventures, etc., and that issue will be addressed through that process. Therefore we do not look upon extinguishment as a fundamental tenet of these negotiations.
A. Warnke: I want to thank the hon. minister for the qualification on the concept of extinguishment and for the differences he's laid out between the provincial and federal governments.
[ Page 10315 ]
Still on the concept of compensation, I'm wondering whether the minister could outline from the ministry's point of view how compensation fits into this whole package of negotiating land claims settlements, given some of the warnings or concerns expressed by British Columbians. Uppermost in their minds is what sort of impact it has on their own property. I guess another question I could ask in relationship to that is: how is the ministry attempting to communicate in order to alleviate some of these concerns?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the last point, as I have said before, the recommendation in the B.C. Claims Task Force report is that the provincial and federal governments and the First Nations Summit should cooperate on a tripartite program of public education and information. The hon. member may not have been in the room earlier when I outlined some of the modus operandi for getting at that. I also recognized that we seek your help on that. Members of the opposition parties do have the opportunity to be in communication with first nations, and I genuinely welcome suggestions in this area. I outlined quite an ambitious program which indicated a number of initiatives involving television, various media and newspaper ads, community forums, meetings with service clubs and that sort of thing -- not to mention the direct consultations with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and the regional third-party processes that will be put in place.
I realize, too, that in the context of negotiations where confidentiality is important, I don't expect these criticisms to go away -- I really don't. When you're on the cutting edge, I think you're going to get criticisms because people are looking after their interests, and so they should. So I don't expect, when I go out talking to third parties, that it's always going to be a love-in. They're going to be trying to make a very strongly held point with regard to their interests. It's important for me to listen to what they have to say, take that into consideration and seek to represent their interests, because B.C. represents the interests of all British Columbians in these negotiations. So I understand that we're on the cutting edge, that there is going to be criticism and that we have to improve. I'm very proud of the fact that we've moved forward on this in an exciting way, and we are making progress.
With regard to the issue of compensation in the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement, as I said, considering that the province has the major responsibility with regard to Crown land going into settlements, when you factor in the values of that land based on certain very complex formula, our projected settlement costs would be about 17 percent. Given the time over which these agreements are being achieved and the implementation of the results of the settlements, we think this will be affordable for the province and within the commitment the government has made to balance the budget. We have to keep under consideration that we're not dealing here with something that is not subject to financial management. Indeed, we are representing the interests of the province. The province has a responsibility to have its short-term and long-term financial management plans in place, and these must be done. We said very openly that these must be accomplished within the context of that.
A. Warnke: When we are taking British Columbians into account, the earlier questions obviously referred to people with private property.
There is another area of concern here as well: the implications of land claims settlements and entitlement, and all the rest of it, for the most important industries of our province, particularly the forest industry and the mining industry. Both industries have said they feel extremely vulnerable. The forest industry obviously works with trees as the basis for developing. What they want is some certainty and predictability when they begin to develop a strategy for developing their companies or the industry in general. Of course, the concern has been expressed that the way we're proceeding will probably have some profound impact -- or that there is a possibility of that. So in that sense the forest industry feels extremely vulnerable and that they are currently in an era of uncertainty. The mining industry in particular feels most vulnerable; again, what they want is some sort of certainty in terms of land claims settlements. Since we've been focusing on one aspect of this whole compensation question in land claims settlement and entitlement, I'm wondering if the minister could elaborate on the implications of the settlement, as he sees it, from the provincial standpoint. Perhaps the minister could even elaborate on how the provincial government is doing its best to represent the vulnerable industries of our province. I think there's some lack of clarity, at least from the industry's point of view, on exactly what the provincial role is in representing their interests.
Hon. J. Cashore: Again, I think that implicit in the question is a very responsible approach. The issues the hon. member raises are on the cutting edge of the area where we need to be very diligent and very thorough in following through on our responsibility.
With regard to some of the sectoral interests in the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, for instance, there is a fisheries sectoral advisory committee, an energy, petroleum and mineral resources committee, a lands and forests committee, a wildlife committee and a governance committee. Different members of TNAC are on those various committees. They report to TNAC and into that process. So that kind of formal relationship has been established and will be established as we get the various sectoral committees around the province up and running on a regional basis.
But I would like to add that there is a changing ethic in our society, and I am very encouraged -- some of the comments the hon. member made stimulated this thought -- by the fact there are joint ventures. There are discussions taking place among forest companies, mining companies and first nations as to how they can work together -- in a sense, looking forward to the post-settlement period. They're getting out ahead of that, and they're starting to develop the kinds of processes that enable them to work together and build on agreements that employ first nations people. It's understandable that we quite often hear criticisms of government from industry, and I don't expect that to stop. At the same time, I want to commend industry and many within industry who have taken a very positive approach with regard to establishing these kinds of contacts. We see examples of that in a number of parts of the province.
Just to give you one example -- and I hope I have this right, but if not I'll correct it later -- there's the Iskut mine project up on the northwest B.C. coast, which is in the general vicinity of the Nisga'a claim area. There have been some discussions on that very subject regarding that project.
I would also point out, in addition to the points I've made about the cost-sharing agreement, that when it comes to settlements involving third-party compensation -- a mine, a forest company or whatever -- the costs would be shared fifty-fifty by the province and the federal government.
[ Page 10316 ]
Again, I want to emphasize that in the context of the negotiations, I think they're most effective when they're based on mutual interest. Obviously it's in the interest of the province to look for ways and means to mitigate the incidence...so that kind of settlement cost would be avoided. I think that quite often, when the parties can discover a mutual interest within an industrial activity in a certain area, it makes it more possible to mitigate that in that setting.
A. Warnke: As to the involvement of TNAC -- and they do represent quite well the industries I've mentioned -- as it stands now, of course, there's a process to report to TNAC. One thing I've been impressed by is that the members of TNAC know full well that the issues are too complex to become an integral part of the bargaining process -- that is, to give a veto or be a signatory or what not; that's just not on. At least that was the impression I got from that.
On the other hand, I think they have also said that what is critically important is more communication. One quick question to the minister is: what steps are being taken to facilitate that communication so that industry doesn't feel left out of the process and that they still feel part of it, even if they are not integrally involved in the negotiations?
[4:15]
Secondly, regarding the comments made by the minister, I just want to seek further clarification. It seemed that the minister was talking about the provincial government as a mediator or facilitator in establishing some sort of resolution, rather than as a clear advocate of the provincial interest. I would really appreciate it if the minister could clarify that for me.
Hon. J. Cashore: I have said several times that the province has a very clear responsibility to field negotiating teams that keep very closely associated with me, my ministry and other line ministries with regard to mandate development. There has to be a very clear reporting mechanism so that the mandate development process represents those provincial interests, which are the interests of all the people of British Columbia.
When I talk about negotiations being interest-based, I don't look upon that as anything other than a tool available to the negotiating team, which can help facilitate a creative and responsible result. Again, I think it bears repeating that successful negotiations will be in the best interests of all British Columbians, aboriginal or otherwise.
We've talked quite a bit about public information and education. Maybe I could just go through a few more points on that, because I think it relates to the theme of the questions the hon. member is raising. First, we know from research that most British Columbians would like to see a treaty settled with first nations; we are aware of that. But we're also aware, as the hon. member has pointed out, that there is a lot of concern out there about going into this new thing. Most British Columbians don't know an awful lot about it, and that's a responsibility that we have, as stated in the B.C. Claims Task Force report, and that we need to address. As I've said, phase one of the program to address that public education is underway.
I guess the question that has to be asked is: why are we negotiating treaties in the province? That question is in the mind's eye of the public. Some of the things that have happened include a community forum and open house in Prince George planned for June 8. That's just an example of the types of processes happening around the province.
Representatives from all three governments and the Treaty Commission are cooperating to provide information. There will be six to eight additional community forums and open houses held around the province in the near future. They will be supported by brochures, information sheets, displays, a video and other informational materials. The information will be mailed to interest groups, government offices, MLAs' offices, service clubs and what have you in order to get that information out there. The province has put out a new brochure called "In Fairness To All," which we looked at yesterday. Again, if you haven't seen it, we'd be glad to send it over to you, but we encourage you to make use of it. Also, a revised guide to aboriginal groups and organizations in B.C. has been distributed.
As the regional teams begin to negotiate with individual first nations, local public education and information programs will be developed to provide specific information to the local communities, reflecting their regional uniqueness. Some of this information will be developed in cooperation with the individual first nations, so it will be a creative, mutual interest project that we can work together on. We realize that we have a common ground, that we're in this together and that it's of mutual interest for Canada, B.C. and the first nations to do a good job of informing the public.
I've talked about some of the activities around the Nisga'a public education and information, so I don't think I need to go into that right now. Those are some of the steps that are underway.
C. Tanner: The minister is talking about cooperation with industry, and I can't let that go by without quoting from a guest editorial on the forest industry and aboriginal issues. Halfway through it says:
"We seem to have gone from an expectation that aboriginal people would have an opportunity to work in the forest industry, to an assumption that aboriginal groups would have some timber of their own, to a presumption that aboriginal people will ultimately own or control a good part of the timber resource in this province. Those most responsible for this trend are not aboriginal groups but governments, which have been unable or unwilling to set boundaries to what is possible. Comanagement agreements with no clear objectives have added to the climate of seemingly unlimited aboriginal involvement in land and resource management. Given the apparent lack of an overall government strategy, coupled with an inability to say 'no,' it is only logical for aboriginal groups to try and open the door as widely as possible. By refusing to convey limits to what can realistically be achieved, governments are contributing to inflated expectations and setting the stage for inevitable disillusionment."
This was written as recently as March by the forest industry. I think they have in mind one particular case in Alaska, where aboriginal groups were given possession of a large forest area which they clear-cut and shipped out of the state. While I hope that doesn't happen here, I don't think the minister is without criticism. If the industry -- one of a number -- has this sort of reservation, obviously the word is not getting out very well. Alternatively, it seems to me that you're not talking to the specific groups that have a vital interest in the decision that's being negotiated.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think this is one instance where I actually answered the question before it was asked. The point this hon. member just made is one I acknowledged a few moments ago, when I said that I fully expect the criticism to continue.
We're on the cutting edge. The view expressed in that document -- I believe I know the individual who wrote it -- is a reflection of a vigorous, aggressive and, from their perspective, appropriate approach on the part of industry.
[ Page 10317 ]
They want to make sure that their interests are well represented, and it is understandable that this is done in a somewhat aggressive context.
I am the first to recognize that we are in an improvement process with regard to the communications work we need to do. We will continue to do that, and that is why I have solicited advice from those of you whom I've heard in this debate. In all good faith, I feel that members of the official opposition want to see this process work, which, I believe, is the reason that you are pressing this point. I expect you and members of industry to continue to press this point throughout. I do not expect the criticism to go away. I recognize that we are making very significant progress in this area.
It's interesting -- a lot of times it depends on who you read. We've read criticism on the Nuu-chah-nulth agreement -- I'll be quite open about this -- in British Columbia Report. Indeed, I read in British Columbia Report a quote from a Mac-Blo official who was critical of the Nuu-chah-nulth agreement. But people came to the ceremony with openness and respect to participate in the celebration of that agreement, which is far-reaching, significant and historic, and is going to be a tremendous chapter in the history of the province, in terms of ways that we can come together to address issues.
We had a statement on the context of that interim measures agreement from Bill Cafferata of MacMillan Bloedel. He said:
"It is an honour for me to extend greetings and congratulations to the Nuu-chah-nulth on behalf of the shareholders, board members and employees of MacMillan Bloedel."
Bear in mind, he's talking about a federal-provincial agreement that has been negotiated, in which they were consulted.
"This event stands as a testimony to the fact that people everywhere in the world are demanding a stronger voice in the management of their affairs. Yet at the same time people everywhere in the world are demanding that people everywhere else in the world respect their right to manage their own affairs.
"This creates a bit of a paradox, and an opportunity for serious social conflict. But sometimes it takes a conflict to reveal common ground."
He then goes on to talk about the stewardship of natural resources as being a common ground that has brought people together in that context. I'm reading this to say that within MacMillan Bloedel there is this visionary individual who has recognized an opportunity that is here, if we're able to turn our minds and our talents to addressing it.
"Perhaps the most important element of the interim measures agreement is the opportunity it offers to approach resource management in Clayoquot Sound in a way that is fundamentally different from what we have done in the past. MacMillan Bloedel wants to be a full partner in bringing about this change."
I welcome that; I think it's implicit in the comments that we see, whether it's a statement of criticism or a different kind of statement that also comes out of the treaty negotiations advisory process. He recognizes that it's not easy, but he wants to be attentive to the task, he goes on to say. And during that event he also said:
"...the most important goal is to achieve the highest standards of stewardship, as measured by the values of diverse cultures, while at the same time providing substantial economic benefit to the Nuu-chah-nulth and other communities that rely on Clayoquot Sound. To ensure we achieve that goal -- and as a gesture of good faith on this special day -- MacMillan Bloedel proposes to the Nuu-chah-nulth that we create a first nations forest tenure on Flores Island and we approach this project as a joint venture between us."
I'm just saying that he came in good faith to give a very positive message with regard to the negotiations that had been completed and the result of those negotiations.
He then went on to introduce Linda Coady, who is an environmental representative for MacMillan Bloedel. She made a statement that I thought was absolutely exemplary, indicating an emerging ethic in industry. I want to read what she said:
"Bill has spoken about the kind of future MacMillan Bloedel would like to build in partnership with the Nuu-chah-nulth people. But there will be many here who will ask, how can we build a future with MacMillan Bloedel when there is no past on which to build? And I regret to say, that is a fair question. There has not been a long and productive relationship between the company I work for and the first nations of Clayoquot Sound. We have not been the best of neighbours. We do not know each other well. Occasionally we talked to you, but in retrospect it is obvious we didn't listen enough. We didn't include you when we should have in discussions and decisions that affect the forest resource and your way of life. We did some things we shouldn't have, and we didn't do some things we should have. An apology does not change the past. The past will always be what it was, but, learning from it, our concern now ought to be with the future -- a future that cannot be and will not be like the past. MacMillan Bloedel recognizes our future with you must be based on cooperation, partnership and working together. As Bill said, we accept the need to do things differently, to do things better. We are committed to change. We want to be good neighbours, good partners and, in time, perhaps even good friends. We hope you will give us the opportunity to make the future better than the past."
I read that statement into the record because I think that's an indication of the kind of hope that is available within the process that has been crafted and which is underway. I don't expect the criticism to stop from MacMillan Bloedel or from any other entity. I think that it's quite understandable, given that we're on the cutting edge, that they will be representing their interests very vigorously. But let's not lose sight of what is breaking out in the context of all this tension and angst. Let's recognize that what's breaking out is some very responsible, new thinking that is going to shape our children's future. And I am delighted to be able to say that that kind of thinking is actually coming from industry.
[4:30]
I think it's important, in establishing respect in the context of our relationships with first nations, to recognize the importance of an apology and the even greater importance of the need to establish new directions. We are at a time of great change, not only in our relations with first nations people but also with regard to how we do a great many things as we seek to integrate issues in the interest of a better future.
J. Tyabji: It's been a very interesting hour; a number of issues have come up. There are two that I bring to the table, but before doing that, I'd like to go over some of the comments from the last hour.
The minister has just completed a statement that he began by talking about the emerging ethic from MacMillan Bloedel with regard to the Clayoquot Sound agreement. I guess the question that comes to mind is: whose ethic is emerging and who drove that? Who is the person who has instigated that? And what is industry's interest in having that emerging ethic when they're dealing with the first nations? The minister talked about the fact that industry has learned from the past. It's quite clear that around the province -- whether it be in
[ Page 10318 ]
agreements with first nations or in regular practices -- the forestry companies have learned a lot from the past. They have learned those lessons primarily through submissions by members of the public and by the public driving home a very strong environmental message. The learning process has been driven by the public, after a long time during which forestry practices were not in the vein they are now.
I'm now going to go back about an hour in the minister's comments. He was talking about the European ethic versus the native ethic -- both as perceived by the minister, I would assume. I'm not sure how those are defined; if there is a definition or a policy paper in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, I haven't seen it. The minister was talking about an amalgamation of concepts on the meanings of land and about the interface of European and native definitions. This interface is a cultural evolution, and it's through the negotiations of the three parties -- the government of British Columbia, the federal government and the aboriginal peoples or the first nations -- that this cultural evolution will somehow be defined in the new structure or new government of the first nations.
That makes me very nervous, because we're in a Pacific province where a significant percentage of our population is neither European nor native -- or first nations or aboriginal, whichever term we're going to use in this committee -- in terms of their perception of the world. That would include not only definitions of land and how that's conceived but also how we approach our culture.
Where I have confusion is where the minister talks of the need to preserve biodiversity of species being analogous to the need to allow the first nations to have self-determination in terms of their perspective on land. By the same token, we see the government of British Columbia and industry getting into agreements with first nations on the basis of conventional ideas of land, in terms of what the government has traditionally done, as well as conventional ideas of commerce and land resource extraction, whether it be forestry or mineral extraction. These are joint ventures in terms of the government's conventional definition, not some sort of aboriginal definition. The third-order-of-government initiatives pursued by this government at the negotiation table are conventional determinations of government, not aboriginal ones. There is no way of instituting the aboriginal perspective on land of 500 years ago. It doesn't exist, because we have government institutions, road systems and taxation jurisdictions. You can't do it, so I don't understand how the minister is saying that some sort of interface of European and native definitions will be driving the treaty negotiation process.
Further to that -- and I'm trying to fit an hour's worth of the minister's comments into as small a time period as possible in order to have some sort of response -- if we're going to have self-determination of aboriginal peoples based on their original biodiversity or their cultural integrity, something that would have been around 150 years ago, how can we have that self-determination and joint ventures with industry? I don't understand how that can happen. The debate over a third order of government will probably take up a lot of the estimates, but I don't understand how we can do that. And if self-determination is one of the bases for negotiations at the table, who is representing the self-determination interests of non-native people who are living on native land and do not have voting rights or rights of representation within the aboriginal jurisdiction on that land?
The minister has said -- and I'll end my opening comments with this -- that of the parties at the table in the negotiations, the government of British Columbia is representing the interests of all British Columbians. That would include a significant population of people from the multicultural community -- and, of course, people outside industry and non-natives, who represent the majority of taxpayers and the majority of voters. The minister has said he recognizes that there will be criticism of the government's initiatives and representations at the table. He sees this as a criticism of his own initiatives because he's on the cutting edge. I would like to point out to the minister that sometimes criticism is because the government is on the wrong track and not the cutting edge. How will the minister represent the interests of the majority of British Columbians at that table if he is getting submissions from them which are critical of the minister's parameters for negotiation and he sees those criticisms as being expected criticisms because he's on the cutting edge? What would happen if those criticisms actually turn out to be criticisms representative of the majority of British Columbians, in terms of how they define their interests? How is that being represented, in terms of the mandate development process that the minister referred to earlier?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member asked who drives this ethic that I've been referring to -- I believe that was her....
J. Tyabji: Who defines it.
Hon. J. Cashore: Or who defines it. I think that was her first question -- a very good question. Different factors have to do with an emerging ethic within a society. I think it's possible to take a snapshot of society in its present form, and to ask theologians and ethicists and others to write comments on how they would describe the ethic existing within a society. They might talk about a wide variety of things having to do with sharing or selfishness, and various ways in which that society is functioning at that point in time.
Who drives an ethic? From time to time in history, there are people who have an ethical sense. It may be a people, in a collective sense, in which something new starts to come about, something that brings about change. It could be reflecting some historical crisis or problem that's happening. Whatever that may be, the point I'm trying to make is that I believe an ethic is emerging in terms of our relationship with first nations peoples, an ethic not owned by government, by business, by first nations peoples, by churches or any other entity out there, like anthropologists. It's something that is happening, and we see a gradual transformation taking place within society. I think that is viewed generally as a potentially positive thing.
I went on to say, in terms of the negotiations underway, that it is most likely to be an effective negotiation in that context, providing more positive results for all British Columbians, if it's done in a context where the negotiations are carried out with each of the teams being strong and representing the interests they're expected to represent.
I take the member's point about criticism. It's quite a valid point to say that criticism can simply mean you're doing a bad job -- of course it can mean that. I don't mean to indicate it can't mean that. But criticism can also mean there is a kind of discomfort based on the fact of change. The fact of change is uncomfortable. It's uncomfortable for all of us in many ways. It's a reality, and sometimes that discomfort is well worth it. I don't think it's up to me to say criticism isn't valid, that it's just indicating change, but it is up to me to realize that that criticism is going to be there. It's part of my job to
[ Page 10319 ]
appropriate the positive suggestions coming out of criticism and seek to make the best of it.
The hon. member raised a question about a point I made when I talked about post-contact European culture and the cultural values of first nations people. I guess I didn't succeed in making the point I was trying to make. It was a point stating very clearly that since culture is dynamic and not static, you cannot describe the culture of first nations peoples as something you find in museum artifacts from 400 years ago; to define a native culture that is dynamic and alive is to define it as it exists today. I also made the point that to exist today, first nations have had to assimilate some characteristics that were not characteristics that necessarily applied previously. In that setting, we were talking about different concepts of land.
Yes, the member makes a very good point in also pointing out that in the post-contact period involving Europeans, there have been many different peoples coming to this land who have added to the rich diversity of this land, and that is a very valuable thing which needs to be recognized in the present context. That's quite true. When I was talking about the European contact period, I was not trying to imply that that was the only reality; I was simply using that as an example. I think the hon. member makes some valid points, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify them.
J. Tyabji: When I was asking the minister about the emerging ethic, in addition to who drives it, I'd like to know if there's a definition of some kind of ethics, standards or goalposts that the minister is using when he talks about cultural identity. Whether it's the current cultural identity of the first nations or something that was used historically doesn't really matter. It just seems to me that a lot of nebulous concepts are being used as reference points, because everyone's got a lot of emotion about it; but I haven't seen anything on paper that says that these are the characteristics by which we define someone, other than the racial characteristics, and I don't know that those are acceptable. I haven't seen any definition of it, but the minister continues to refer to the ethics and to the historical native cultural integrity. Those things are very useful to have in some kind of concrete form.
The minister used the analogy of the basic forms of art of the aboriginal people evolving with Western artifacts and that it's very similar to the aboriginal lifestyle evolving with regard to land use after European contact, to use the minister's term. But I think it's important to put on the table that the minister, as the representative of the people of the province, is going into negotiations with the first nations and with the federal government using race as a determination for a government setup. It's one thing to have self-determination in terms of administration.... It's one thing to have self-determination in terms of cultural integrity and giving people the freedom and opportunity to pursue their culture, which I think everybody recognizes is of value to all people in the province. I don't take issue with the minister's intentions or statements that there would be positive results for all the people of the province in allowing the opportunity for the first nations to preserve as much of their culture and as much of the integrity of their lifestyle as possible. We see an ongoing debate as to where the line is drawn. An enormous issue -- and this is one of the two issues that I bring to the estimates -- which I think the ministry is pursuing contrary to the interests of the people of this province, the people at large, is where the minister has chosen to draw the line with regard to jurisdiction. When I say jurisdiction, I'm not talking of the boundaries of a piece of land; I'm talking about the jurisdictional rights accruing to the piece of land that is defined by the ministry and where those jurisdictional rights are applied.
[4:45]
The first instance that comes to mind in my riding is with regard to Gallagher's Canyon. This is an issue that I brought to the minister -- I have been corresponding with the minister in the initial stages -- and I want to address it in principle and then specifically. In principle, what we have is that the Westbank Indian band -- who have self-government, which until recently has been defined as administration and self-determination, and in that sense is very successful -- acquired a tract of land in Gallagher's Canyon, and in acquiring that piece of land, they applied to the federal and provincial governments for the same jurisdiction on the Gallagher's Canyon lands as they have on their land as the Westbank Indian band. If this were land wherein they were applying for some kind of administrative structure that fell within federal and provincial statutes, that's not something people would take too much issue with, because they have title to that land and some authority over that land. There isn't really an issue, provided they fall within the guidelines of the federal and provincial government for environmental standards and all the standards flowing from that. I think we're looking at a parcel of about 2,200 hectares. What is being applied for is government jurisdiction over the land, and that's what I need the minister's clarification on. In principle, is government jurisdiction transferable to a piece of land that is not historically the territory of a band?
In the case of the Gallagher's Canyon lands, the aboriginal people who were historically on that land have been urbanized. There is no band living on that land that would say: "This is our historical home." The Westbank Indian band are on the other side of the lake. They acquired the land through a trade for land within their reserve, and now they would like jurisdiction. This to me sets a potentially dangerous precedent of giving self-government and jurisdiction to a third order of government, which is independent of the federal and provincial governments, when they're on a piece of land that they have no historical connection to whatsoever. So could the minister could clarify whether, in principle, it is possible for any first nation to try to apply for the transfer of a piece of land not historically connected to the band -- when the minister is negotiating for a third order of government?
Hon. J. Cashore: On the issue of Gallagher's Canyon, the process has to be handled through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development -- they would be consulting with the community.
On the issue of reserve expansion, it is my understanding that this is fee simple land that the band wishes to have given reserve status. I understand that this has happened in Saskatchewan, but it's something that understandably needs to be approached with a great deal of caution. So I don't have an answer for the hon. member that states that the provincial government is a key player in this. The process is through Indian Affairs, and there could be consultation between Indian Affairs and ourselves with regard to some aspects of this.
J. Tyabji: There is.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member says there is, so perhaps she might want to put more of that information into the record. We'll try to get information back to her that would fill out the picture on this.
[ Page 10320 ]
J. Tyabji: I have some correspondence that I will bring in to the estimates tomorrow -- or at the minister's earliest convenience; I understand we're not sitting tomorrow.
The other issue I want to get on to is a fairly large one. It's with regard to manufactured homes on aboriginal land. The specific issue is with regard to arbitration through the Ministry of Housing, but it has something to do with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. There's been a ruling in my riding -- it may technically be in the riding of the member for Okanagan West, but we share a lot of these issues -- saying that the arbitrator does not have the jurisdiction to make a ruling with regard to a processing fee, due to the constraints of aboriginal land title and the rights that go with the land and self-government of the Westbank Indian band. The reason that I'm bringing it forward is that there are enough examples of arbitrators having direct jurisdiction with regard to the Residential Tenancy Act being in effect on aboriginal land. Where there's some confusion is that there's an impression that there's been a change in terms of jurisdiction for the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator may not be able to enforce the Residential Tenancy Act on land under aboriginal jurisdiction. I need to know from the minister if there has been any change. If so, what recourse do tenants have on aboriginal land?
Hon. J. Cashore: I haven't seen a copy of that arbitrator's decision, and I'd like to study it in order to be able to comment on it further. One of the issues here is how this issue, which I think the member has described well, applies to the treaty negotiation process. That's another dimension of it.
The Chair: I would like to advise that most of this issue is in another ministry, and it's not appropriate to pursue it too much further.
J. Tyabji: If, in fact, the Residential Tenancy Act does not apply, then it would fall into this ministry because it would fall under aboriginal affairs. As it stands right now with the ruling of the arbitrator, it is in this ministry. We have a tenant on aboriginal land who has paid a processing fee which, if it were under the Residential Tenancy Act, would not apply. Because it has been ruled that it does not, it does fall under this ministry, and for now I will go with the arbitrator's ruling. In the event of residential tenants on aboriginal land having disputes with their landlords, what is the mechanism by which they can have recourse through this government, if there is one?
Hon. J. Cashore: Not having seen the arbitrator's report, I'm not clear from the way the question was stated whether it is a question being asked by the hon. member or whether it's a question being asked in the arbitrator's ruling. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here because I don't have a copy of that in front of me.
J. Tyabji: I'll try to make this more general. We canvassed the issue last year -- and even the year before in these estimates -- of non-aboriginal people living on aboriginal land, who have to go through this minister. In fact, I've dealt not with this minister but with this minister's predecessor on some of these issues.
If there is a tenant on aboriginal land who is having a dispute with a landlord who is an aboriginal member -- in many cases, it would be a private company owned by an aboriginal person; in some cases it's a numbered company, but it falls under the jurisdiction of the aboriginal band who have self-government -- is there any recourse for that person through the provincial government, or do they have to deal directly with the aboriginal band?
Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that the existing law would require the tenant to take it up with the band. That's the circumstance under the existing law, and the historical relationship between aboriginal communities and the federal government. While we do recognize that it would be in the interest of the province to be able to facilitate the application of the provincial act in this instance, it would be by the willingness of the band. At the present time, one of the things that hopefully would prevail in this context would be the kind of goodwill that would enable that to take place.
J. Tyabji: My last question. When the minister talked earlier about the three parties to the ongoing first nations negotiations, he said that the province would be representing all the interests of the people of the province -- the interests of the general public. Considering that tenants on aboriginal land are taxpayers, voters and obviously members of the general public, to what extent are the rights of non-natives on native land being canvassed or brought to the table in the negotiations by the minister's office and by the minister's representatives? The minister referred to the mandate development process. To what extent are these rights being directed by the minister to his negotiators?
Hon. J. Cashore: We have canvassed this question, hon. Chair. Very briefly, the province is representing the interests of all British Columbians with regard to the treaty process. It is taking that very seriously and recognizing the cultural diversity of the province in doing that, and it intends to follow through on all the issues we have been discussing to quite a degree with regard to public education and to the variety of issues that are discussed in the treaty negotiation process.
I have some information here with regard to Westbank. It's my understanding that Westbank has prepared a bylaw that adopts the Residential Tenancy Act and is waiting for federal funding to implement the bylaw. The company has to deal with the band, since bands make bylaws, as they are entitled to do under the Indian Act. Jurisdiction over lands reserved for Indians is the responsibility of the federal government.
J. Tyabji: I have a piece of correspondence from the federal minister of aboriginal affairs, in which he states quite clearly that there is no funding for bylaw enforcement, and that even if the Westbank Indian band has the intention of adopting that bylaw, there is no funding. I don't know that funding is necessary for bylaw enforcement. Actually, I think the member for Okanagan West has done some work on this and is perhaps better qualified to address this.
By the same token, if the Westbank Indian band is going to adopt the intent and rules of the provincial act, I think they can do so without federal funding. I would yield to the member for Okanagan West if he has any comments or....
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure that I have anything to add to what I've already said. I believe that funding would be required for some aspects of implementation, but I think it is a positive sign that Westbank has prepared a bylaw. At least that's a step in the right direction. I'm not sure how much further this direction has been or will be taken, but I certainly want to participate in encouraging that type of approach in the present context.
[ Page 10321 ]
To reiterate, I think this is one of the issues that, hopefully, will be addressed in the tripartite negotiations that will be underway.
A. Warnke: I want to move a little beyond what we talked about before to what I termed yesterday as a notion of economic self-sufficiency and development on aboriginal land. I have a few questions on that to ask the minister.
[5:00]
Before I do that, I want to respond to some comments made by the member for Okanagan East. The idea that to maintain the cultural integrity of aboriginal peoples it must somehow be rooted in the past and is not supposed to adapt in the future.... In fact, in any definition of culture -- and I've actually looked at hundreds of definitions of culture -- one of the consensus points is that a culture is dynamic and adaptive. Indeed, Western civilization, Asian cultures and cultures from around the world are constantly adapting dynamically as the culture proceeds over the centuries. So I'm a little surprised that to maintain their cultural purity, the aboriginal people have to be rooted in the past -- and only in the past -- and anything else somehow compromises that. At any rate, I really feel, to some extent, that that has to be put on the record because maybe that notion is out there. Aboriginal peoples obviously want to become part of the twenty-first century. Indeed, I suppose one of the most exciting parts of life for our own generation is to see the aboriginal peoples become more self-confident, wanting to be plugged into the economy and trying to develop themselves for the twenty-first century. Part of their being culturally dynamic is to see themselves as developing their economy on aboriginal lands, and maybe off-reserve as well.
I would like to explore with the minister what the ministry strategy is towards promoting economic self-sufficiency. There is an obvious way to go, and that is to extend grants to the native community. That has been the practice in the past, but extending grants may actually contribute to the whole notion of dependency. Many aboriginal leaders have said that what they really want to get away from is this dependency on the federal government and always getting money out of them. "We want to move," say the aboriginal leaders and the aboriginal peoples, "toward some sort of economic self-sufficiency." That's really the way to develop it, and, in that context, that seems to be the direction for the twenty-first century.
I would like to ask the minister two questions. First, what are the steps and the strategy taken by the ministry to encourage the development of economic self-sufficiency, especially on aboriginal land? Second, I would appreciate it if the minister could also comment on off-reserve land use, which I believe is in the context of Treaty 8. I've come across some material, which I'm sure the ministry has, that how to address the question of off-reserve land use is one of the top issues with the first nations. I would really like to explore those two questions with the minister.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member makes very important points about the issues that go right to the core of what we're trying to achieve here. The concept of economic self-sufficiency is fundamental to the future success of any treaty. We could negotiate all kinds of treaties with lots of brave words, but if they don't have concomitant with them the process that would lead to economic self-sufficiency, then we have gained little. I'd be the first to recognize that. The ministry and the government have a number of procedures underway that would address this issue, but I would like to make a disclaimer right off the top. Perhaps it goes back to the ethics issue that has come into our discussion quite a bit. It's not something that government can do alone; by definition, economic self-sufficiency is not something that government can achieve on its own. We can look at all kinds of examples of government funding programs and government's ventures into the private sector that have not had the basic ingredients that would put together the kind of business plan that would work.
I've also seen examples where people have come in from on high -- and it's an oxymoron -- and tried to create a co-op among people who do not have a co-op background. It just doesn't work. We can have all sorts of government programs and initiatives -- and I think we should have, and we should try to be very creative about this -- but I do not think that we should look upon government as the means of resolving this issue. We should look upon government as a catalyst, a partner, a facilitator, a participant -- as in the oft-stated concept: give a person a fish and you feed that person for a day; teach that person how to fish and you feed him or her for a lifetime.
Of course, when we look at that in a holistic, world context, we're now seeing the crash of fishery stocks on the east coast, the crash of salmon stocks on the coast of Oregon and California. So even that concept about teaching a person to fish is coming into jeopardy, since we're not able to do the fundamental thing of protecting the planet so that those stocks will continue to be there for future generations.
Having said all that, we have some programs underway. There's the Native Economic Development Advisory Board, whose mission is to create an environment in which native peoples can realize their economic aspirations. Its goals are to promote employment opportunities for British Columbia's native population, to promote training and skills upgrading opportunities and to promote native business development. But again, it's fundamental that it must be their concept, their hopes, their aspirations and, really, their plan that make it work.
In the announcement the week before last of the forest renewal plan, there were five envelopes mentioned relating to various aspects of renewing the forest sector. Briefly, those five envelopes are: programs to enhance the forest where there has been harvesting through silviculture, thinning and so on; programs to rehabilitate where damage has been done, such as stream protection and rehabilitation to improve fishery stocks; an envelope to deal with skills and training for restructured jobs within the industry; an envelope to deal with community development; and one on valued-added. In virtually all of those five envelopes, there could be opportunities that would result in business and employment opportunities for first nations. Right there we have a program that has not been designed with envelopes marked "first nations," but where there is accessibility for first nations in terms of being part of that process, part of the planning. I think that's a good way to go.
There are going to be positions on the board for first nations people that will help to ensure that that program, as it gets underway and operates, represents those interests. So that's another initiative being undertaken by this government. Again, there has to be fundamental recognition that government of itself cannot be so arrogant as to expect to do that successfully without the integrated involvement of first nations people.
There is the First Citizens' Fund. These are some of the things that happened during 1993-94. Seventy-seven businesses were approved for First Citizens' Fund business loans; the total value of the loans disbursed was $3 million. There were student bursaries, the friendship centre program, etc., etc. The business advisory officer pilot project got
[ Page 10322 ]
underway during this fiscal year. Three centres are hosts for this project: Vancouver, Prince George and Fort Nelson-Liard. All hired business advisory officers, and the officers were involved in a variety of activities ranging from hosting economic development workshops to assisting individuals in developing business ideas.
I would also point out that the First Citizens' Fund business loan program has a 2 percent failure rate, which is significantly better than the failure rate when we look at the wide range of loan failures. However, I will admit right off the bat that it's a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison, because there is a 50 percent formula for return. Nevertheless, if you compare that to first nations loan programs right across the country, this is by far the best and most successful.
C. Serwa: What government set that up?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think we do acknowledge the foresight of W.A.C. Bennett in setting that up as a $25 million fund back in the late 1960s. That fund is part of the total picture I'm trying to paint.
I would say that in a period of five weeks, I think, I gave five speeches to aboriginal business organizations. I can't recite their names right off the top of my head, but there was an aboriginal women's business organization. They have a monthly luncheon; they have a guest speaker; they get together to share their ideas about how their businesses are going and what business opportunities are out there. A person like Calvin Helin, who was a four-year-old in Port Simpson when I lived there -- Lax Kw'alaams -- is now a successful lawyer working with a large law firm and has clients in many parts of the country, including Mohawk country. When he was at university, he had a role in establishing a process whereby he created opportunities for first nations people to look at business opportunities. I think we all know of personal examples, such as a Gitksan woman by the name of Dolly Watts, who has a catering business. There are really good examples showing up every year of success stories in this area, and they are showing that native entrepreneurship, self-sufficiency and creation of employment are improving in a lot of areas. We've got a long way to go, but there are a number of things like that.
I would again refer to the interim measures negotiations that have taken place. I've mentioned the negotiations with the Nuu-chah-nulth. There is a business development opportunity built into that negotiation process, which should result in employment opportunities for people there, leading to self-sufficiency. There's the kind of interim measure that this government has gone into -- and again I'll acknowledge the role of the previous government -- and that I had the opportunity to preside over. That was the dedication of the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park. Much of that work had been done prior to my getting into the office, but it was a great honour to go up to the Nass and stand there with Alvin McKay and unveil a plaque designating a park. It is a very significant historic site where a volcano about 250 years ago wiped out two villages -- sacred land. This was a government-to-government accomplishment, and certain things such as employment opportunities for park rangers and that sort of thing would relate to the local population. So, too, with regard to the Klahoose first nation Von Donop Park that was recently announced and the Nemaiah Valley Indian band park, which is called Ts'yl-os Provincial Park. Those also came as a result of a consensus process. There would be opportunities for employment within that context for first nations people.
[5:15]
Of course, last but not least, there's the Kwakiutl first nations memorandum of understanding that was negotiated, involving the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. It's a consultation with agreement that establishes processes to ensure that the province is meeting its obligations to recognize the aboriginal rights of the Kwakiutl first nations in the issuance of sub-aquaculture and foreshore tenures. Again, within the context of that interim measure, it ensures economic and community development and capacity building for first nations through training, employment, cooperative management and research initiatives.
In a nutshell, what I am trying to say is that there is no panacea. It can't be done by government alone, but I am proud of the initiatives this government is involved in, and I believe if we see our role as facilitator-enabler, we will have a better chance of being able to enhance that self-sufficiency. But first of all, we have to recognize that the drive needs to be there, and the recognition of the first nations peoples as seeking to achieve their vision, their identity, in this context is very important. I guess what I am saying is there needs to be motivation on the part of that person whose efforts in some cases are being enabled with the involvement of government.
A. Warnke: I appreciate the elaboration on various other opportunities and success stories of the aboriginal community. When we discuss where many aboriginal communities exist in British Columbia, in particular the northern and eastern parts of our province, and when we talk about economic self-sufficiency, I suppose we can explore this in the context of the primary industries. A few moments ago we did talk about the vulnerability of the forest and mining industries. Incidentally, I'll add to that. The minister's response to an old adage about fishing is certainly most appropriate, because I think there is a concern that the fishing industry is also quite vulnerable in this province. Perhaps there are others in the primary sector as well, but for the time being, fisheries, forestry and mining comprise the bulk of the primary resource industries in this province, and they are at locales where most or many aboriginal communities exist. Therefore, in this context, as we explore this whole question of economic self-sufficiency and economic development in these areas, I'm wondering how the ministry plans.... What sort of strategy has the ministry in place so as to enhance economic self-sufficiency and development where in fact the key primary resources -- fisheries, forestry and mining -- exist?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have responded to some aspects that the hon. member has referred to. I commented on some of the interim measures that have taken place and on the arrangements under the forest renewal plan. I would also say that line ministries -- Forests; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- also recognize responsibilities in this area. I understand that the Mines estimates are concluded, but I believe there have been some initiatives there that could be referred to in this regard.
As I said earlier, I think part of this is being addressed in a very creative way by industry reaching out to form partnerships, joint ventures and various other approaches, where they have undertaken the process of consulting with first nations even in the pre-negotiation process. So I think some of those things are underway and are happening. I know of an individual -- I think it's Chief Earl Smith of the
[ Page 10323 ]
Ehattesaht band -- who is in a joint venture involving helicopter logging, and there are other examples like that.
But the hon. member asked about the ministry's strategy, where these primary resources exist, to be able to address these interface issues, especially where the fishing, mining and forestry industries are finding themselves going through quite a readjustment. I would say that one of the instruments in the toolbag is the interim measures process. Again, in the interim measures process there is an opportunity to ensure that those interests are being addressed as we look at that. There are possibilities for developing joint ventures, and there are also ongoing interactions with the various line ministries. But I would say that government can only go so far in terms of coming up with the kind of assistance that resolves this.
I believe the real creativity will come from those dynamic new partnerships and entities that are being formed, and we need to have a good sense in government of when to participate and be a catalyst, and when to back off and allow things to take their course.
I would ask that the hon. member not wrap up with the next question, because I have a couple of things I want to say before we report back.
C. Serwa: How much time do I have, hon. Chair?
The Chair: The normal break time for us is 5:30, which is about seven minutes away.
C. Serwa: How much time will the minister require?
The Chair: Three or four minutes.
C. Serwa: Then I'll probably ask just a couple of questions and leave the rest for the next session.
I would presume that the objective of the minister and of the government of the day is to treat all British Columbians equally and consistently. That's one question I expect the minister to respond to. In the interests of fairness, balance and consistency, the member for Okanagan East raised the question.... On a point of information, I'll indicate what transpired.
First of all, she was referring to amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act. Fundamentally, the bylaw will allow the band to adopt government legislation and regulation with respect to that. But in order to ensure fairness, balance and consistency -- not simply economic development for the band, because the wish to be able to exercise that responsibility at band level is an economic development initiative rather than the other one -- we already have an agency established in the province to attend to these matters. That agency is willing to accept the responsibility to attend to the matters of concern for non-native residents on band land. All that is required, obviously, is for the band to adopt that legislation by bylaw.
The second item is the willingness to accept the decision of the arbitrator. For the information of the minister, the band has already been willing to accept the arbitrator's decisions in several cases in the Westbank band situation. It's not really a problem, and that's where it is at the present time.
You spoke earlier about the taxation opportunities that federal legislation gave to bands, and said that it's functioning well without any problems. For two years prior to the implementation of that, I worked hard to bring to the attention of three ministries of our government -- Finance, Municipal Affairs and Native Affairs -- the collision course on which we were heading because no accommodation had been made.
One of the things that is important in the treaty negotiation process is to establish a type of protocol agreement so that other governments on other levels have some sort of formal opportunity to get together and discuss problems of mutual concern. It's the only thing we can do now because of the real fact that the provincial government has very limited influence over bands within the province. Status natives on band land are fundamentally the responsibility of and under the authority of the federal government rather than the provincial government. We were left by the federal government without any sort of formal protocol agreement. We still have permutations of that problem occurring. It has surfaced, for example, in a dispute over the allocation for the Okanagan Regional Library assessment by the non-native members.
I see that the time is going forward, so I'll continue on this and not lose my train of thought. I give the floor to the minister.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for bringing us up to date with some more information on that Westbank situation.
I took a question this morning on notice, so to speak, from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on some aspects of the Nisga'a situation, and I want to respond. With regard to the Nisga'a population, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development information is that there are 4,528 Nisga'a registered now. The provincial negotiators estimate approximately 5,500 Nisga'a will enrol in the treaty. The increase is due in part to individuals who lost status, through federal practices, in being able to enrol.... Secondly, to clarify.... I've having some difficulty reading somebody's handwriting here. For people of Nisga'a ancestry, the mother must have been born into one of four tribes, or be descended from two such persons. And third, provincial negotiators have ensured that provincial interests, as recommended in these procedures.... All parties will have....
C. Serwa: Let it be stated for the record that confusion reigns supreme in the matter of the....
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm having a little difficulty with this handwriting. Recognizing that confusion does not reign supreme, but that there is some limited confusion, I will have to come back with a more legible copy. It's probably due more to my lack of eye-to-brain coordination than it is to anybody else's handwriting.
I just wanted to make a few closing remarks summarizing a bit of where we are. Issues have been raised with regard to vision. We believe that a relationship between aboriginal people and other British Columbians must be based on equality and respect; that the fulfilment of aboriginal peoples' aspirations for self-determining and self-sustaining communities is part of that vision; and that social and economic benefits for all British Columbians will result from cooperation and certainty.
With regard to the Nisga'a negotiations, we acknowledged there was an interim protection measures agreement extended to March 31, 1995. We have agreement on eligibility and enrolment provisions. We have agreement to develop a joint pilot project on pine mushrooms that will provide the province with critical information on this important forest resource. We have a goal of reaching agreement in principle by the end of this year.
[5:30]
[ Page 10324 ]
With regard to other treaty negotiations, we have established legislation and funding for the B.C. Treaty Commission. The provincial negotiating teams are in the process of being put in place. Significant work has been done on the contribution to first nations negotiating costs. Mandate development has been carried out on topics such as certainty, enrolment, ratification, amendment procedures, overlapping territories, approaches to land and resource issues, self-government and taxation, interim measures, social and economic development provisions, financial provisions and treaty implementation. Consultation processes are in place. Public education initiatives are planned and underway.
With regard to the First Citizens' Fund, 77 businesses received loans of $3 million, 140 students were awarded $120,000 in bursaries, and 21 friendship centres have been funded to hire program directors.
With regard to the heritage, language and culture program, there are 16 grants totalling $1.4 million to aboriginal communities and organizations for language and cultural programs, including $300,000 to the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council and $150,000 to the Campbell River band to build cultural centres. The pre-treaty policy tables with the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs are already in place, and additional policy forums for off-reserve organizations are being organized.
With that, I'd like to move that this committee rise, report considerable progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:32 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]