Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11635 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: Today is a wonderful day. Tim Murphy, who is in the gallery with us, finalized his daughter's adoption just hours ago. I know this Legislature joins with me in wishing this family every possible happiness. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

The Speaker: I recognize the marvellously attired Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

As the member for Richmond has just said, today is indeed a wonderful day. It's Tartan Day, our annual dress-up and celebration, in British Columbia. Last week, as you recall, we welcomed many members from the Sikh community in the galleries. It was the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa. Today we're welcoming many people from the Victoria Joint Scottish Council and community, and I thought, what do the Sikhs and the Scots have in common? Well, they're both hard-working groups and tough fighters, and they never give up. There are at least three or more members of Scottish descent in the cabinet, and some opposition people claim to have some Scottish blood in them.

[1410]

G. Campbell: I was just thinking about whether or not I'd respond to that last announcement.

The Speaker: Being a good Scot yourself.

G. Campbell: I'm surprised you didn't say I was well-dressed today, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Oh, sorry. You are well-dressed today.

G. Campbell: Thank you very much.

It's my pleasure today to rise and welcome to the House the four interns who will be working for the B.C. Liberal caucus in opposition over the next few months. As you know, hon. Speaker, every year young people from across British Columbia -- and sometimes from across the country -- come and join us here in the Legislature to learn about how government works in British Columbia. Believe me, it's an eye-opener for them.

I would like to welcome today our four interns: Faith Armitage, who's a graduate of UBC's political science department; Beatrice McCutcheon, who's a graduate of UBC and has studied international relations; Tera Nelson, who's a political science department graduate from the University of Victoria; and Quentin O'Mahony, who is a history cooperative-education graduate from the University College of the Fraser Valley. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the honour of introducing 72 grade 11 and 12 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in the Vancouver-Kensington constituency. Accompanying them is Ron Boulding, a good friend of mine and their teacher. May the House please make them welcome.

W. Hartley: In the members' gallery today we have a visitor named Linda McDougall, the daughter of a Spanish instructor who was at the University of Victoria 20 years ago and returned to England. Linda's here now to revisit her birthplace and look up old friends and haunts on her parents' behalf. She's also enjoyed a marvellous holiday snowboarding the magnificent powder of Red Mountain in Rossland. Would members please make her welcome.

V. Anderson: I'd like the House to make welcome Dr. Balmer and students from the political science class at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. This is his twentieth year of coming here with students on a regular basis to visit and inquire about activities in our Legislature. It's also been 20 years that he's made his resting place, while he's here, the Crystal Court Motel. I'd ask the House to make him and his class welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I notice in the gallery today a very good friend of mine, an NDP candidate in the last federal election and a strong supporter of both myself and the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. Would the House please welcome Malcolm Crockett.

B. McKinnon: I too would like to extend my welcome and congratulations to Tim Murphy on this fortunate and wonderful day for him, on his adoption of his little girl.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today on what's sure to be another day of debate on Nisga'a are two members of the Musqueam nation, Mr. Jim Kew and Mr. Nolan Charles. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C. CREDIT RATING DOWNGRADE

Can the Minister of Finance tell the House how many fewer teachers, how many fewer nurses, how much longer people will have to languish on hospital waiting lists to pay for these added interest costs that the NDP has generated?

[1415]

Interjections.

[ Page 11636 ]

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know, hon. Speaker, that they're always looking for the spin, but I'm giving it to the House straight today: it is a balanced report, and it does involve a downgrade. Yes, those are the facts.

But it also says that the government made some recent policy choices to continue deficit spending and heighten debt financing to support its operating and capital plan. Specifically, education, health and transportation infrastructure facilities were the focus of heightened spending targets. It is exactly because of our investment in teachers, in schools, in shorter wait-lists, in increased cancer procedures and in facilities for smaller class sizes that we are spending more money. Yes, the consequence of this is a downgrade. However, the credit-rating agency also says that there are some very strong strengths, through which our economy will survive.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The Canadian Bond Rating Service, in carrying out its second consecutive downgrade for this government, says that the government's reckless borrowing binge "will exacerbate the government's deteriorating fiscal position." If these downgrades carry over to Standard and Poor's or to Moody's, it will cost taxpayers in this province millions of dollars more.

Doesn't the minister understand that the taxpayers of British Columbia cannot stand to spend more money on interest costs when, under the NDP's reign, they have seen the average take-home pay of a taxpayer in B.C. go down by $1,000 a year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, this budget was all about choices; there's no question that this budget was about choices. We on this side made our choices; we are still waiting to hear about the choices that the opposition would make.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat just for a moment. Members, the question was very clearly heard. The answer also deserves to be heard.

Minister, just finish up your comments.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no question that we're waiting to hear what the opposition's choices would be. Somehow the opposition stands up and says that you can invest in health care and you can invest in education, and you can do it by cutting taxes to the lowest ever in Canada. You can have your debt resting at about. . . . I think the opposition leader speculated on debt at about $10 billion.

So we on this side have a question for those on that side: which schools would you not build, which hospitals would you not build, which roads would you not build. . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you very much.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .in order to protect what you consider to be the credit rating amongst all credit ratings?

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The people of British Columbia deserve to make a choice. That's why it's essential that this government call an election.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, the thing that's incredible. . . .

The Speaker: Members. . . . The member has the floor.

G. Campbell: This government is spending $2.6 billion a year in interest costs alone. That's over $7 million a day, in case the Finance minister hasn't done the calculations. That's $7 million to pay for deadweight debt in this province. Can the minister tell the House how much more money will go to the banks instead of the schools and hospitals as this government continues to pile on debt after debt and interest charge after interest charge?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I must say that I am troubled by the opposition leader's call for an election. He would actually wish death upon half a dozen of us in order for him to have his way with an election. I must say that my colleagues and I were extremely troubled on behalf of our families. I would ask that hon. member -- sorry, I would ask that member -- which of our families he would wish that on. You know, this Liberal opposition. . . .

[1420]

The Speaker: Members. . . . Everyone, please, let's have a little quiet.

Minister, continue and finish up your comments, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The only reason there needs to be any debate in this House is so that this Liberal opposition can actually put their money where their mouth is. If the Liberals were in charge, under that Leader of the Opposition, the wait-lists would be longer, schools would not be built. . . . You know what? People would be poorer.

B.C. FERRIES DEBT LOAD

I wish the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast would stand up for his principles. He used to stand on this side of the House and say that the increasing government debt was a way of entrapping future generations of British Columbians. That's what he used to say, but now. . .

The Speaker: And the member's. . . .

C. Clark: . . .he's in charge of a Crown corporation whose debt ceiling has gone up to $1.4 billion.

[ Page 11637 ]

C. Clark: How is it that he can defend the massive increase in debt load to B.C. Ferries today when it was only two months ago that he sat down at that end of the House and condemned it?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, there will be no answer at all if there isn't some silence so members can hear the answer.

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't need to take a lesson from that member when it comes to principles. When that member was a Young Liberal, when that. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . .member was a federal Liberal, when that member believed in signing treaties for first nations. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Wilson: . . .and believed in providing health care for British Columbians. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Wilson: . . .and believed in putting education first, that member was a Liberal. That member today has no principles at all to sit there in a group that would put first nations on the streets, that would not look after health care, would not look after education and would simply provide conflict.

That member can take it from this minister that the B.C. Ferry Corporation will be turning a corner with respect to its financial debt.

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. G. Wilson: The B.C. Ferry Corporation will be in a position to provide sound, adequate service for British Columbians. That member can take that. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . .to the bank.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

C. Clark: I can take these answers to the bank, and the NDP will take British Columbia to the cleaners. That's what's going to happen.

This is the same man who used to stand and attack the NDP for raising the B.C. Ferries debt from $60 million to $1 billion. Now he's colluding with the government, he says it's okay to have a debt ceiling raised to $1.4 billion.

The Speaker: Member, the question, please.

C. Clark: Can the minister explain for us today what the difference is between the NDP's old habit of loading debt onto B.C. Ferries which he used to condemn, and the NDP's new habit of loading debt onto B.C. Ferries which he now apparently wholeheartedly embraces?

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'd be happy to explain to that member how those of us who believe that we have to take on tough challenges in British Columbia are prepared to take them on. Some of us in this House believe that in the interests of the British Columbia public, we should shoulder together to make sure that we solve problems and not simply sit on the sideline, call names, cast stones and do nothing sensible -- nothing at all -- with respect to solving problems.

[1425]

REPORTS ON SURGERY WAIT-LISTS

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: No, but my colleague is.

I think it is important to remember that in this budget there was $50 million more allocated to reduce wait times. So 58,000 more surgeries and diagnostic procedures will be funded in this year's budget, hon. Speaker. Our wait-time report is due out in two weeks. Should there have been one out. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Minister, complete your sentence.

Hon. P. Priddy: Should there have been a wait-time report out earlier? Yes, there should have been, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 11638 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: But bear in mind that what we have done is target dollars to wait times, and we're seeing results.

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. P. Priddy: Cardiac surgery has been reduced by one month of waiting already.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Your time is up.

First supplementary, Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: When the wait-list report was released in November of '97, that minister told us that there was $120 million for wait-lists. Nothing was effective. Last year they put ads in the paper saying that the increase in health spending was to reduce wait times. This year we've got press releases coming out talking about how they're dealing with wait-lists, hon. Speaker.

Will the Minister of Health confirm that the reason these reports have not been produced in the last two years is because when they saw the data, when they saw that the hundreds of millions of dollars that they were spending were not producing reduced wait-list times, they therefore suppressed this information from the public of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: Are wait times up across the province in a variety of surgical areas? Yes, there are. Given the fact that every time doctors take a reduced activity day, 2,000 people have their surgeries cancelled, it is hardly unexpected to see surgical wait times up, hon. Speaker. But it has not been suppressed because wait times are up. In some areas wait times are actually down. Those are the ones that the opposition doesn't talk about, and this is the opposition that says that $6 billion is enough to spend on health care. We're spending $8 billion, and they're asking for more. They just did. The hon. Leader of the Opposition just did, hon. Speaker. So they'd better get clear. . .

The Speaker: The minister will finish up, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .on whether they want to protect health care for citizens in British Columbia or just politically grandstand on wait times.

[1430]

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

On the schedule, chapter 5 (continued).

G. Abbott: I'd like to pick up the debate on the forest resources chapter of the Nisga'a agreement, which we commenced just prior to the adjournment of the House last Thursday. The Minister of Forests, I know, was not with us at that time, and I'm glad to see him here to join us today to answer some of the questions which have been posed.

What we had done to date was talk about the licensees involved in that area, the volumes associated with the licences of those licensees and some initial questions around how compensable loss would be determined for those licensees if indeed the government did see a compensable loss. Where we had left off, pretty well, was in discussion with the Aboriginal Affairs minister. We talked about how that compensable loss would be determined. The minister pointed out that there were two elements to that -- first of all, the evaluation of loss. At the time we adjourned, we were exploring some of those elements in determining the evaluation of loss. Then, I believe, we were going to go on and talk about how the compensation packages would be determined by the government and the affected licensees.

[1435]

That led to the question I posed, which I guess is a very important one at this point, which is whether disruption or shortages or losses in fibre flows to mills, which are a consequence of this agreement and the creation of the 2,002 square miles of Nisga'a land -- those issues of fibre loss to mills -- would also be something that would be a compensable loss from the government's perspective. I'll begin again. As I understood it, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Forests were going to discuss this at some point on the weekend. I presume that they have, and I presume that they can provide an answer to that important question at this point.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, let me say that I'm sorry if there was a miscommunication. It was my understanding that we had an arrangement that I wouldn't be here. I was in Squamish with 500 people at a meeting. I'm sorry if it created an inconvenience on the other side, but I thought we had it arranged. I do realize that it was the second time we postponed these, and I'm glad we're in it now. Hopefully, we can stick to it.

[ Page 11639 ]

But with respect to whether or not there is a compensation for the loss of cut -- that is, the logs -- and the loss because of some impact on the mill operation, I'd have to say this. The mill itself, if it were compensated, would be a form of double-counting. The actual economic determination is in the loss of flows to the mill. They can buy the logs. The money they get for some kind of compensation is money they can use to source supply from the private market or for elsewhere in the region.

G. Abbott: I think we'll want to explore some of the elements in the minister's answer. The first point I want to pick up on from the minister's response to my question is this: how can the licensees assume that most, if not all, of those 220,000 cubic metres that are produced annually from that 2,002-square-kilometre area will continue into the future? It would seem to me, based on the agreement, that certainly there are some safeguards -- although they diminish over time -- but after year 9. . . . I know we're going to talk about this in more detail later, but I don't see where companies could take comfort or certainty that that volume will be there after year 9.

[1440]

What has been provided for in the compensation will be based on the value of the logs -- the general market value of the logs. They have compensation, so they can purchase those logs.

G. Abbott: Again, in terms of potentially reduced fibre flow. . . . Again, I appreciate that if the logs are harvested and if they are not going to a new Nisga'a processing facility after year 10 and presuming that they're not exported, then presumably they would be available in the marketplace. I don't know whether the cost at which they could buy them in the marketplace will be equal to the level of compensation provided, and I'll ask the minister that in a moment.

But on the first question which I posed about the fibre flows themselves, I do want to quote from the Vancouver Sun business section of February 24, 1996: " 'Over the short term, the companies can rely on the flow of timber,' said Nisga'a chief forester, Collier Azak. 'But as the Nisga'a assert more authority, expect less timber,' Azak said. He estimates the Nisga'a may want to drop the current harvest anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent to ensure other values besides timber are preserved on their own lands."

It seems to me to be fairly straightforward what the chief forester of the Nisga'a nation is saying. That is that from the Nisga'a perspective, their values suggest that harvesting timber may not be the highest and best use. We may see a reduction of up to 50 percent in the harvest level as a consequence of the Nisga'a asserting control as per the agreement. Given that, is there still a sense, from the minister's perspective, that there is a comfort level there for the licensees?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the first nine years I think there is comfort; after nine years we can expect that most mills in the province will go through a generation of investment and change in product.

Everywhere in British Columbia we're going to have to go from volume to value. I think that's a long time horizon, and I think that people can, in that time, get ready for the prospect. As the Nisga'a people begin to plan their own land base -- and through the transition period we will be working closely with them on issues of what a sustainable cut in that area that is subject to the claim is -- they will have to, as you know, raise revenues by whatever means. Selling trees is potentially one of them. That's why in fact the trees have been provided: as a currency for paying part of the treaty costs.

So for the first nine years there is a very high degree of certainty on the volume. I would say that after that, it really is a question of the market forces. I would add and remind you that they are located in northern British Columbia. The Cassiar TSA has undeveloped forest resources. We're going slow there; we're following land use plans in my determination of the portion of the cut. So there is going to be cut available in parts of northern British Columbia. As you know yourself, industry has said that logs are going to have to flow to their most economical use, and that's the debate we're going to have here.

But there is no guarantee that they'll have exactly the same supply after year 9 as has been guaranteed by the agreement of the cut for the first nine years. But that is a long time horizon, and I fully expect that anybody who is competitive in the sawmill business in northern British Columbia will be able to source a supply from the region.

[1445]

Now, I don't disagree with what the minister is saying about companies having to adjust, perhaps on a daily basis, to new situations they face. But I think there's a difference between the situations which confront industry that may be purely a product of the marketplace or of international circumstances or whatever, compared to those situations they face because governments have made public policy decisions which have had a negative impact on them. So I would suggest this: if we are attempting to right some wrongs and enhance a social good by the creation of the Nisga'a treaty, is it fair, where there is evidence of adverse economic consequence, to deny the opportunity for compensation to the licensees who will be negatively affected?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A couple of things. Remember that the gentleman you quoted -- I think it was Collier Azak. . . . At

[ Page 11640 ]

I think the point is that we are prepared to accept that there is compensation for reduced AAC. But we pay based on the logs, not on paying twice for an impact on, say, timber production in a sawmill. You could go on then and say: "Well, the value-added plants -- what about them? They make higher value and therefore should be compensated." So the primary commodity is AAC. That's in log form, and that will be compensated. We won't compensate twice.

G. Abbott: Certainly I don't think I want to go down the road that the minister is suggesting, on the value-added firm getting more because they produce a product of higher value. But it would seem to me that if a mill is operating on a three-shift basis and has an economy of scale built around that three-shift basis, and if it's clear that there is going to be a reduction in fibre supply such that they will have to, for example, move from three shifts to two shifts, and as a consequence their economies of scale are disrupted, then I think there is certainly an argument to be made for compensation. Does the minister agree?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The point is that they're paid enough. They're paid the market price for the logs. By definition, then, if that's the market price for logs, they have enough to buy on the market.

G. Abbott: When the minister says "the opportunity to buy on the market," is he referring to the value on the open market in that particular region or the Vancouver log market? How does the minister see that working?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It will be based on log values in the region, as was the basis of our estimates for compensation. We know there's a range of values, and there's transaction evidence. But it will be regionally based. There isn't much of a private log market there, so it would have to be mostly by transactions, I guess.

[1450]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I was already starting on the answer to your first question, and I missed the second one. So I'll ask you to repeat that.

On the first one, with respect to infrastructure, the position we're taking is that the undepreciated value of those assets will be what people will be compensated for. If there's a way the asset can be replaced, moved or whatever, there's probably no need to compensate for that. It's the undepreciated value of the infrastructure -- roads, bridges, etc.

G. Abbott: The second part of my question was whether development costs that were incurred during the transition period would be compensable losses under the agreement.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'd expect the licensees to only do things during the transition period for which they can recover the costs. It's known at the end of the transition period that they have no operation. They may hope they will in future dealings, through a partnership or business arrangement with the Nisga'a. They might wish to do that in anticipation, but as of the date of implementation we know that the clock is ticking for five years.

I'd have to ask the question: why would they do that? They know they don't have any tenure or any licence rights after that point. If they're going to be developing some operating areas, they should know that that's outside the treaty lands or based on a business plan and an agreement with the owner of that land. They may well have such a relationship develop by that time.

G. Abbott: The concern here, I think, is that during the transition period -- I suppose years 1 to 5, really, but also years 5 to 9 -- the licensees, if they wish to extract timber from their licences in that area, will be obliged to harvest under the terms of the Forest Practices Code. That is going to involve expenditures and liabilities around bridges and roads and all the rest. It may not be possible to pick up and move out of there. In those instances where it would not be reasonable to attempt to remove the physical improvement, would that be a reasonable compensable loss under the agreement?

[1455]

G. Abbott: I guess probably part of the concern here is that with the arrival of the effective date, whenever that is. . . . Presumably it would be relatively soon after the ratification of the agreement. When we reach the effective date, there's going to be a new way of doing business in that area. We're going to be living an experience in public management that we haven't lived before. It seems to me that it may well be that, for example -- I can't recall the name of the committee, offhand -- the joint committee of, I presume, one of the district managers and the chief forester of the Nisga'a will be jointly making decisions about cutting plans and so on. It may well be that the process is slower than the one that has been in

[ Page 11641 ]

Again, if there are demonstrable ways in which the processes, the content or the terms and conditions of the agreement have had an impact on the costs the companies face or their case for compensation, will that be treated as a reasonable compensable loss under the agreement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it seems that the line of questioning is really going to increase the amount of money that we would be paying to private companies when we're trying to find a fair amount. If what I hear you saying is that you expect the Nisga'a to change the rules on day one of implementation, then I think we have covered that off. We've covered it off in that the Forest Practices Code applies; the provincial code applies. They will know the rules.

There are time lines built into the appendices. If you want, I can get you the references. We built time lines in so that the processing of permits and so on has to proceed on an orderly basis. Clearly the province will take that very strong viewpoint that we're. . . . The whole point of a transition period and the transition provisions is that we have an orderly transfer. So exactly the sorts of things that you're concerned about won't happen. There's going to be the odd glitch for sure. But I think we've provided in here a reasonable process, including time lines, for approvals of permits and so on under the Forest Practices Code.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise whether there are any other elements which the ministry will be considering in their evaluation of compensable loss that we have not discussed in this discussion to this point?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I believe that it was covered off in one way or another. The damages for disturbing the operation, the AAC reduction and the infrastructure have sunk costs that have not been depreciated.

G. Abbott: In terms of the 220,000 cubic metres that has been cut in this area -- which, if not alienated or lost, will certainly find its way to the market in a different way than it has in the past -- is it the view of the ministry, in terms of making the licensees in that area whole once again, that those 220,000 cubic metres can be found elsewhere in the northwest?

[1500]

G. Abbott: I appreciate that until the chief forester makes his determination, at some point after the ratification of this agreement, there can't be complete certainty. But does the ministry have an estimate of what portion of the 220,000 metres could be found elsewhere?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we don't have an estimate on how much will be replaced. We just know approximately how much each licence will be reduced.

G. Abbott: I'm not sure I caught the last part of that answer. . . . The ministry only knows how much each licence will be reduced. As I understand it, the ministry won't actually know that until after the chief forester has completed his re-evaluation and subsequent determination.

Can the minister advise what the time line will be of the chief forester's re-evaluation and determination? We know now, from our previous discussion, that that will not commence until after the agreement has been ratified by the federal and provincial governments. Do we know what the time line is for the re-evaluation and determination after that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We do know when the chief forester is scheduled to make his determinations in the TSAs, so I can give you those dates, and they're fairly firm. What we don't know is the exact date of implementation and final ratification. If we get approval and it's timely, we will be able to incorporate some -- perhaps not all -- of the information into the next determination.

We expect in the Kalum TSA that the AAC determination will be September of '99. In the Nass TSA, June of 2000 will be the determination. In the North Coast TSA, the AAC is due in December of '99. So if the implementation date is early fall, the further out you go, the more he will have had an opportunity to incorporate the information. But the chief forester can at any time do the special work required to make a special determination, if it's causing a particular problem in an area.

G. Abbott: It is the special review, I think, which we are attempting to get some handle on here. Does the chief forester begin his work on the re-evaluation determination related to this agreement. . . ? Does that begin with the ratification of the federal and provincial governments, or does it begin on the effective date which is going to be agreed to between the parties?

[1505]

So just to clarify the record, we know what the estimated reduction of the various licensees would be on a prorated basis. We won't know until there's some negotiating around interest areas or whatever. Who knows if there isn't going to be some consolidation of operations? So we won't know the effect on a lot of the individual licensees outside of TFL 1 for some time, until we go through a process of alternate operating areas or looking at alternate sources of fibre that might not be committed at this time.

G. Abbott: The response is a useful one and, I think, gets us closer to the relatively straightforward question which I'm attempting to frame here. That is, once the chief forester undertakes that special determination -- and let's use TFL 1 as the example -- what is the approximate time line that's involved in reaching that special determination? -- if that's the right phrase, and I gather it is. How long does that take?

[ Page 11642 ]

G. Abbott: I understand, then, that "relatively quickly" would be something less than a year -- possibly less than six months, depending on workloads and so on.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, we believe the chief forester can do it under six months once he's decided it needs to be done.

G. Abbott: In terms of TFL 1, we talked a little bit about that last time, and my recollection is that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs noted that Skeena Cellulose, the present owner, would likely be looking at a 22 percent impact as a consequence of the agreement on TFL 1. Now, the minister can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I believe that's what I heard. We didn't have an opportunity last day to explore that. I'm assuming that the 22 percent figure is again probably based on the proportion of the area of TFL 1 which will be alienated as a consequence of the agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is correct.

G. Abbott: The issue of TFL 1 is perhaps a little bit more interesting in some ways than the other areas, in that we are dealing with a tree farm licence, and at this point we are dealing with a quantifiable figure. Given that the government has very recently reached an agreement with MacMillan Bloedel on some compensation issues and has used a new way of dealing with compensation -- that is, by seeing some areas of tree farm licence converted to private land and assigning a value to that -- is the government going to give some consideration to using that approach to dealing with the issue of tree farm licence No. 1 and Skeena Cellulose?

[1510]

G. Abbott: So in the case of tree farm licence No. 1, where we do have the 22 percent figure to work with in terms of volume lost, the opportunities for the province, in terms of compensation at this point, would be first, money; second, to find cutting opportunities presumably adjacent to tree farm licence No. 1 that could be incorporated into tree farm licence No. 1 and bring it back up to whole -- which, as I recall, is about 158,000 cubic metres. The third way would be, as we have just talked about, that the province would have the opportunity, as well -- if they chose -- to use the recent approach of doing a private land conversion from a TFL. Would those be the three ways in which compensation could be arrived at on TFL 1, or are there other ones that I have missed?

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I wonder if I could refer the member to pages 16, 17 and 18 from Thursday's Hansard. The member will find that the answers to his questions are covered in that Hansard, and he can certainly get them there. I think we should actually move on and not repeat the questions that we had from last week.

G. Abbott: In fact, if the minister would like to read the Hansard very closely, the questions we have been exploring here were not answered last Thursday. The minister may want to move along, but this is a very important area of public policy and one which I intend to give full attention to. I thank the minister for his intervention, but I don't share his conclusion, because the answers that I'm seeking were not to be found last Thursday.

Hon. Chair, I have been disrupted here in my thought. The minister hasn't had an opportunity to answer my question, actually.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that there were very early discussions with Skeena Cellulose and others. It's too early to say what options would be on the table.

G. Abbott: The question was: are there options other than the three which I identified as potential ways to deal with the compensation issue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Until we've had detailed expressions of interest from the other party, it's still too early to say if there are any other options. That's the most truthful answer. It's still too early.

G. Abbott: If we can find a portion or perhaps all of that 220,000 cubic metres in the area, one way or another -- all or some portion of it. . . . The agreement also offers the possibility that the Nisga'a may seek another 150,000 cubic metres in cut at some point in the future, subject to them going through the standard processes. Where will that 150,000 cubic metres be found? Is it in the immediate area as well? I would assume that they're going to find it adjacent to the 202,000 square kilometres, but could the minister advise?

[1515]

G. Abbott: Does the province at this point have a dollar value attached to their estimate of compensation under the terms of this agreement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, because we're in negotiations, and we wouldn't put forth a bottom line. We expect that that final figure will be arrived at through negotiation. All we have is that we've published a range of estimates of the value. It's based on market value of AAC, basically.

G. Abbott: For the record, what is that range of estimates, please?

[ Page 11643 ]

G. Abbott: When the Aboriginal Affairs critic and the former Minister of Municipal Affairs were discussing earlier in this process the cost of this agreement. . . . Would that $18-25 million figure have been included in the total that they dealt with?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it was.

G. Abbott: In arriving at that $18-25 million figure, was that including all of the elements that we have discussed, or was it dealing only with the anticipated loss in annual allowable cut?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it did include all the elements we talked about.

G. Abbott: Just for certainty, then, I am assuming that there certainly is, in that figure, no compensation for reductions in fibre flow that may be anticipated by licensees.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said earlier, there is no double-counting. The AAC is determined by a fairly common methodology, and it's based on the loss of the cut.

G. Abbott: I just want to explore a few more of the elements or principles involved in the compensation issue. Obviously this is an important one for many in the province. I just have a few questions pursuant to the letter from the minister to the president of the Council of Forest Industries, November 19, 1998. This is the letter that the minister released as part of a press release around this issue. It discusses some of the agreement that had been tentatively reached -- at least with COFI -- on this matter. The minister lists five different areas of agreement around compensation for forest licences affected by the Nisga'a treaty. The first of these is that the government will pay fair compensation to affected forest licensees. Is there anything that the minister could add to that statement, to elaborate on what the province means by fair compensation in that context?

[1520]

G. Abbott: I think that's a reasonable answer, because different licensees will be bringing different things to the table. The answer is fairer and more honest than throwing out some formula which may or may not have application in particular instances here.

The second point, which is among the areas of agreement apparently, is that the government has established a process, appointed a negotiator to establish principles for compensation and to negotiate agreed compensation. I gather that the negotiator that has been appointed is a Mr. McRae. The minister can correct me if I'm wrong on that. Could the Minister of Forests advise what process has been established and how far down the line we are in that process?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am perhaps a little remiss. This is Bruce McRae right here, and I'm sorry for not introducing him. He has been handling this file. He knows it intimately and keeps me briefed.

We are negotiating principally with Skeena right now. The other licensees are unsure of what their interests are and have been a little bit slower in coming back to us about negotiating. What we do is have preliminary discussions which are to lead to towards a framework agreement. The framework agreement, like most framework agreements, will agree on the topics for discussion -- the categories of discussion -- and perhaps the principles that are involved as well.

G. Abbott: So in terms of the process that is. . . . I gather that only the one licensee, to this point, has engaged in the process. But the process is to reach a framework agreement, move from the framework agreement to a catalogue of discussions and then presumably move along from the catalogue of discussions to some final agreement for compensation. Is that a fair summary of the process?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You are basically correct.

G. Abbott: To this point, the minister has noted that Skeena Cellulose Inc. has been the only one to begin those discussions with the government. Have the discussions with SCI reached the point of a framework agreement to this date?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I understand that they're close but not yet concluded.

G. Abbott: What elements would be included in the framework agreement?

[1525]

G. Abbott: Thank you for that explanation.

Again, as per point 2 in the letter of November 19, have the government and/or any of the licensees at this point, with the assistance of the negotiator, established the principles for compensation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The principles really incorporate the three elements we talked about earlier -- the value of the AAC, the disturbances and the improvements -- and then people bring to the table their market evaluations or whatever methodology they might wish to present at the table.

G. Abbott: That's helpful. Thank you.

[ Page 11644 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, as a matter of fact, there were preliminary discussions with West Fraser. They actually met again this morning. So these are proceeding, in part, by the time lines that are requested by the companies themselves. As they feel ready, we are ready and willing. Sometimes I feel that Mr. McRae is underutilized. People are preparing for it, because we don't know. . . . The impacts are a ways off, and we're trying to mitigate the impacts on some people. So it's to be expected that they'll come to us when they're ready. We're ready to meet with them anytime they're ready, and we did meet with West Fraser this morning.

G. Abbott: I think I recall, from our discussion on Thursday, that there was a third company or a third licensee in the area that was directly affected, but perhaps I'm wrong. Have negotiations or discussions commenced with any of the other companies in that area, whether they're directly or indirectly affected?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The third company that was discussed, I think, was Sim Gan, but nothing has happened with any of the other companies yet.

G. Abbott: The fourth point in the letter of November 19 is that if those companies are in agreement, the government is fully receptive to those companies assigning COFI any role it wishes to assume in these negotiations. Has that been the case? Or have companies found it more useful to pursue their own interests in these negotiations independently of COFI or of, I guess, any other organization?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To this point, the companies have pursued their interests independently of COFI.

[1530]

Hon. G. Wilson: I just wonder, for those of use who are participating in this debate and following through. . . . I'm having a hard time sorting out where in the chapter 5 "Forest Resources" sections these questions can be found. I think these questions are very much suited to the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, but I don't think they speak to the language of the treaty, which we're actually in committee discussing. Perhaps the member might. . . . I think we've covered off section 17, sections 25 and 26 and, I think, some of the sections 19 through 24 in his earlier questions. But perhaps he can tell us exactly where in chapter 5 we are.

G. Abbott: In my usual helpful way, I'd like to explain to the minister where we are and why we are there. We began our discussion on Thursday on "Definitions," section 1. We were discussing the first one: ". . . 'agreement under the Forest Act' means a major licence or timber sale licence that, before the effective date, provided for the harvesting of timber on Nisga'a Lands." We are still there.

I can hear some audible relief from the other side. I don't intend to spend this amount of time on every section of the agreement -- not by a long shot.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Yeah, probably. I heard some relief on this side as well, actually. We won't be spending a long time on all of these sections.

But I hope the minister can appreciate that the issue of compensation is a very important one to the licensees in the area; it obviously is. I suspect that if I raise the issues at any point other than when we are talking about agreements under the Forest Act -- the major licensees, timber sale licences and so on -- it might be judged an inappropriate time to raise them. I think, given that we're on that, that this is the appropriate time. I invite the Minister of Forests's response to my initial question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, as I thought, we provided instruction to the CEO of Skeena Cellulose to keep at arm's length from government on it. Those are his instructions, so ministers won't be involved in giving him direction and guidance. He's to act as a CEO of any company would, with a mandate.

G. Abbott: The issue of how compensation is determined for cutting rights that are alienated or expropriated seems to me to be one that is less formalized, for example, than the process that's involved when municipalities expropriate a piece of land. There's a well-defined process associated with that.

In the case of expropriated cutting rights or in the case of TFL 1 -- the expropriation of a portion of an established tree farm licence -- is there any process that is formalized by statute? Or is it a relatively flexible negotiating process that occurs?

[1535]

G. Abbott: As one of those few British Columbians who haven't memorized the Forest Act, what in general terms does section 60 offer in the way of guidance in this process?

[ Page 11645 ]

We've used this in the case of South Moresby, and we've used it in the case of M&B negotiations. It really provides for serving notice -- when the period of deletion is, what the cut was during. . . . You'd look at a whole range of factors to determine the time period and the determinations by the chief forester during those time periods, as a basis.

Anyway, perhaps the easiest thing would be to provide you with a simple summary of it. It's two and a half pages.

G. Abbott: That would be acceptable, certainly, to do that.

The one point in those three pages which perhaps should be noted at the outset. . . . Is it correct that those licensees that would be affected less than 5 percent would not have a case for compensation? Is that part of the deal here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Section 60 applies to compensation above the 5 percent amount, and that's what we're using as the guideline.

G. Abbott: I presume, again, that it will not be until the chief forester has completed his re-evaluation and determination that we will know whether in fact some licensees may be affected in that way. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is correct.

G. Abbott: In the absence of an acceptable agreement being reached through negotiation between the parties, is a part of the process to then go on to arbitration? Is that, for example, one of the opportunities that is available to a licensee if they are unable to reach an agreement which is agreeable to them?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to your question is that we have used section 60 as a guide. We have never formally invoked section 60. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. We'll use this as a guideline. I refer you to the outstanding first-level principle -- that is, fairness will be determined as a process of negotiation. I guess that if negotiations stall, we'll have to try to find some way to facilitate them.

[1540]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to M&B -- and I don't know how appropriate the parallels are -- we didn't actually get to any formal arbitration. We had a voluntary agreement. They were happy with it, and we were happy with it. Suffice it to say that we're still in negotiations with them on the final selection of lands and terms of payment, and so on. We expect to proceed through negotiations, and we expect them to be good-faith negotiations. We have booked a value, and it's a reasonable range of values that we've booked. We anticipate that we can get to an agreement with the parties.

G. Abbott: We discussed briefly the issue of compensation for logs lost, and so on. Is it clear -- and I think this is the best-case scenario -- that companies will see a stable fibre flow maintained to their mills by purchased wood from the Nisga'a nation and its contractors, rather than having that fibre flow through their own sources? If that's the best-case situation -- where everything stays stable -- is it clear that the cost of that market wood is comparable or the same as the own-sourced wood?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At best we can anticipate that there will be a market there. If the Nisga'a have to sell their wood, they'll have to sell it at the market level, and you know and I know that the private market sometimes is slightly different than ownsourced wood. You couldn't make that argument right now in most places in the province; it might be the other way around. But we do expect that there would be a market pricing, and if they can ownsource their wood at a lower amount, then they'd be inclined to pay less for this wood unless it's incremental to their needs; in which case, they might be prepared to pay slightly more.

That's speculation. We really think that by paying Skeena the market value of wood, they will then be in a position, over the medium term, to purchase at a reasonable price that will convert into the products that they're producing in that region.

G. Abbott: To try to summarize what the licensees may be looking for over the short and long terms as they deal with their negotiation with government, there is certainty in the agreement, as the minister has pointed out, for the first nine years, with over the first years, 1 to 5, relative stability being maintained in the licensed volume to the licensees and with the reduction after year 5. Should the licensees, when they're forming their cases for compensation, be looking at. . . ? Should they simply be basing it on those first nine years or be looking beyond that to what may happen down the line?

[1545]

G. Abbott: Again, though -- I appreciate the value of the remainder of the licence -- when companies are trying to evaluate the cost that they may face in terms of reduced fibre flow, is it the suggestion that after year 5 they just have to live with whatever occurs in the marketplace?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said earlier, it's anticipated that that will be taken into account when they reinvest in their mills. In ten years, they've got lots of time to plan and, in any event, will have to be planning capital changes. I'll just remind the member that when people buy and sell forestry operations now, they're only buying the term of the licence. The licence is for 15 or 25 years in the case of a tree farm licence. That's what they're buying on the market now. So that's why we use that as a frame of reference for the evaluation of the lost rights.

[ Page 11646 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, No. 141 is excluded from the treaty, and it carries on as it would on Crown land.

G. Abbott: So woodlot licence No. 141, even though it is within the boundaries of the Nisga'a lands, continues on as a piece of Crown land in perpetuity within the Nisga'a lands.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not included in Nisga'a land, although it's surrounded by the Nisga'a land. The portion of Crown land that's appurtenant to the woodlot -- I assume there's some private land. . . . That Crown portion of the woodlot is exempted from the treaty. It remains provincial Crown land forever.

G. Abbott: We can move down to Nisga'a contractor. I have some questions on that definition: " 'Nisga'a Contractor' means a full phase logging contractor whose operations and direction are effectively controlled by the Nisga'a Nation, a Nisga'a village, a Nisga'a Corporation, or a Nisga'a citizen." My understanding is that the issue of Nisga'a contractors is an issue that was introduced into the mix, certainly, since the agreement-in-principle in 1996, and there are some questions around what is or isn't a Nisga'a contractor. Could the minister advise what, in the government's view, a Nisga'a contractor is?

[1550]

G. Abbott: I think that what the definition says is certainly explanatory as far as it goes. But when we use the term "Nisga'a contractor," that could mean, for example -- and this is where I would like clarification -- that the owner of the contracting firm is a Nisga'a citizen. But he may employ a crew that is entirely non-Nisga'a -- is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is correct.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise how many Nisga'a contractors are currently operating in this area?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are three Nisga'a contractors, under that definition, operating on Nisga'a lands now and, I believe, one outside.

G. Abbott: Again for clarity, would a contracting firm that is owned by a non-Nisga'a but which employs a crew composed of Nisga'as be a Nisga'a contractor?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it wouldn't be.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise how many non-Nisga'a contractors are currently operating in the affected area?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At the moment there is none, and that's probably because of the low amount of harvesting going on by Skeena at the moment. In the past it's been about 50-50.

G. Abbott: It is clear, then, from the minister's perspective that when we return -- if indeed we ever do -- to normal harvest levels and the traditional volume of activity in that area, there would be sufficient Nisga'a contractors to deal with that. Harvesting, for example, would not be disrupted by an arbitrary shortage of people meeting the definition of Nisga'a contractor.

[1555]

An Hon. Member: Page 390.

G. Abbott: Right -- pages 390 to 392. I'll just quickly go there, because there are a few questions out of that as well.

Section 57, as the minister notes, sets out a schedule for the percentage of Nisga'a contractors who must be used to harvest during the first five years. It moves from 50 percent in year 1 through to 70 percent in years 2 to 5. So, again, it is subject to availability. If, for whatever reason, there weren't sufficient Nisga'a contractors available, an additional provision would kick in. I believe the minister said that that's section 59, and I see that. That's fair enough.

Setting aside contractors for the moment, in a typical operating period, how many people, Nisga'a or non-Nisga'a, would be engaged in the business of logging in that affected area?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, if the member would like to go to another question, we'll try to find that. We believe we have it in the socioeconomic impact statement, the evaluative study. We'll get it.

G. Abbott: Thank you. I'd be happy to move on to another question while we get the answer to that.

The province -- I guess about two months ago now -- agreed with the Truck Loggers Association about a process involving. . . . I don't know if it was so much compensation as mitigation, but it did identify in an accord some principles around how the province would deal with loggers or contractors who were displaced or affected by the agreement. Can the minister provide for me the reasons why that was put in place? Again, I guess as the minister looks for those figures around the number of loggers and the number likely to be displaced. . . . What is the magnitude of displacement that is going to occur with respect to contractors?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't know until we conclude discussions and look at the actual determinations by the chief forester. We don't know what the final amount will be; it could be quite small. But the reason it's there is in the spirit of fairness. We don't think the burden of treaties, independent of legal requirements for compensation, should be borne unduly by any one party. To the extent that there might be some displacement of contractors in that area, we want to deal with them fairly. That's why we've established a process and some principles to deal with those non-compensable interests.

G. Abbott: I think I was somewhat wrong in my question, because under "Key Principles" it has mitigation, adjust-

[ Page 11647 ]

[1600]

G. Abbott: One of the premises on which this is founded, based on the minister's description of it, is that contractors that operate, in whole or in part, outside that 2,002-square-kilometre area may be impacted, as well, and where it can be measured, they would be compensated. Is that a fair summary of what's been said?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, to the extent that there will be a water-bedding or a prorated adjustment to licences outside that area. To avoid confusion, we have put compensation in there, because there are some contractors that have replaceable logging rights under the Forest Act. They have legislated protection to some of their rights; therefore they're compensable. At least that's the notion -- that they're compensable. But realizing that that only deals with some of them, we have used adjustment and mitigation as important principles.

G. Abbott: I did want to deal with the so-called Bill 13 issues, which the minister anticipated in his last response. Again, in response to my earlier question, has anything proceeded with respect to mitigation adjustment or compensation since the announcement of the accord on November 18? Is there an active process, in short, that is underway involving the minister's staff or people engaged to do that work?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I did say that a working group has been set up. We have tabled papers, and we're waiting for a response.

I want to answer your previous question. The transferred volume of AAC supports about 80 person-years of employment, of which a certain amount of that is Nisga'a. Some of those are Nisga'a already.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the response from the minister. I did just want to get a sense of the magnitude of individuals that could be affected here. I assume, based on the minister's earlier comment, that when harvest levels are relatively normal, typically it's about a 50-50 relationship between Nisga'a contractors and non-Nisga'a contractors, and probably something in the same neighbourhood applies to both. Is that correct -- loggers and contractors and so on are about 50-50 Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can provide you with a copy of that study. But just so that it's clear, the 80 person-years of employment involves mill jobs and logging jobs. Of the logging jobs, they're about 50-50 during peak operations. If you looked at the mill jobs, there are relatively fewer Nisga'a working in the mills.

[1605]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Apparently there is no legal entitlement in the situation where there is an AAC reduction and it flows through from the licensee to the Bill 13 contractors. But having said that, we're not splitting hairs on what's legally compensable or not. That's why we have chosen to enter into discussions with the contractors up there and have used mitigation, adjustment and compensation in our title.

G. Abbott: The reason why I would ask it is that this is not a typical AAC reduction. This is a reduction stemming in large measure because of percentages which are set out in the agreement obliging that contractors be Nisga'a contractors. So it would seem to me that the two objectives do fly in the face of one another at that point. The minister has explained -- not to put too fine a point on it -- that where the two do not mesh, where the two are in conflict, the remedy will be compensation for those whose prescribed rights under Bill 13 have been reduced or offset or diminished, if I'm fairly summarizing the minister. Perhaps I'll ask him if I have.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, pretty much, as long as when you're going back on the record, you use my words rather than your words.

G. Abbott: I always use the minister's words when I go back on the record with his words.

The other question I have around Nisga'a contractors. . . . At the last Western Silvicultural Contractors Association annual general meeting, some silviculture contractors, who I gather work quite extensively in that area, asked me whether they, as silviculture contractors, would be affected by the Nisga'a contractor provision of the agreement. I had to tell them honestly that I didn't know, but I did say that I would ask, and I will pose that to the minister now. Do silviculture contractors fall under the terms of this agreement as well?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the definition of contractors includes all contractors. With respect to the accord, they could be considered as parties to the accord.

[1610]

[ Page 11648 ]

G. Abbott: I take it from the minister's answer, then -- because there is no reference to silviculture contractors in either the definition of Nisga'a contractor or the formula laid out in section 57 -- that life will happily go on for those silviculture contractors. Or will their business in that area come to an end? I guess this is an important point for them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The section that relates to the formula for what percentage has to be Nisga'a contractors actually relates to volume harvested, so it's about harvesting. I'm talking about section 57. The Nisga'a will be able to hire whoever they want to do silviculture, if they have the responsibility for silviculture.

G. Abbott: Fair enough. Clearly, as it would in any event, the silviculture operations will be done by whoever the Nisga'a choose to engage in that. They can decide whether they are going to have a Nisga'a silviculture contractor. Or they can hire those silviculture contractors who have worked in the area previously. It would be -- as it would to any private landowner -- completely up to the Nisga'a to decide who will do that work for them. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are two time periods here. During the transition period, the licensees can hire whoever they wish. After the transition period, when it's a Nisga'a responsibility, they can hire whoever they wish. There's no formula splitting the percentage of contractors during the transition time period.

G. Abbott: I think that's clear enough, hopefully. I think that pretty much takes care of those issues around compensation which I wanted to advance in this definitions section. In summary, I think what the minister has said with respect to the contractors, the truck loggers, is that they should not have to bear unduly the burden of treaty settlements in British Columbia.

In closing, is it fair to say that the minister also believes that licensees, both within the 2,002 square kilometres and adjacent to it but affected by it, should not -- either -- unfairly bear the burden of treaty settlements as well?

[1615]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The intention -- and our commitment -- is to deal fairly with both contractors and licensees, and I think we can stand on that principle.

G. Abbott: When the chief forester has done his re-evaluation and his new or his special determination of the annual allowable cut in that area, at what point does the province's target rate for stumpage get adjusted? Does that follow immediately? How do those two things mesh so that we don't see a problem with higher stumpage rates in order to maintain a target rate that is going to change based on the change to the AAC?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll answer this way: there will not be a waterbedding of the stumpage. If the land base is reduced, so is the whole base on which the rate is determined. There would be a concomitant reduction in the input side of the rate determination.

G. Abbott: If the volumes which are anticipated for years 1 to 9 in the agreement are not met -- I guess they are maximum volumes that are anticipated -- will there not be a penalty to other licensees by seeing a waterbed effect from that? Can the minister explain how that can be avoided?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, appendix H does talk about the cut control provisions that affect these volumes, so the cut control will deal with most of the falldown. We have no intention of penalizing anyone because of the amount the Nisga'a might or might not cut. Right now I can't see a parallel situation where we have been confronted with this. As I've said, there would be a reduction of the amount of land upon which this is based. This will be treated like private land, even though there are cut control provisions. So it goes into the private land bank of forestry volumes.

G. Abbott: Moving on to the next point, "non-timber forest resources," at one or two points we find reference to things like pine mushrooms that might well be non-timber forest resources. I presume pine mushrooms are. Do we have a finite list of what those non-timber forest resources are?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we don't have a finite list, but pine mushrooms account for, it is estimated, 95 percent of the non-timber resources.

G. Abbott: The transition period, by definition, means "the five-year period commencing on the effective date." We have talked previously about the effective date being a negotiated date subsequent to the ratification by all parties to the agreement. The transition period is triggered on day one that the effective date is arrived at. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's correct.

[1620]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The similarities with private land are that they own it. The differences are that they're subject to the full effect of the code for the first five years. Then after five years, they have to have a code in place that meets or beats those standards. We've listed the items that would be included. In the assessment taken as a whole, there are something like 14 items, I think; whereas with private land forestry, there are only four items that are considered for standards. So there have to be some kind of standards that incorporate a much broader set of objectives that are similar and that meet or exceed the Forest Practices Code.

[ Page 11649 ]

G. Abbott: The issue, I guess, of. . . . We start to pull in the broader issues here about why this agreement reads as it does with respect to the forest resources section. Really, we get into issues which carry us into 4, 5, 6 and so on -- and I suppose other areas of the agreement as well. What was the philosophy or theory in developing this agreement as compared to the very simple and very short forestry management section of the Sechelt AIP? Why do we, in this agreement, go well beyond what we have in Sechelt -- indeed, well beyond what we have with private forested land -- in terms of the ability to set forest policy and so on? What was the thinking there?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the case of the Sechelt agreement, there's no appreciable amount of forest land involved. In the case of the Nisga'a, a large tract of land, 2,000 square kilometres -- it was public land before, Crown provincial land -- is becoming Nisga'a land. The province was desirous of some measure of control on the practices on the land, so that in creating new landowners we were ensuring that we got as much protection as we could get in the bargaining process.

G. Abbott: Section 4, it appears, is providing the opportunity for the Nisga'a Lisims government to create their own stumpage system. Is that a fair assessment? If so, why would we want to do that?

[1625]

G. Abbott: It seems to me that in allowing the Nisga'a to create an independent stumpage system, it is introducing an element of potential confusion into the system that may make it difficult to track things. I can appreciate why the Nisga'a may want to have control over their own destiny in terms of important areas of forest policy. But I'm not understanding why it is that having their own stumpage system would be of advantage to them and not be a remarkable source of confusion all around.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, current owners of private forest land have ways of pricing the trees that they sell. Where the problem comes in is not on how much and how values are arrived at for trees. It's in the transport from private land onto Crown land and accounting for it.

That's why we want a marking system that is comparable, in fact, to the same scaling. . .compatible scaling. I refer you to section 14. We want to see a compatible timber-scaling procedure. Similarly, with respect to timber marking, the provincial laws will apply to timber harvested on Nisga'a land. So the system of counting how much is flowing is done by provincial law, basically, but determining the price of that would be the same as anyone who's selling off private land now.

G. Abbott: The distinction, then, between the Sechelt AIP and the Nisga'a final agreement is simply a function of the size of the forest base involved. The Sechelt didn't feel any interest or need to have the same level of ownership or direction of forest policy as the Nisga'a, because they are dealing with a much smaller area of forested land. Therefore they would have felt it not useful to get into that level of sophistication. Is that fair?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that is a fair assessment.

G. Abbott: Section 5, "Forest Practices and Standards," says: "During the transition period, forest practices legislation applies to activities of: (a) the holder of an agreement under the Forest Act on Nisga'a Lands as if Nisga'a Lands were Crown land; and (b) the holder of a licence within the area covered by its forest development plan on Nisga'a Lands as if Nisga'a Lands were Crown land." Would this apply if the Nisga'a government or the Nisga'a corporation was the holder of the agreement?

[1630]

G. Abbott: Section 6 reads: "Nisga'a Lisims Government will make laws in respect of the management of timber resources on Nisga'a Lands, that will take effect on the effective date." Here I think we get into the issue of management of forest policy versus the situation with a private landowner, where they certainly can't set forest policy for themselves. Perhaps they can, to some extent. Again, I'm still not clearly appreciating the need to have so much of the authority over forest policy transferred into the hands of the Nisga'a Lisims government. It would seem to me that if the Nisga'a Lisims government had the same authority as a private forest landowner, that would be sufficient. It's not clear to me what the advantage to the province was, in terms of extending that additional authority.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The laws of the province apply for the first five years, and after that, then the laws that the Nisga'a make will apply. This is here in order to protect the transition. People want to know what the rules on harvesting and reforesting and so on are. They want to know exactly what the rules are so that on day one of the treaty implementation, any licensee knows what the rules of the game are.

G. Abbott: It would seem to me that if the level of authority were comparable to that of a private forest land owner, that would be clear enough. In extending the opportunity to actually make the law with respect to forestry, it seems to me that an element of uncertainty is introduced here, which does not necessarily need to be so. Again, what is the advantage, from a public policy perspective, in having that self-government with respect to forest policy?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think there were some assumptions that this would become private land, and owners of private lands and resources have the right, within the general legal framework, to decide what happens to those resources. In this case, a measure of self-government with respect to resource management applies. They have the right to govern the land

[ Page 11650 ]

G. Plant: I want to rise here to ask a question or two about the whole discussion of applicable laws and standards -- in particular, paragraph 6. I understand both the rationale for the private lands analogy and its force, but I also think there's a limit to it. I don't think, for example, that the vast majority of the holders of private land timber rights in British Columbia would consider themselves to have the ability to make laws with respect to the management of their timber resources. They might have the ability to decide whether or not to sell and the ability to decide whether or not they can sell at a price that's affordable to them, and they can also, of course, as a practical matter manage the timber resources. But to say that what private land holders do when they manage timberlands is make laws in respect of them is to take the private lands analogy -- which, in other respects, is a reasonable one -- and, I think, overuse it.

[1635]

I take it that the distinction is significant and that from the government's perspective this is a part of the mechanism by which the provincial government intends to maintain some authority in respect of what goes on in terms of harvesting forest resources. Nisga'a government has no choice. It must make laws, and there are provisions with respect to the content of those laws. That becomes the process, if you will, by which the province maintains some kind of authority in relation to forest management practices. Is that general description a reasonable one? If not and it's wrong, I invite the minister to correct me.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Abbott: Under section 8: "Laws made under paragraph 6 will include forest standards that meet or exceed forest standards established under forest practices legislation applicable to Crown land. . . ." How will the ministry go about determining whether those standards meet or exceed the standards set out in forest practices legislation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Paragraph 9 and, I believe, paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 -- all of them deal with those issues.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that they deal with those issues, but I actually had a practical, straightforward question for the Minister of Forests. Perhaps you can answer it too. When the Nisga'a write a forest practices code, how is the B.C. Crown -- presumably the Ministry of Forests -- going to go about assessing whether it meets or exceeds the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've gone through this exercise on some of the standards with respect to private land owners, and we've written standards. The operative term is that these have to be looked at collectively, to the extent that some of them are linked. Biodiversity might be linked to soil conservation or something like that, or forest health might be linked to biodiversity -- who knows? But they have to be looked at collectively, and the operative words are in section 10: ". . .no more intrusive to the environment than the forest standards applicable to Crown land. . . ."

In other words, the idea here is to conserve the forest resources and manage them in a way that respects this set of values here. There will be a technical aspect, and there will be an evaluation aspect of it -- not dissimilar to the way someone today writes a prescription, having been given some land use objectives. So it is a blend of technical and subjective assessments, and I'm sure that there'll be lots of discussions as to whether they meet or beat our standards. But I think the intent is clear -- that we want minimum code standards written into Nisga'a law.

[1640]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, we're getting into the details of whether you're going to have two people, three people, four people, the ADM or somebody else looking at these issues when they come to the fore. Obviously the ministry officials would consider any laws made at that time, compare them and then pass judgment.

G. Abbott: I didn't realize that our capacity as a Legislature or as officials of the Legislature extended to passing judgments on the forest practices legislation that will be produced by the Nisga'a Lisims government. If that's the case, then -- interesting. . . . I am again curious as to how we would do that.

If, for example, the Nisga'a Lisims government produces a forest practices code and it is in volume and in direction far more comparable to the private forest land forest practices code than it is to the Ministry of Forests Forest Practices Code, would that imply that it is meeting or exceeding the requirements of this treaty?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, sure, after an assessment is made by the officials, the government might indicate that the law or laws made by the Nisga'a do not meet or exceed our standards. At that point there's a disagreement. We say that these are invalid. It goes into dispute resolution, and there are processes to deal with that issue.

G. Abbott: So the Nisga'a Lisims government at some point, six or ten years from now, develops a code which they claim meets or exceeds the environmental standards applicable to Crown lands in British Columbia. The Nisga'a Lisims government passes that; it becomes the law of the day in the forests of the Nisga'a nation. At that point, can the govern-

[ Page 11651 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This really speaks to the general principle enshrined in this treaty. All parties have to live up to the terms of the treaty. If one party believes that the other party isn't living up to the terms of the treaty, there are whole processes in place to deal with those issues. That's how you pass judgment.

G. Abbott: I have no reason to assume that the Nisga'a government would not act in good faith to attempt to produce a piece of forest practices legislation which meets or exceeds the standards in our code. But we have an ongoing debate within the Legislature, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment around whether our code and its associated regulations should be a metre high or 40 pages. It seems to me that this is very quickly going to become an important public policy issue when the Nisga'a form their conclusions about what they need as a forest practices code. At that point. . . .

I guess what I'm asking is. . . . The Attorney General refers to processes which occur if what's set out in the treaty is not met. Again, it's not clear to me through what process we are going to decide whether something meets or exceeds the code. If the Minister of Forests, for example, determines that what has been produced by the Nisga'a Lisims government in this regard does not meet the standard of British Columbia, what could be done at that point? What processes kick in?

[1645]

G. Abbott: I'm aware of the dispute resolution mechanism. What I'm trying to point out at this point is that we may be dealing with something that is more art than science in relation to whether the code or the legislation which is established by the Nisga'a Lisims government under the authority granted in these sections. . . . It will be difficult, if not impossible, for British Columbia to say: "That doesn't meet or exceed." I think we are dealing with more art than science. I'm attempting to get some confirmation on this point, and I don't think I'm going to be successful. Well, perhaps the Minister of Forests would like to make a comment on it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I use the operative words "no more intrusive to the environment. . . ." For example, if they propose smaller cutblocks, more restrictions on clearcutting, longer green-up or lower levels of soil disturbance, all of those would be no more intrusive to the environment and therefore would be accepted. Those can all be measured, so there's a lot of science that can be brought to bear on the standards that they set.

G. Plant: I think the minister's last answer helps draw the dividing line that my colleague was also exploring and that I want to explore just a little bit further. The issue that is being explored is not what happens when the Nisga'a and B.C. disagree, if they ever do, on the significance or impact of Nisga'a forest practices legislation. The issue is: how will the province in a principled, structured way ever reach a conclusion with respect to the standards that exist? What processes already exist in the Ministry of Forests by which the ministry and its officials regularly sit down and compare forest practices codes and make a judgment about one code -- whether it's better or not as good as the other?

[1650]

In order for me to have a better landing around this, I do want to ask this specific question. Paragraph 10 creates or uses this test, which is unfamiliar to me. The test that it seeks to erect is a test that is expressed in the language: ". . .if they are no more intrusive to the environment." I apologize for my ignorance. Is that a requirement that is regularly applied in other Forests legislation that I'm not aware of? That is, is it a term that is quite familiar to people within the ministry, or does it have its first appearance here in this treaty, so far as B.C. law is concerned, in which case we'll have to see how it plays out over time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm advised that it was a point that was negotiated but that it's to be taken literally. I don't think there's any body of legal practice behind this. If you want to know how I would handle it if I was the Minister of Forests, I would ask our forest practices branch to look at this code and give us some advice and tell us where they're off base. We'd send our negotiators back out to say: "This meets or doesn't meet our standards." I'm sure we'd be into an iterative process back and forth.

In terms of whether it meets the spirit of this legislation, the Ministry of Forests forest practices branch would provide advice to the Attorney General.

G. Plant: I think that in a way, the answer to my question is yes. This is a new concept, but the minister's intention is that it will be applied literally and practically, and he'll get advice from experts to look at these things as we go along. Perhaps we'll discover that they're not all that difficult. It is entirely possible, I suppose, that Nisga'a Lisims government could choose to adopt existing provincial standards in respect of all of these matters. Is that an option available to the Nisga'a under this agreement?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it is.

[ Page 11652 ]

Given that that's the history, given that that is the current status quo, why is it in the public interest of all British Columbians that we further complicate the management of forest resources by giving to what is, I say with great respect, a relatively small group of people the power -- in fact, not the power but the obligation -- to make forest standards legislation and apply it to what is, after all and with respect, a relatively small part of British Columbia. I'm interested in that issue not just specifically with respect to why it makes sense for this treaty for these people, but I look at this treaty and these individuals, who are the Nisga'a nation. . . . I look at it also as the potential for a precedent. That is, at the end of this treaty process, we may have -- who knows what the number is -- the potential for a dozen, 20, 30 or 50 more of these situations in which. . . .

[1655]

Hon. G. Wilson: This does not further complicate the management of forest resources. What this does is say that there will be comparable management on the Nisga'a lands -- comparable to the management of forests off Nisga'a land. So in fact what this does is build certainty that the same rules apply to one as apply to the other.

The only complexities that might be there, I think, are in the imagination of the members opposite who believe that language that says that you will either meet or exceed standards somehow brings complexity. To the members opposite who somehow think that because the Nisga'a will have private ownership of their land, we should not trust the Nisga'a with the management of the forest on their private lands -- despite the fact that we allow corporations exactly the same privileges on lands that they own -- but because these are Nisga'a, they shouldn't have that privilege. . . .

There is absolutely nothing more complex in the language here. It builds certainty, it builds standards that are comparable, and it provides an opportunity for people in the Nass to be able to fully participate in the forest resources of British Columbia.

G. Plant: Well, on another occasion I'll ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to identify for me the provisions of the laws in the statute books that say that private forest land holders have the power to make laws in respect of the management of their resources. I think the answer is that they don't. In that respect, therefore, the analogy really is. . . . In fact, I think it runs its course and runs out of its course at that point. I know why the minister likes the analogy. But at some point, it seems to me that to go to a farmer somewhere in the Cariboo who has a stand of timber at the back of his property and say: "By the way, when you try to sell a few trees off that, you're not just a private land holder. You're like the Nisga'a; you're making laws in respect of the management of your timber resources. . . ." I think that the farmer would look back at you with a justifiable amount of confusion.

But that's actually beside the point. The minister in his last answer said that the same rules would apply. Now, I think there's a difference between saying that the same standards would apply and saying that the same rules would apply. When you say that the same standards apply, I think what that means is that there are different paths by which you can get to the same result -- the same result being some mutually agreed upon standard in respect of environmental protection. The different pathways are the different sets of rules. In fact, the Nisga'a may choose to emphasize certain aspects of forest management in a way that the province does not currently do and vice versa, as long as the end result is the same.

In that respect, I think the minister overstated the case when he said that it would be the same rules. If I'm wrong -- if the minister really means that in fact the Nisga'a government will be applying exactly the same rules in respect of forest management -- then I've certainly, up until this point, been misreading the purport of these provisions. I'd be grateful to find out which of the two versions is the correct reading.

Hon. G. Wilson: The Nisga'a will have to apply the same forest standards.

G. Abbott: Just to briefly recap in order to frame the next question I have, the Minister of Forests noted that when the Nisga'a Lisims government has created -- as they are obliged to do -- a forest practices code for their Nisga'a lands, that code will be reviewed by his forest practices branch here in Victoria. If it is found wanting in any of a number of areas. . . . I presume that subsections (a) to (i) might be examples of areas in which the branch would review the Nisga'a code to determine whether it's satisfactory in terms of meeting or exceeding the forest standards established under comparable legislation for Crown land.

The question still remains -- and I can't remember which minister it was who said that this doesn't introduce any new complexity. . . . If we look at how this question is dealt with in the Sechelt agreement-in-principle, it reads -- and this is in section 10.1.2: "Sechelt management of forest resources will meet or exceed forest practices rules and standards established pursuant to provincial laws." Pretty simple and pretty straightforward.

[1700]

[ Page 11653 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I know that it might come as a crashing blow to the members opposite when they find that the Nisga'a is really not a template, having campaigned for a year and a bit, telling everybody it is a template. Sechelt is a different agreement, which, hopefully, I will be debating here and giving approval to very shortly. Sechelt at the moment is in an AIP stage. Sechelt has very little forest, as has already been pointed out; Nisga'a, on the other hand, has a large tract of forest land. Each of these treaties is going to provide comparable forest standards, so that there is a comparable measure of forest management to make sure that the goals of long-term sustainability are there for future generations of British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. It's no more complex than that.

G. Abbott: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs also noted at some point in our recent discussion here: "Why do we not wish to extend the same rights and opportunities to the Nisga'a that are extended to the private forest land owners here in British Columbia?" That provokes this question in my mind, and I guess it goes back to my point about this being an art as well as a science. I am anticipating some introduction of a private forest land code here, sometime in the coming session. Perhaps the minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but at some point we're going to see a private forest land code. Is that going to be deemed by the forest practices branch as an acceptable level that would meet or exceed forest standards under legislation applicable to Crown land? Will that model of a code be an acceptable one for the Nisga'a to take on?

Hon. G. Wilson: We're debating this Nisga'a agreement, not some hypothetical code that the member may or may not have dreamed up in his imagination. I'm curious to know, though -- if the member opposite feels that there ought to be such heavily applied standards to Nisga'a private lands -- if the member actually would support such heavily applied standards to privately owned forest land in British Columbia.

G. Abbott: We're not debating my views. We're debating the treaty, which is the responsibility of this government. Again, I think I asked what is a fair and significant question in this context: would the private forest land owners forest practices code, which we are likely to see in the weeks and months ahead, be deemed acceptable as meeting or exceeding the forest standards under this agreement?

[1705]

You were asking about whether or not it's possible to have a different code with every treaty. Well, theoretically, it is possible. But I would suggest that as we gain experience with the code on provincial Crown land, we can assess whether or not another code at least meets the minimum standards. I don't think it's a big job. If we needed. . . . The forest practices branch was quite able to negotiate a set of standards with the private land owners. They would be able to take on a job of assessing this. We said they shall do this; they actually have five years to do this. So we're asking that they begin and develop it. We are quite capable within the Ministry of Forests of assessing whether or not it meets the standards we've set forth.

G. Abbott: One of the debates, I know, that we have in this Legislature and that goes on in both the Ministries of Environment and of Forests is the movement away from a very process-oriented Forest Practices Code to a more results-based code. We all use that sort of mantra about changing the code. If the Nisga'a in their code move ahead of us and develop a simpler, more results-based code which, they will argue, undoubtedly meets or exceeds the standards but not the volume of regulation, is that going to be acceptable as well?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Of course it would be. I want to correct the record. The Nisga'a have to develop a regulatory regime for their operations on the effective date; that's for their operations. Our code, B.C.'s code, applies to the licensees covered during the transition period. So yes.

But if the Nisga'a were able to do that, they'd be able to do something that no one else has been able to do, including professional foresters, all the companies and so on. I've discussed this at length with a number of the experts on the Forest Practices Code, and they say: "Yes, we can move toward this, but it's going to be very difficult to do that immediately." But all the more power to them if they're able to do that.

The public needs to be comfortable that we need a certain amount of process in assessing forest development plans to ensure that all the values are incorporated, because it's very difficult to prescribe everything you want up front in a forest development plan. It's presupposing that you set land use objectives and so on for the zones in which the operations are. So it's much more complicated. You know, what's critical in the code is the guidebooks that adapt the code and its standards to various geoclimatic zones. There are different things that apply to different types of forest ecosystems. I would expect that any which any first nation develops will take into account the needs of that particular zone in which they're operating.

J. Wilson: Are there any areas in Nisga'a lands where the code will not be applied as it exists?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the four currently existing Indian reserves, during the transition period.

J. Wilson: After the transition period, could there be other areas? Or will these simply be the four areas. . . ? Will the existing Indian reserves remain areas that are out of the jurisdiction of the code? And is there the possibility of other areas developing in there that will not be under the code?

[1710]

[ Page 11654 ]

J. Wilson: After the transition period expires, will the Nisga'a code that I hear is going to be the equivalent to the code that the provincial government has apply to all areas of Nisga'a land?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: After the transition period, yes.

J. Wilson: It's my understanding that the Nisga'a have the ability to take any portion of their land that they see fit and turn it into fee simple land. Is this not the case?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, they can create fee simple land, and the code applies.

J. Wilson: If they create fee simple land, would it be the same as fee simple land held by any other British Columbians in regard to laws of general application?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it wouldn't be like any other fee simple land. The land would have their code applying to the areas involved. Any land they create as fee simple land would have their code applied to it.

J. Wilson: I haven't read this in the agreement anywhere, where their code will apply to fee simple land. Does it not stand to reason that if they decide to designate an area of land to, say, a village or a company as fee simple land, it would in effect be the same as if the provincial government gave a tract of land to a major licensee and removed code restrictions? This is fee simple land; it could be registered under the land titles branch. It should be no different than any other fee simple land.

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to the member's question is no. I would refer him to section 6 in chapter 5. And I would suggest that perhaps the member might want to go back and read Hansard on the lands section. We have covered this in some detail, and that discussion has been had. I think that the information in there is very clear.

J. Wilson: Well, it's been a long, long time since we've discussed this in the House. Perhaps the minister could bring us up to speed in a couple of minutes here, if he would be so kind.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not going to go back through the whole lands section. I think the member can read that section in Hansard as easily as we can stand here and rediscuss it. Section 6 says: "Nisga'a Lisims Government will make laws in respect of the management of timber resources on Nisga'a Lands, that will take effect on the effective date." Therefore their land will be subject to their code.

J. Wilson: What that tells me is that the Nisga'a Lisims government can make any changes they wish to the code, they can make any changes they wish to apply to fee simple land, and they can make fee simple land the very same as any other fee simple land in the province, if they so desire.

[1715]

J. Wilson: Should I be a Nisga'a citizen and wish to go into some type of capital venture. . . . I would perhaps like to build a super golf course out there, and I may need 1,000 hectares to develop this on. If I can get a tract of land in fee simple from the Nisga'a government to develop this undertaking -- this golf course -- it would have to be removed from any type of code that pertained to forest land. It is forest land when I cut the trees down. I go in, I stump it, I clear it, and I seed grass on it. But then it's no longer under the Forest Practices Code in any way, shape or form.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not going to get into a lot of hypothetical discussion about super golf courses and everything else. If you're involved in the extraction and harvesting of timber, it's very clear. If you purchase and enter into an arrangement on fee simple land with the Nisga'a, there's a section here that deals with environmental standards that would have to apply. There's a section here that deals with the land that has to apply. The language of this treaty is very specific with respect to the ability of the Nisga'a to manage their land fee simple. I don't think that it's worth our time getting into a lot of hypothetical discussion around golf courses.

J. Wilson: I was just using that as an example. It seems to me that once the Nisga'a separate land, they can make it fee simple, and it's up to them -- in any way, shape or form that they want -- to make laws that will apply to it. As far as the Forest Practices Code goes, I see in no place -- in no way, shape or form -- that they will be bound to observe the Forest Practices Code here or any other type of forest practices code that they so desire to design, because all that land will not be used for the production of timber.

That is my point, and the minister could have answered that some time ago with a yes or no, but he chose to circumvent it and, rather, go out of his way to go around it. That is the way I see it, and I think that's the way most British Columbians would see it.

Hon. G. Wilson: I can't dispute that that may be the way the member sees it, and I don't know whether or not that's the way the majority of British Columbians see it, but I can tell you that that's not what the treaty says. If they see it that way, they might want to avail themselves of the treaty, read it and correct their opinion.

G. Abbott: There is, as the Minister of Forests knows, considerable debate around some important aspects of the Forest Practices Code. Some of that debate has been prompted by articles, for example, by Professors Haley, Binkley, and so on at UBC, particularly calling into question some issues such as adjacency rules in the code, cutblock sizes and that sort of

[ Page 11655 ]

If the Nisga'a in their forest practices code were to adopt the views that underlie some of these articles questioning some of the elements or provisions in the code, would that be something which the forest practices branch would take exception to and would attempt to change? Or would that be judged an acceptable difference of opinion or a different interpretation of what is best in a code?

[1720]

G. Abbott: Again, I guess the point -- I've made it previously, and I don't expect the minister to necessarily respond to it again -- is that there is a good deal of interpretation, a good deal of art, in terms of what is going to be more or less intrusive on the environment. And to use some of the arguments of Professors Binkley and Haley, some things in the code do not in fact promote the goals of the code. I think there would be an interesting debate around whether a code that took a different view was less intrusive or more intrusive on the environment. To take an example of how the province might make some judgments, I want to take subsection 8(i), "forest health." How would the province set about determining whether Nisga'a legislation regarding forest health was more or less intrusive than the applicable standards for Crown land? How would that be measured?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think the forest health section, taken alone, would use this standard of intrusiveness. It's the whole thing: forest health is designed to protect the forest resource, so by its nature it is not intrusive. But some of the actions might be seen as intrusive -- I don't know. The point is that taken as a whole, all of those things have to be seen, when they add up. . . . The collective view of what is achieved under a code by the Nisga'a can be no more intrusive to the environment.

G. Abbott: So there may well be some substantial differences between a Nisga'a code and the Crown lands code with respect to any number of those elements, but the province will be looking at the overall effect in forming a conclusion about whether the Nisga'a code meets or exceeds the provincial code.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Section 9 says that all of those items, (a) to (i) in section 8, are looked at and compared collectively. Section 10 says that taken collectively, they can be no more intrusive to the environment.

R. Neufeld: Just a few questions around the code. The code is a huge document that can be interpreted many different ways, and I appreciate what the minister has said. I've been listening to the fact that -- and it's also in the agreement -- the Nisga'a forest practices code, or whatever they happen to call it, will have to meet or exceed provincial code. Is there an assumption here that the Nisga'a will actually develop a complete forest practices code of their own? Will they develop just certain portions of it and accept other portions of the provincial Forest Practices Code? Have there been any discussions with the Nisga'a around that part of how a code will be applied on Nisga'a land?

[1725]

No, they don't have to take our code. They can arrive at these subject areas in a way that they choose. They may come up with a new code that meets this, but it has to meet or exceed our standards in these areas.

R. Neufeld: Let's assume for a minute that they adopt their own forest practices code -- all aspects of a code. Will they then -- and I assume that in their own government somehow they'll have to come up with a code and hire enough people to be able to develop it -- be subject to this Legislature in approval of that code? How does that process work through to actually start it working on the ground?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps the member wasn't in the Legislature when we talked about this. No, it won't come to this Legislature. They will pass their own law. We will make an assessment of it within the government. The forest practices branch will advise the Attorney General's branch whether it meets or exceeds our code. We'll take action under the enforcement sections and go ultimately to arbitration, if we have to. We expect there will be a back-and-forth until we're satisfied, as the government of British Columbia, that they've met the spirit and intent of this section of the treaty.

R. Neufeld: Excuse me, I didn't hear that explanation earlier. Actually, then, it won't come to the Legislature, but the Nisga'a will develop -- and let's say they do -- their own code. They will then present it to the Ministry of Forests, and the Ministries of Forests, Lands and everyone that's involved will have to give their final stamp of approval, regardless of which government it is, before they can actually apply their own code. Would it be correct to say that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the Nisga'a have to develop a code. It is presented to us at the effective date, and we make a judgment about it. If we're not satisfied, if they don't produce that code, then our code applies -- the existing code applies.

G. Abbott: That's a useful point the minister makes.

Section 12. I just want to have a clarification of what's intended, given the area in which it falls here. Section 12 reads: "The Parties may negotiate arrangements to achieve coordination and administrative efficiencies in respect of matters such as timber harvesting plans, road building," etc. What is intended in this section? Does it relate to the code obligations or responsibilities of the Nisga'a? What's envisioned in this section?

[ Page 11656 ]

[1730]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Nisga'a wanted this provision, and the province was agreeable as long as they're comparable, so that we know we're comparing the same thing. We want to compare apples to apples when it comes to the scaling, the scale grades and so on.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the minister's response. It makes sense. The question, though, is: why would we provide the Nisga'a Lisims government with an opportunity to make laws compatible with our provincial laws in respect of the matter? Rather than saying "make laws compatible," why would we not say that B.C.'s laws with respect to timber scaling apply? I would think that in terms of certainty and clarity, that would make complete sense, particularly in line with the minister's response to my previous question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's their resource. When they become the owners of the land, they own this resource. They asked for this power to regulate scaling, and we agreed. There is no reason for us not to agree, provided that it's comparable, so that when logs come off the Nisga'a land, we're able to measure them and know. It could well be something that we undertake on their behalf. They might contract with us to do it. I'm not sure where the member's coming from -- what could be a problem -- but you could make that same argument for virtually everything. Suffice it to say that logs that come off private property now have to end up being scaled somehow, and they have to be compatible. There's not a lot of difference here.

G. Abbott: I guess this does go back to the previous discussion we had about private lands. Certainly the private land owner might dictate when he cuts this and when he cuts that, who he sells to, and all that kind of stuff. Nevertheless, when the forest land owner scales it, he has to scale to B.C.'s provincial timber scale. Why not have the same for the Nisga'a lands? It would seem to me that it would be a matter that would provide greater certainty.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I could perhaps offer the explanation that it's because it's their resource. They want to be able to control the scaling because it's going to be their revenue that's charged back. As I said, the analogy to private land people. . . . They can develop their own scaling procedure as well.

The timber mark is what's critical. Once it leaves, we know that it's been marked, and that mark goes back to whatever scaling system is being used. It's them controlling a resource that they own and wanting to know and to be the ones who audit the volumes. We have our own system of check-scaling and so on that goes on, and there may be a different relationship that we have based on economies of scale with the private licensees. In this case, it's. . . . And I'm only offering an explanation as to why they wanted it. The province of British Columbia saw no downside to allowing them to have lawmaking powers over scaling.

[1735]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It means comparable, not identical.

G. Plant: I had a question to ask about paragraph 11, which I omitted to ask as we went by it. I understand that there has already been a discussion around attempting to identify examples of non-timber forest resources. I'm told that one example is pine mushrooms. As a way of beginning, leading up to the question that I want to ask, are mushrooms an example of a non-timber forest resource insofar as the government is concerned?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes.

G. Plant: I guess my question is simple and small. It seems to me that when there is at this point relative unanimity, I assume, among the parties about what the subject matter is of this term -- non-timber forest resources -- it would have been a counsel of prudence to actually identify them, to be more specific. We can't be certain that the relationship among the parties is going to remain amicable for the generations through which this agreement will have to live. At some point one party or the other may see it in their interests to argue for either a very expansive or a very restrictive meaning of this term, which is defined very generally as non-timber forest resources. I know that in order to understand it, you have to read the definition of non-timber forest resources, and then you have to go back to the beginning of the document and read the definition of forest resources. And that's fine. All readers of the agreement will have to do that.

It just occurs to me that it would have been more conducive to certainty in this context to be specific about examples of non-timber forest resources. I wonder why the province on this occasion was not concerned to get that additional element of certainty that I think would be achieved if there were some enumeration of some examples or an exhaustive list of the things that the parties have in contemplation here.

Hon. G. Wilson: As the member will know, a resource becomes so when value is placed against it, and that value may not always be monetary. The Nisga'a may very well find that there are resources within the forests they place value on that are different than those we may value. Therefore to attempt to sit down and put together an exhaustive list would have been less productive, I think, because what that would have done is that it would have attempted to identify exhaustively all those resources that may or may not have value. I think that would have been a cause for greater concern, with respect to the administration of this section.

Given the fact that the intention, under No. 11, is to simply suggest that where the Nisga'a Lisims government

[ Page 11657 ]

[1740]

Let me deal with one aspect of the minister's answer that I certainly agree with. If we mix up the identification of a potential resource with the issue of whether it is of value, then that is a problem. I don't think that the process is necessarily helped in this context by having a discussion where the parties are saying, "Well, you think that's valuable; I don't," or vice versa. Clearly the objective here is to circumscribe some lawmaking authority around some aspect of the forest, which is the non-timber forest resource. But if there is the potential for disagreement about what is meant by those things, then that does give me cause for concern.

I guess it may be that here, my past life is a handicap rather than a help. I have had so many occasions where people have argued, for example, that the right to harvest fish for social and ceremonial purposes includes enormous elements of what people might argue has a commercial component to it because the conceptions of social and ceremonial purpose may differ across cultures.

It's not an issue that I think warrants pursuing for hours on end, but I wanted to say that while I appreciate the spirit of the distinction that the minister was attempting to draw, it doesn't leave me any more comforted than I was when I originally read the section and asked the question: why isn't there a bit more specificity here? Maybe there's another answer to that.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not quite sure where the member is headed, because this section, section 11, is permissive. It deals with the Nisga'a Lisims government's ability to make laws, should they choose to, in respect to non-timber forest resources on Nisga'a land. It's exclusive to Nisga'a land. Furthermore, we know that with respect to forest resources, we can see within the definitions section that it does not include wildlife, migratory birds, water or fish, so the issue that's raised with respect to fish is not an issue.

I'm not sure what the member opposite believes we would gain by sitting down and trying to work out an exhaustive list of other items that may be harvested from the forest -- that the Nisga'a may put value to and therefore may wish to make regulation regarding. That has absolutely no impact whatsoever on this government or even on people who live outside of Nisga'a land. I'm not sure why we would waste our time doing that, frankly.

G. Plant: I did refer to paragraph 11, and the minister is right to respond in those terms. I perhaps should have been clearer that I also had in mind paragraph 4. I had in mind the definition itself. I had in mind, essentially, the whole subject of the ownership and regulation of this thing called non-timber forest resources.

Let me be clear. The issue is not management. The issue is not ownership. The issue is not regulation. The issue is not lawmaking authority. The issue is not licensing, fee setting, renting, rent setting, royalty setting or other charges. The issue is: what are we talking about? This agreement deliberately leaves that relatively open. My question is around the wisdom -- from a public policy perspective -- of leaving something, which is potentially a subject of some value over time, deliberately open-ended.

[1745]

The definition is not very clear. In fact, it's quite ambiguous. So let's have an argument about whether it is or it isn't. The answer to that, of course, is: what can we do now to prevent that from happening? I'm not certain that we can, because we can't identify that resource today. That, to me, is still at least some reason to pose the question: why can't we be more specific now so we know specifically what we're talking about? Perhaps there's less certainty of the problem arising today.

I made those remarks largely because I didn't want the minister thinking that my concern was a concern around the lawmaking authority granted under paragraph 11. It's a slightly larger concern that has to do with what it is that we're talking about when we're talking about non-timber forest resources.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think all of us would like to be empowered with the vision to see into the future. I'm sure that from time to time that might prove valuable. I think the underlying point in this matter is that notwithstanding when these resources may have value. . . . I take the member's comments around mushrooms fairly to heart. They have recently received value to non-aboriginal communities. Aboriginal communities have had value in them for many hundreds of years. Because we are just now slowly starting to learn the values of resources that technically we haven't put value to. . . . Our enlightenment doesn't necessarily reflect the enlightenment of aboriginal people, who may have been there way ahead of us.

The underlying fact is: they own it. They own the resource, so I'm not sure what difference the listing of that, in material terms, is going to make.

G. Abbott: Just so I am clear in my mind about the meaningfulness of section 11, it reads: "Nisga'a Lisims Government may make laws in respect of non-timber forest resources. . . ." Let's insert "i.e., pine mushrooms" here. I'm skipping down: ". . .provided that the standards meet or exceed any federal or provincial standards established under legislation to regulate, on private land, the harvesting and

[ Page 11658 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to that question is no.

Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[1750]

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: On this B.C. Tartan Day, I would like to recognize our son Ceilidh Curtis, who is celebrating his twelfth birthday.

The Speaker: May the House make him welcome.

Tabling Documents

Standing Order 35 Motion
(Speaker's Ruling)

On Monday, March 29, 1999, the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston informed the House of his intention to move an adjournment motion under standing order 35 to debate a matter of urgent public importance -- namely, that this House express its confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the RCMP and the judiciary having regard to certain recent statements by members of the government and prominent members of the NDP concerning the RCMP.

The long-established practice in this House is for the member seeking leave to move an adjournment motion under standing order 35 to rise in his or her place, state the matter and hand the statement to the Speaker. However, in this instance, Hansard clearly shows that the hon. member rose and moved the motion to adjourn the House before making a statement, contrary to the express provisions of standing order 35. On this ground alone, the motion appears to the Chair to be out of order. But in view of the seriousness of the allegations, further comment is warranted.

In dealing with the applications under standing order 35, the Chair must take into account the wording of the standing order as well as other considerations established through practice. Specifically, the matter must meet the test of urgency and public importance such that public interest would suffer if usual House business were not set aside to give the matter immediate attention. It has been stated many times that it is the urgency of debate that is paramount and not the urgency of the matter. The words "urgent public importance" in standing order 35 suggest a sudden and unexpected occurrence, hence the presence of the essential element of suddenness.

The Chair is sensitive to the importance of the matter which the member raises. Belief and full confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the law enforcement agencies and the judiciary is, of course, one of the great traditions of the justice system within our democracy. The member submits that the statements in question raise the spectre of political intimidation of an ongoing investigation. On this issue, I remind members that the Attorney General has stated in the House the government's position in this regard. I quote from Hansard, last Monday, March 29: ". . .ministers of the Crown ought not to and must not criticize the law enforcement agencies of the province."

The Chair must also be satisfied that ordinary parliamentary opportunities will not occur shortly or in reasonable time to address the matter in the House. It is my opinion that there are other reasonable opportunities for debating the independence of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system. The estimates -- including the Attorney General's estimates -- having been referred to Committee of Supply, provide a venue which traditionally affords members an opportunity to address questions such as that raised by the member. The debate on the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair provides another opportunity to canvass the matter. I have also pointed out that during oral question period on March 29, a very clear statement on this matter was made by the Attorney General.

Therefore, on both technical and substantive grounds, the member's application cannot succeed.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada