Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11701 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is a class from the faculty of child, family and community studies at Douglas College in New Westminster. They'll be meeting later this afternoon with the Minister of Human Resources. I would ask all my colleagues in this House to make them welcome.

M. Coell: Today in the gallery are the B.C. and Yukon Community Newspapers Association executive: George Affleck; Peter Speck; Don Kendall; Frank Teskey; Steve Houston; Joyce Carlson; Tony Richards, from my riding; and Manfred Tempelmayr. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's an honour for me to introduce a good friend of mine in the gallery today. She is an elected official from the province of Alberta, and she is the Hon. Iris Evans, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'd just like to add our recognition from this side of the House to the introduction of the representatives from the B.C. and Yukon Community Newspapers Association, a couple of whom I met with this morning. I understand other MLAs had an opportunity, as well, at lunch.

I. Chong: Visiting us today are some students from Braefoot Elementary School in my riding. They are 25 grades 4 to 7 students. Several adults are accompanying them, as well as their teacher, Mr. Campbell. Would the House please make them very welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery today are four very good friends. There's Vic Morden, manager for western Canada of the Laborers International Union of North America. With him is Bruce Ferguson, president and assistant business manager of Laborers Local 1611, and Dennis Morgan, a business representative of Laborers Local 1611. Also with them is Bill Clark, who is a retired past president of the TWU, which we all know represented the workers at B.C. Tel. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: There are representatives of the Vancouver Downtown Eastside Residents Association in Victoria today for a housing conference. Two of them are in the gallery today, and one of them has commented to me, this being his first time at this building, that he felt this building would make a wonderful housing project. I'd like the House to please welcome Frank Gilbert and Ian McRae.

Hon. C. Evans: When I became a minister for the first time, I had no place to stay in Victoria. A young lady named Rosa Johnson moved out of her playroom and moved into her sister's room so that I would have a place to sleep in this town. She lives in Newfoundland. She's a baseball player, a basketball player and a dear friend -- and she has actually assisted all of you to do your jobs by giving me a place to stay. She is accompanied by a gentleman who will remain unnamed. Will the House please make Rosa welcome.

R. Thorpe: I'm very pleased today to have the opportunity to introduce some guests visiting from Vancouver. In the House today is the president and chief operating officer of Sandman Hotels and a director of the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association, Taj Kassam. He is joined by his wife Parviz and his daughter Alisha. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to add our welcome from this side to Frank Gilbert and Ian McRae from DERA. DERA, of course, provides very valuable feedback to me and to this side of the House as we develop policy and move forward on income support programs for low-income people. So I would also like to add our welcome from this side of the House.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT FOR
MINISTER'S AND WIFE'S TRIP

The Speaker: Before the minister replies. . . . Thank you, member, for your question. I would like the member to tell the House how that question relates to his current ministerial duties. I believe it's a previous portfolio that is being referred to.

C. Clark: Yesterday the minister said that it was his normal policy to reimburse the taxpayer for trips that his wife took while he was a minister. I understand that's his general policy. I'm asking him to clarify for us today if he indeed stuck to that general policy when he was the Minister of Environment.

The Speaker: Sorry, I think that doesn't match up. Would you like to ask another question, then, please.

C. Clark: Then I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Can she tell us if her ministry can provide any documents, any receipts, that indicate that her predecessor, who is now the Minister Responsible for the Public Service, reimbursed the taxpayer for the four-day wilderness excursion that he and his wife took to Whistler and Spruce Lake over the Labour Day weekend?

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think there's a difficulty with that as well. It relates to a previous minister in a previous portfolio and not the current minister with current responsibilities in that ministry. Try again; I'll let you try again.

C. Clark: Well, maybe the Minister of Environment can tell us this, because we understand that this is the normal

[ Page 11702 ]

The Speaker: Next question. I recognize the member for Okanagan West.

RESOURCES FOR CHILD PROTECTION

My question is to the Minister for Children and Families. After all this time and after all the NDP promises, why is the system still in a severe state of crisis? And why are children still waiting for sufficient resources?

Hon. L. Boone: It's unfortunate that the child advocate never bothered to call me to find out what exactly was taking place in the review, because she would have in fact found out that we have restructured the number of regions. We've reduced the number of regions so that we can save between $2 million and $3 million to put into services for children, which is what I think taxpayers want to do -- not see it going into administrative costs. That's something that I'm very proud of, so I don't see that as wasting money.

This ministry has only been around for three years, and over two years we've seen an increase of close to $100 million in services through this ministry. So I don't think we're shortchanging this ministry.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

[1415]

Hon. L. Boone: It's interesting. I would listen to the children's advocate if in fact she would call me once in a while and tell me about her concerns, but she's never done so in a year. If she were really that concerned about there being a crisis in this ministry, I'm sure she would have called me.

We have invested a tremendous amount of time and effort and dollars in this ministry. We have had a task force on foster parents. Many of those recommendations have been implemented. We are working with those areas. We have increased the number of staff; 152 new social workers have been hired. Are there problems out there? Of course. This is a very stressful job that individuals do out there. They do it very well. We work well on behalf of children. And I would suggest that people over on that side of the House start to recognize the good work that our employees are doing out there. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .and support the workers, instead of always trying to cry wolf.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

K. Whittred: In Merritt last week, a child care conference was told that social workers are collapsing under huge caseloads. In another office, child protection workers are facing workloads three times higher than recommended. Meanwhile, this government, which says that it's all about choices, has made a choice. It chose to hand out fat pay raises to its friends in the construction trade unions. Will the Minister for Children and Families tell us why her government made this choice to boost the wages of construction workers while front-line workers who protect our children do not have the resources to do their jobs?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm glad that the opposition mentions and recognizes that it is about choices. It is about choices. We have chosen to add dollars to this ministry. We have chosen to increase this budget by over $100 million over two years. That's a choice from this side. What choice would that side make when they're talking about giving tax breaks to major corporations and tax breaks to the rich? How would you support those children? What are the choices that you over on that side have? We know what our choices are. I don't know what your choices are.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

K. Whittred: Every year we hear one horror story tacked upon another horror story. We keep being told the same story: that this is a work in progress. All we hear is that we need a little more time, and it's going to come together. The minister claims that there is no crisis in this ministry, yet front-line workers, the workers in the field doing the job, tell us that there is. The children's advocate says that there is a crisis. To the Minister for Children and Families: who are we to believe?

Hon. L. Boone: The front-line workers have a very difficult job to do. I recognize that, and I praise them every day, and every time I go out into the field, for the work that they do. They work under very stressful and very hard conditions, and they aren't helped at all by the opposition, who are constantly condemning them for the work that they do. This is a ministry that is a very difficult one; it is a very difficult job to do. It is not a ministry in crisis, by any means.

[1420]

The Speaker: Members, members.

[ Page 11703 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .is one that we have made, as compared to choices. . .

The Speaker: Minister, time is up.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .on the other side -- which would be to cut.

NANAIMO HOSPITAL WAIT-LISTS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

C. Hansen: Can the Health minister tell us why she was unaware of this growing crisis, and can she tell us why the wait-lists at Nanaimo general hospital are growing by hundreds of patients in the space of the last 12 months alone?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's interesting that the opposition member chooses to talk about Nanaimo, which is where the Leader of the Opposition said that $6 billion was enough for health care. Why, we currently spend $8 billion. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence that won't be noticed by people in Nanaimo.

I have never said that I was unaware of a health care challenge in Nanaimo at all. If that had been the case, we as a government would not have given that board a 9 percent increase last year in their operating budget. A number of boards last year got lifts of 0.5 percent or 1 percent; they got a lift of 9 percent. I would hardly have done that if I did not think they had additional challenges.

The Speaker: The minister will wind up her remarks.

Hon. P. Priddy: I would hardly have put $700,000 in new money, just a month ago, into that hospital and that region if I didn't think they had a problem.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: I must conclude by saying. . . .

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: There is nothing on record from that hospital or that health region that says they need more intensive care unit beds -- nothing.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: Since 1996 the situation at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital has been reviewed not once, not twice, not three times, but four times by the Ministry of Health. And yet the surgery wait-lists at that hospital have grown to be the worst in the province on a per-capita basis. How many more reviews is it going to take before this minister admits that it is her government's mismanagement that is hurting patients? And how many more reviews is it going to take before she gets around to doing something about solving patient care in Nanaimo Regional General Hospital and other high-growth-rate areas in this province?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I might go back two years before 1996. . . . From 1994 until this year, we have raised the Nanaimo budget by $20 million. My senior staff -- my deputy and my associate deputy -- are going up there on Monday. I'll tell you, hon. Speaker. . . . Do we need to look at how the resources are being used? Yes. Do we need to look at how management is working up there? Yes, we do. But we have -- and we continue to -- put dollars into that region in far higher proportions than almost anywhere else in the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Order, please.

EFFECT OF AQUACULTURE MORATORIUM
ON COASTAL COMMUNITIES

[1425]

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Streifel: I appreciate the question from the member, and I appreciate his interest in activity in British Columbia. It's true, there isn't a decision yet on lifting the moratorium. It's a complicated problem that we face around this, with the diverse thoughts and opinions on both sides of this issue. We are prepared to make a careful decision with careful consideration when we do move on this issue, and I appreciate the member's question.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: Over a year and a half ago, in August of 1997, the environmental assessment office gave this government a full set of recommendations that would allow for a carefully regulated expansion of the industry. Since that time, everyone from the Premier to the Public Service minister has said that the moratorium should be lifted. In fact, just last week the Deputy Premier said that the moratorium should be ended. So my question to the Minister of Fisheries, again, is: why are coastal communities being denied the jobs and investment they desperately need from an industry that is committed to producing sustainable long-term growth?

[ Page 11704 ]

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, it's interesting that this member would raise the plight of the coastal communities based on this issue, where he knows there are diverse opinions on both sides of the question. We have been out consulting extensively on the issue of finfish aquaculture. I've instructed my staff to work with Washington State -- as there are particular problems in Washington State that affect us -- to put the industries together. In fact, I would appreciate it if the member would pay attention to the plight of the coastal communities. They are meeting this weekend, and they feel abandoned by the federal Liberal government. We have no support from the opposition members in this House on the plight of the coastal communities -- in an advocacy role, in servicing their needs.

Ministerial Statement

CANCER SURVIVAL RATES IN B.C.

The Canadian Cancer Society's statistics show that B.C. offers patients the very best odds for surviving cancer. The reasons why cancer patients fair better in British Columbia than elsewhere are relatively simple. They include the coordinated approach we offer in cancer care, from diagnosis to treatment, through the B.C. Cancer Agency; the fact that we've made health spending a top priority and provide the highest per-capita health funding in the country; the fact that we've continued to support providing cancer patients with the latest proven treatment and drugs, as we recently demonstrated when we announced our $8 million increase in the budget for new cancer drugs this year; and the fact that we've responded to the needs of new cancer patients as our population has grown. This year we'll add another 5,000 radiotherapy treatments to get patients the care they need faster in high-growth areas of our province.

We've been vigilant, hon. Speaker -- all of us. We will continue to make every effort to ensure that the war against cancer is a winnable battle for those families who will confront it in the future. I applaud the dedicated caregivers who continue to provide a level of excellence in cancer care that is recognized not just across Canada but around the world.

[1430]

Hon. Speaker, I think this is a credit to the Canadian Cancer Society, a credit to the B.C. Cancer Agency and a credit to the thousands of health care providers around this province. I join the minister in saluting them.

The Speaker: I salute the member for maintaining his position, in the face of some conversations on the other side of the House. I didn't want to interrupt the member in his remarks. I would encourage members, when other members are speaking, please, to have a little respect for everyone in this House. Conversations are important, but they can happen outside.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: I have the honour to present public report No. 38 of the ombudsman, entitled "Righting the Wrong: The Confinement of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobor Children."

Hon. C. McGregor: I also have the honour to present a report today -- the annual report of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for 1998.

Orders of the Day

NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)

On the schedule, chapter 5 (continued).

[1435]

Hon. G. Wilson: Before lunch, the member opposite asked if the GST and PST provisions in the tax agreement would give any competitive advantage to a Nisga'a govern-

[ Page 11705 ]

G. Abbott: To further pursue that, then, and just so we're very clear. . . . If, under the provisions of paragraph 71(b), for example, the Nisga'a put in place a value-added timber-processing operation, and if they purchase in the province of British Columbia machinery and equipment and put it in place -- obviously on their site or wherever they choose in the Nass Valley -- that machinery and equipment will come with a PST payment to the province of British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes. As a guideline for the member, the only PST and GST provisions that result in exemptions for the Nisga'a government are if the purchase is for an activity that's non-profit or, secondly, if it's in respect to performing a function of government. Otherwise they apply.

G. Abbott: So is the minister saying that whether it is a Nisga'a Lisims government-owned operation or a Nisga'a village government-owned operation, in either case the exemption for government would not apply -- that in either case the Nisga'a would be paying PST on the machinery and equipment?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes. The two tests apply.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what those two tests are?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'll repeat what I said before: if it's for an activity that's non-profit or if it's for a function that is one of government.

G. Abbott: So that we're not going around in a circle too many times here, there is a clear understanding on the part of the government, and presumably on the part of the Nisga'a as well, that a government-owned timber-processing facility in the Nass Valley would clearly not qualify for a PST or GST exemption under the terms of this treaty.

Hon. G. Wilson: That is correct. If it is a commercial operation in the competitive mainstream, it will not qualify for exemption.

G. Abbott: I'm presuming, then, that the provincial sales tax on energy, should it be applicable in this case, would also be levied in the same way that it would on any other commercial facility.

Hon. G. Wilson: That's correct.

[1440]

The first question is with respect to paragraph 69. Paragraph 68, I think, is straightforward enough, although some of my colleagues may have questions on it. But I do have some questions around paragraph 69. The paragraph reads: "The amount referred to in section 68 will be: (a) $6 per cubic metre; or. . . ." And it goes on to some other terms and qualifications. Where does the $6 figure come from?

Hon. G. Wilson: That number is derived from. . . . It's a historical figure, stumpage over five years.

G. Abbott: Over five years, $6 per cubic metre represents an average of what?

Hon. G. Wilson: It represents industry performance over five years.

G. Abbott: Okay. I can understand from the section that it means industry performance. But what does that mean? What does $6 reflect -- the average stumpage billed? What does the $6 represent?

Hon. G. Wilson: It represents the average selling price by species and grade, at the operating costs and billed stumpage.

G. Abbott: Why would the agreement build in that average selling price, when in the next subsection it goes on to lay out what happens when the stumpage exceeds $6 per cubic metre? Why is that $6 figure inserted in this agreement?

Hon. G. Wilson: Because there is a wide range of actual performance, this $6 was a negotiated average figure; that's why. If the member opposite would like a lot of the detailed tables, I'm happy to have those made available to him if he wants to go through them. In effect, it's a negotiated average.

G. Abbott: I think it starts to make more sense when the term "negotiated average" is used. If it does not represent a negotiated average, then the obvious question would be: why not go with actuals billed and received, and forward them on to the Nisga'a, as opposed to. . . ? I guess it's an arbitrary figure. It's also a negotiated figure of $6 per cubic metre.

[1445]

G. Abbott: Is the figure of $6 per cubic metre that is in section 69 reflective of industry performance on Nisga'a lands or across British Columbia?

Hon. G. Wilson: There were general billings in northwest British Columbia, not specific to Nisga'a land.

G. Abbott: As I understand section 69, the amount will be either "(a) $6 per cubic metre; or (b) if either billed stumpage or industry performance exceeds $6 per cubic metre: (i) billed stumpage determined in accordance with the Ministry of Forests Interior Appraisal Manual, and (ii) industry performance up to a maximum of $10 per cubic metre, determined as the value per cubic metre of the timber as at the date of

[ Page 11706 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: If the fee exceeds $6, then we simply go to (b), and it is the industry performance, up to a maximum of $10.

G. Abbott: The minister is suggesting here, with "(i) billed stumpage determined in accordance with the Ministry of Forests Interior Appraisal Manual," that if that figure, for whatever reason, exceeded $10 per cubic metre. . . . Would that be the figure used? Or is $10 always going to be the upset maximum that is arrived at in this section?

Hon. G. Wilson: The $10 figure is the maximum for industry performance, plus they get what the stumpage is, as determined on the Vancouver log market.

G. Abbott: Again, just for clarity: why is the reference to the Vancouver log market here? I presume it is because, as we have discussed previously, there is no established log market outside of Vancouver. Presumably the Vancouver log market is the only one that can be drawn in and used to quantify here. Is that the case? And if so, does that have any effect in terms of skewing the final values that are attached to this section?

[1450]

G. Plant: Looking at section 72 of chapter 5 and these provisions of appendix H, it's not an overstatement to say that the policy objective here is to give the Nisga'a a certain amount representing negotiated economic rent for forestry operations on Nisga'a lands by provincial licensees during the transition period. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: In general terms, yes, that's correct.

G. Plant: The Nisga'a have negotiated a lower limit to the risk that exists, I suppose, in respect of the actual marketplace. The lower limit on the risk is $6 a cubic metre. If, for example, the province were to grant licences under the power that it has to do that during the transitional period and chose, if it were lawful to do so -- just to be hypothetical for a moment -- not to charge any stumpage to the licensees or the operators conducting the harvesting operations on Nisga'a lands, the Nisga'a would still get $6 a cubic metre for every cubic metre actually harvested under those licences and permits. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, that is correct, but we do charge stumpage.

G. Plant: Stumpage goes up and down, and the Nisga'a have negotiated some certainty around the risk that it might hypothetically go below $6, for whatever reason. What the Nisga'a have is the assurance that in that unlikely event, they will nonetheless get the $6 a cubic metre -- during the transition period.

Hon. G. Wilson: That was going to be my addition.

G. Plant: This whole scheme that we're talking about is a scheme that applies only during the transition period. On the upside. . . . I don't profess to completely understand the formula in 69(b), but it looks to me as though there is no limit contractually, if you will, to the upside. There is the possibility that market conditions and billed stumpage and industry performance could all combine together to create a significantly higher number, and it might be more than $10 a cubic metre. It might be who knows what. But whatever that number is, over and above $6 a cubic metre, the province's undertaking to the Nisga'a is that it will pay the Nisga'a that amount as economic rent, as it were, for the forestry or harvesting conducted by provincial licensees during the transition period.

Hon. G. Wilson: In the first part of the member's question, that's quite correct. There is an opportunity for upward movement. Where upward movement does occur, the Nisga'a entitlement is to stumpage plus, up to a maximum of $10 on the industrial performance.

G. Plant: One of the issues that arises here is with respect to the province's forecast of the cost to it of having made this commitment. As I recall, the province has allocated, if you will, a figure of $4.35 million -- as the number that it puts under the heading of forestry transition, which is the number that is the projected amount that will be paid to the Nisga'a pursuant to these provisions. If I'm right on that, could I also get the minister's further concurrence that that figure of $4.35 million essentially represents -- actually, it exactly represents -- $6 per cubic metre times the number of cubic metres that the province is permitted to harvest during each of the years that the province can license the harvesting of timber during the transition period?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that is correct. The reason that $6 was used as the calculating figure was because the five-year average was $5.95.

[1455]

Hon. G. Wilson: That is correct. It could rise to a maximum of $7.2 million.

I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 11707 ]

G. Plant: The $7.2 million represents $10 per cubic metre times the allowable cut harvestable over the five-year period by provincial licensees. Is that how you would get to the $7.2 million?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes. But then you would add stumpage. So that $7.2 million is the industry performance maximum value, and then there's stumpage. As I think we've explained earlier on to the member, if it goes to the $10 maximum, the maximum payable is $7.2 million, plus whatever stumpage is.

G. Plant: I would ask a question which I should know the answer to, but I didn't pay attention at a particular moment. When we were talking about the transition period, the provincial harvest. . . . Each year there are numbers of the allowable annual cut. Is the province obliged to deliver that annual allowable cut under the terms of the treaty, such as to be in a position where the province is, essentially, obliged to produce a minimum of $4.35 million to the Nisga'a under these provisions? Or could circumstances arise where the licensees of the province during the transition period would actually not reach the numbers that are set out in the transitional paragraph?

Hon. G. Wilson: We're obliged to pay on the actual harvest.

G. Plant: And if the actual harvest falls below the five annual allowable cut numbers that are set out, I think, in paragraph 18, then the amount actually paid, under paragraph 72, would fall accordingly.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's correct.

[1500]

At some point I start to get overwhelmed by the complexity of all that and wonder why it's all necessary. I mean, if the trees are the Nisga'a's, if they're going to eventually end up harvesting them all, why are we bothering to go through a period where there's this elegant exercise in having the province make a certain commitment of payments -- economic rent or stumpage or whatever -- to the Nisga'a? Why not just let the Nisga'a control that from the word go? I guess this is the moment at which the logic of the transition period begins to escape me. Perhaps the minister could, in the most general way, explain that logic to me.

Hon. G. Wilson: It was the intention of all parties at the table to make sure that the transition was as smooth as possible and the least disruptive as possible to existing operations. So the five-year transition period is established primarily to provide that level of economic certainty and some security during the time that the Nisga'a put in place full ownership.

G. Abbott: A couple of additional questions on section 69. What is the similarity -- perhaps it's identical -- between what is termed "industry performance" in this section and what is in the language of the revenue branch of the Ministry of Forests when they use the term "mean value index"? Is industry performance synonymous or identical to mean value index? Or are we talking apples and oranges completely here in that comparison?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In general terms, it means the mean value index minus stumpage, which is a surrogate for industry profit.

G. Abbott: I think that's useful. My understanding is that notionally at least -- and there's a mean value index for the coast and a mean value index for the interior -- mean value index is the estimated value of processed timber, estimated by the revenue branch, minus the cost of extraction and minus the cost of milling. That yields an estimate by the revenue branch of the mean value index or what they think the value of that is after the costs of milling and extracting it are deducted. As I recall, mean value index does not include stumpage knocked off the bottom as well. Is that the difference between mean value index and industry performance -- that industry performance has that additional stumpage subtracted from it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In general terms, yes -- more or less. The reason I say that is because there is an index developed for the operating area that we're talking about, and it's the forest district up there. So we'll use what is, in effect, the district mean value index.

[1505]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be unique to the cutting permits in that area, the area of the treaty.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what that mean value index has been in recent times in that district, either. . . ? I'd welcome an answer that reflects the last six months, the last year, the last quarter -- or whatever information might be available there.

[ Page 11708 ]

G. Abbott: Fair enough. Just so we are all comparing apples to apples in this situation. . . . In negotiating this agreement, we have gone back five years to when we would find, for example, mean value indices very high on the positive side. If we used a performance measure for industry performance that only brought into the picture the last year or two, when the industry has been troubled -- particularly on the coast, but also in the interior to a lesser extent. . . . If we look at only one year, then obviously the industry performance would not be $6 a cubic metre. If we go back five years, then that's what we arrive at.

Hence, back to the original point of the Aboriginal Affairs minister, this is a negotiated period, which at least for the immediately foreseeable future, I guess, would probably be of considerable benefit to the Nisga'a -- although it's all based on the notion that there will not be an upsurge in the foreseeable future in the mean value index and, hence, in the industry performance. Is that a fair assessment of all that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There was a wide range. Bear in mind that this was negotiated because you could run ahead, you could run back a long way, or you could take a reasonable time period. The time period selected was '92-93 through to '96-97, and I'll read you the ranges. It was negative $24 in '92-93. It was positive $171 in '93-94. It was positive $23.59, which is why we were interested in a cap, in fiscal '94-95. It was positive $23.71 in fiscal '95-96 and negative $186 in '96-97. The average was the $5.96 that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs gave you earlier, rounded to $6.

G. Abbott: Good. Thank you for clarifying that. That makes it easier to understand and, I think, gives us a good sense of where people are being placed in respect to these sections.

If an overcut should occur, for whatever reason, on the cut -- as prescribed in these sections -- is there a penalty provision? Or would the overcut be compensated on just the same basis as the rest?

[1510]

G. Abbott: The minister noted in section 70 that there will be a conversion factor to take the estimated Vancouver log market value and convert it to a value for Nisga'a lands by species and grade. Can either minister provide more information on what that conversion factor is and how species and grade on Nisga'a land will be converted to Vancouver log market values?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The first payment would be three months after the effective date. It hasn't been developed yet, but it will be developed between now and the time in which we would have to make a payment.

G. Abbott: Section 71 of appendix H reads: "The operating costs referred to in subsection 69 (b) (ii) will be the costs associated with each timber mark on Nisga'a Lands as determined in accordance with the Ministry of Forests Interior Appraisal Manual, and will include the following. . . ." I guess question one is: why use the "Interior Appraisal Manual" in this particular case?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The manual that applies currently in that area is the interior manual.

G. Abbott: I presume that there is some historical reason for that, given that at least the 2,002 square kilometres is more coastal than interior. But I guess it's just a historical thing that the "Interior Appraisal Manual" has been used in the past there. Is that the case?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it would be a transition belt. I think both transition belts are in the interior manuals.

G. Abbott: The calculation of the costs associated with each timber mark, which are listed in points A through G -- who is going to be doing the calculations on that? Will it be the Nisga'a or the Ministry of Forests? Or how will all that be worked out?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Ministry of Forests revenue branch will do it.

G. Abbott: Point 72 in the appendix, I think, is an important one, given the discussion that we have had with respects to subsection 69(a) and (b). Section 72 reads: "The amounts referred to in subsections 69 (a) and (b) (ii) will be adjusted annually for inflation using the Canada Final Domestic Demand Implicit Price Index, as agreed to by the Nisga'a Nation and British Columbia, commencing on the second anniversary of the effective date." Now, I'm assuming that the Canada final domestic demand implicit price index is the index that is used on a quarterly basis to recalculate the stumpage in British Columbia. Is that correct? Or are we dealing with some other animal here?

Hon. G. Wilson: If I understand the member's question correctly, I believe that's correct.

G. Abbott: So what's going to happen here is that on the second anniversary. . . . No, maybe we have a change here.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I understood that your question was: do we use the same StatsCan index for stumpage calculations, which is a black box of randomly selected lumber prices? The answer is no. This is an inflation index -- separate.

[1515]

[ Page 11709 ]

G. Plant: This is the same index that's used throughout the agreement for the purpose of adjusting figures like the capital transfer payment and so on. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: The very same one.

G. Abbott: Is that adjustment that will be made on the second anniversary of the effective date the only recalculation of the $6 and $10 figures that will occur during the transition period?

Hon. G. Wilson: It is annually adjusted.

G. Abbott: I see that point now.

This adjustment, obviously, is going to occur regardless of whether softwood lumber values rise or decline over the same period. That would be immaterial to whether there is an adjustment made in the $6 and $10 figures.

Hon. G. Wilson: That's correct; it will be based on this index.

G. Abbott: The minister may have answered this question, but just to get it clear for me again. . . . If there is deflation -- if the Canada final domestic demand implicit price index should be a negative figure -- would the $6 and $10 figures be adjusted downward?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, they would.

G. Abbott: Paragraph 73 obliges British Columbia to pay to the Nisga'a nation the amount referred to in 69(a) at three-month intervals. I suspect that the provisions in this agreement were negotiated prior to the recent forest action plan changes, which allowed companies to spread out their stumpage payments over the entire year as opposed to paying them at the time that the logs are decked. Is that correct? Could that particular provision in the forest action plan come into play with respect to the harvest on Nisga'a lands?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to the member's two questions is yes. It was negotiated in advance, and therefore no, it could not.

G. Abbott: Does that then mean that licensees in the affected area will not have the option of spreading out their stumpage payments over a year as opposed to paying them at the time that the logs are decked?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The licensees will have the advantage of the forest action plan in that respect. It just amounts to a cash-flow issue for the province. It's not a large amount, because right now stumpage is $1.25. That's the stumpage amount that had flowed, times 155,000 cubic metres or whatever. So it's not a huge amount. I hope that clarifies it.

[1520]

Appendix H, section 74 reads: "In addition to the payment referred to in section 73, British Columbia will pay to the Nisga'a Nation, on a semi-annual basis unless otherwise agreed to by British Columbia and the Nisga'a Nation, an amount equal to the difference between the amount calculated under subsection 69 (b) and the amount that was paid under section 73." My question is: why would those two sums be different?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, what we know is what the base is. There may be an adjustment above that base, and if there should be an adjustment above that base, that'll be paid on a biannual basis.

G. Abbott: Section 75 reads: "British Columbia will provide the Nisga'a Nation with quarterly reports on the volume of timber harvested from Nisga'a Lands by timber mark specifying: (a) species and grade; (b) scale date; and (c) billed stumpage." Is this contingent upon the Nisga'a enacting law as per section 15 of the treaty?

Hon. G. Wilson: This is an obligation to the province of British Columbia; it has nothing to do with the Nisga'a.

G. Abbott: The reason I asked is that paragraph 15 of chapter 5 says, "If Nisga'a Lisims Government makes laws under paragraph 14, Nisga'a Lisims Government will, on or before March 31 of each year, provide to British Columbia a report on the volume of timber harvested during the preceding year. . .by species, grade, and timber mark" -- similar information to what British Columbia is obliged to provide under section 75 of the appendix. So it would seem to me that there is some sort of relationship between those two sections or between that section and that paragraph. Perhaps we can get some clarification on that.

Hon. G. Wilson: This is referring to the harvest by the licensees under our laws, so it's an obligation of the province to the Nisga'a.

G. Abbott: I think the last point that comes into play with respect to the issue we've been discussing -- same economic position. . . . British Columbia will provide the Nisga'a nation with a report on operating costs by timber mark at the same frequency as specified in section 74. So they will be providing that on a semi-annual basis, obviously. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: That's correct.

G. Abbott: I'd like to move on to the second area under "Economic Considerations" in chapter 5, that being "Restoration." Paragraph 73 reads: "British Columbia and Canada recognize that the present and anticipated efforts of the Nisga'a Nation to restore watersheds within the Nass Area are consistent with the objectives of Forest Renewal British Columbia." Does the province of British Columbia -- and the government of Canada, presumably -- recognize that effort for the transition period, for the nine years until the Nisga'a assume full authority over the direction of timber policy within their area? Or do British Columbia and Canada recognize that in perpetuity?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, this is a recognition; it's not a commitment. I think that as long as we make that distinc-

[ Page 11710 ]

[1525]

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I think that the members opposite will know that watershed management and restoration are high priorities in most communities, and FRBC has taken steps to see that initiatives are undertaken in many communities. The Nass is not unlike that. There are present initiatives that are underway, and there are anticipated initiatives that will be coming forward. This clause simply says that British Columbia and Canada will recognize that those initiatives will be consistent with the provisions within FRBC.

G. Plant: I could see that if the province had a piece of paper that said: "Here are the Nisga'a nation's plans or objectives in respect of watershed restoration over the next decade." Then, there'd be something where we could say: "Well, this is what they're promising or pledging to do, and yes, those objectives are consistent with the objectives of FRBC." I don't think that's the same thing as talking about anticipated efforts.

But it may be that the minister's answer to the last question took us part of the way down the road -- that is, the government or FRBC is already in possession of knowledge about what it is the Nisga'a have said they intend to do in the area of watershed restoration. It is that statement, if you will, and those objectives that the province is recognizing here as being consistent with the objectives of FRBC -- which, of course, could change tomorrow if the Legislature chose to change them, which is another interesting aspect of the way this clause is drafted. But leaving that to one side, is that really what the province is talking about here -- that the province already knows something about what the Nisga'a have said they intend to do and, from the province's perspective, that's what the province is recognizing in this clause?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me try to be simple here. The Nisga'a anticipate that they will restore watersheds and that they will qualify under a program. We anticipate that they will qualify under a program. Once it becomes treaty lands, though, they will be treated like any other private landowner, so if there is an FRBC program for restoring watersheds on private lands, they will qualify. So this is not a blank cheque; it's just a recognition that we think they will qualify, that we understand that they have an interest in doing this. But it is no guarantee that every watershed is going to be restored.

If FRBC doesn't budget any money into a private land watershed restoration program, then the Nisga'a won't get any money. But if there is a program, they will qualify. The planning of this would take place in the context of the regional planning up in that area.

G. Abbott: I'll be simple here too, then, and we can maybe get to the point relatively quickly. The aim and intention of these two sections, 73 and 74, is that the province wants to recognize that logging activity has occurred in the Nass River valley in the past and that there may have been deleterious conditions created with respect to some of the watersheds as a consequence of that logging activity in the past. Hence the government is saying. . . . To recognize that and the desire of the Nisga'a to make right some of those deleterious conditions, the province at this point, in 1999, is recognizing that and therefore is saying: notwithstanding the fact that as, essentially, private landowners the Nisga'a will not be paying into the FRBC pot, the government is recognizing, in this point, that they are going to allow the Nisga'a to take money out of the pot to remedy past ills. Is that a fair, if simple, assessment of the government's position?

[1530]

G. Abbott: Obviously my description wasn't quite simple enough, because certainly that's what I intended: logging or extraction activities prior to the effective date.

Is the understanding clear here, as well, that the logging activities that occur on Nisga'a lands after the effective date that come with the approval of the forest transition committee and, after the five-year period, presumably at the permission of the Nisga'a government. . . ? Those activities, if they prompt the need for further FRBC work, would not qualify. So we move from one age to another with the effective date. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that is correct. And I want the record to show that the reason for this is that the province has an interest in the historical activity. We have an interest in the impacts of that historical activity on the watersheds. The watersheds will run into provincial lands -- off the Nisga'a lands into provincial lands. So we would do it out of recognition that there is a broader provincial interest.

G. Abbott: Again, to keep this on the practical, straightforward level at this point, as I understand it from our discussions in the select standing committee, FRBC is likely to have a watershed program for the foreseeable future. They are also likely to have less money in it, as a consequence of diminishing rates of superstumpage, etc. Does the government or the Ministry of Forests or FRBC have a clear idea of what the Nisga'a are looking for in the way of watershed restoration at this point in time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Nisga'a -- like any interest that's out there in the restoration of watersheds -- have wishes that far exceed the whole budget of FRBC, let alone the watershed budget. But that's to be expected. We could go on fixing watersheds at our historical record rate in FRBC and be at it for probably 20 or more years. So it depends on available funds. As I said in my comments, there is no guarantee of any amount. They are in competition for scarce resources.

G. Plant: It seems to me that the policy objectives of these provisions, as they were summarized a moment ago by my colleague and by the minister, can be -- and in fact are -- entirely achieved by paragraph 74. Paragraph 73 goes a step further. It certainly says something to the Nisga'a that British Columbia doesn't say, as I understand it, to any other landholder or Forest Act agreement holder in British Columbia.

I understand that the minister is clearly correct. There are limited funds, and there are more applications every year,

[ Page 11711 ]

The government has already made a statement of recognition here -- it may be proper to call it a concession -- that whatever is anticipated that the Nisga'a would like to do to restore watersheds is going to be consistent with the objectives of FRBC. It seems to me that that certainly puts the Nisga'a nation in a different position in terms of applying for FRBC funds than virtually any other applicant. If I'm wrong, I'm sure that one of the ministers will stand up and correct me.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This provision doesn't give them a leg up on it; it does not give them an advantage.

[1535]

Just to pause for a moment, paragraph 73 uses one of my favourite words in the context of aboriginal affairs. It uses the word "recognize." That's a word that a bunch of people who drafted a constitution in 1982 and who drafted section 35 disagreed about. There were some people in the room who thought that it didn't mean anything at all -- that is, they thought that the recognition of aboriginal rights was nothing more than a non-substantive assurance. And they've been proven wrong. So there's a recognition here. It seems to me entirely possible that someone could argue that there's come content to that recognition, that it avoids some aspect of the application by the Nisga'a for FRBC funds. It's not a big deal one way or the other; it seems to me to be pretty obviously so. But if the minister can explain to me how it is that that conclusion doesn't follow, then I await his explanation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to answer you like a legislator, not like a lawyer. My answer is this: the treaty is about. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I'm going to ask the lawyers to help if I misspeak myself. But let me try this.

We recognize problems on the land that the Nisga'a will take over. They didn't want us to slam the door on their qualifying for funds to restore watersheds. This treaty is about building a relationship. We use the word "recognize" here. We're recognizing that the relationship between British Columbia and the Nisga'a concerning resource management will be better if they continue to qualify in a way that is limited by section 74. The final clause in that section says: ". . .in accordance with requirements and guidelines of those programs."

G. Plant: So it's a part of the positive program of the province to construct a new relationship with the Nisga'a and, particularly in this context of a relationship around the management of forest lands, that the province take a step beyond that which it takes with all other landowners in British Columbia. It says to the Nisga'a: "Look, we'll make this special recognition. Yes, you will still have to qualify under the requirements and guidelines of existing programs. But in this respect, as a token or a gesture or an aspect of our desire to create a new relationship with you, we want to give you this special assurance in respect of FRBC." That is another way, it seems to me, of stating the objective of paragraph 73 as qualified by paragraph 74.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think my colleague the Minister of Forests summarized that really well. I'm really anxious to know, however, how the members opposite feel about the section on forest tenures. I think there's a lot of really interesting information in there. Maybe we could talk about that.

G. Plant: Actually, this is significant for a number of reasons, I think. But let me deal with one aspect of the significance of this obligation. What amount has the province allocated in respect of the liability that FRBC may incur, in respect of watershed restoration, pursuant to the obligations that may arise in the subject matter of paragraphs 73 and 74?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have a multi-year agreement with the Nisga'a. It's a five-year program, from '98-99 through to 2003-2004, and is valued at $395,000 annually. That's for a watershed restoration program in the Nass Valley. Let me clarify that it's outside the treaty; it's not part of the treaty.

G. Plant: It's $395,000 a year for five years, commencing in '98-99. Did I hear the minister correctly?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that's correct.

[1540]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it is.

G. Plant: Is this an amount allocated in anticipation of applications that may be made for FRBC funding under paragraphs 73 and 74 in chapter 5?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is no.

G. Plant: So it's conceivable that there may be amounts in addition to that arising out of applications made under these two clauses. Or does the agreement that the minister is referring to preclude any further applications for FRBC funding during its lifetime?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, they can apply. But they would have to qualify. As I said, there is presently no private land watershed restoration program. I'm certainly not aware of it, anyway. There isn't one.

G. Plant: So that $395,000 per year for five years is in respect of specific initiatives that are already identified. Or is it just an allocation in anticipation of programs and plans being agreed upon over the next five years?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Nisga'a, as a partner in the Forest Renewal partnership, had negotiated an agreement like this. What work is involved needs to be negotiated annually, and the work need not necessarily even be on Nisga'a land. It could be outside Nisga'a land.

[ Page 11712 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is a master agreement similar to the agreements that we have with other parties, like companies that have a multi-year agreement. It's an umbrella agreement, and the specific schedules to the agreements or subagreements are negotiated on an annual basis. The planning process for that is that the holders of these agreements -- including the licensees in the other areas of the principal, other holders of agreements -- sit down, go through the planning process and prioritize the areas for work.

G. Abbott: Just to pursue that a little bit more. What we have here, in effect, is a multi-year agreement with not only the Nisga'a but also potentially the licensees in the area. Effectively, it's kind of an area-based, multi-year agreement in which the current stakeholders -- who I would judge to be the Nisga'a plus the licensees in the area -- would sit down as a group and evaluate the projects and so on that could be used to expend the $395,000. Is that right?

Hon. G. Wilson: This agreement is actually outside the terms of the treaty. I think that rather than fool around with it, why don't we just give you a copy of the agreement and then you can see for yourself what's in it? It's much like any other that's done in B.C.

[1545]

Hon. G. Wilson: That's correct. It has nothing, really, to do with this. In the interests of full and open government, which we always aspire to, I'll make sure the members opposite get a copy.

G. Plant: I look forward to continued effort on the part of the minister to give life to the principle which he's just expressed in his customarily eloquent fashion. Really, what we've been talking about, though, in terms of this $2 million over five years, doesn't have anything to do with paragraphs 73 and 74 of chapter 5, where this all began. Is that right?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's correct.

G. Abbott: This multi-year agreement will continue to involve the current stakeholders -- that is, including the licensees in the area -- even after the effective date. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The agreement is between the Nisga'a tribal council and FRBC. Any work that is approved under that agreement will go through the planning process -- where the government of B.C. creates a natural resources plan for the area, led primarily by the Ministry of Forests. The licensees who are operating in the area and other agreement holders, like the Nisga'a, would sit down and prioritize and come up with a detailed work plan. That's currently being negotiated.

G. Abbott: In deference to the urgent need of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to move on to the area that is obviously of great interest to him -- the "Forest Resources Outside Nisga'a Lands" section, including the issue on forest tenures. . . . Obviously we're going to have an interesting discussion on that one, since the minister is very anxious to get there. As always, the opposition wants to be useful and helpful in achieving the goals of the government, and we're happy to move on.

Under "Forest Management," paragraph 75 reads: "Canada or British Columbia will provide the Nisga'a Nation, through the Joint Fisheries Management Committee and the Wildlife Committee, the information concerning forest development plans applicable to all or part of the Nass Area that is provided to the ministries or departments of Canada and British Columbia participating on those committees." Can I perhaps get, from either minister, a simple explanation of what is envisioned in that section?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Basically this is an information-sharing provision. It just says that we'll share information with them so that they know what British Columbia is doing, and presumably we have an interest in knowing what they're doing.

G. Abbott: Thank you -- and that's fair enough.

So what's at work here is something which is disconnected with the obligation that may exist by the forest transition committee to advise of their plans. The forest transition committee has nothing to do with this section. Is that correct? Or does that come into play here?

[1550]

G. Abbott: I don't think any of my colleagues have questions, so I think we can safely move on to forest tenures. Paragraph 76 reads: "British Columbia agrees in principle to an acquisition by the Nisga'a Nation of a forest tenure or tenures having an aggregate allowable annual cut of up to 150,000 m3."

I guess the first question is. . . . Again, I suspect that my colleague the lawyer, were he here, would ask whether paragraph 76 confers any additional status to an application by the Nisga'a or, in simpler terms, provides them a leg up in terms of the acquisition of AAC in this area. Is there anything about paragraph 76 that would distinguish the Nisga'a from anyone else in the public sector who might like to acquire 150,000 cubic metres of tenure?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The effect of these sections taken together, 76 to 78, is that. . . . The Minister of Forests has to consider an application to acquire tenure. There would be an approval process, and it'd be the same process for anyone

[ Page 11713 ]

G. Abbott: If sections 76 through 78 had never been written, if whatever party had not negotiated the inclusion of sections 76 through 78 in the document, would the Minister of Forests, nevertheless, have a responsibility to give due and appropriate consideration, as set out in section 78, to an application by the Nisga'a for 150,000 cubic metres of tenure?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is yes, we would have had to consider it anyway, because the laws of general application apply. The Nisga'a wanted this written into the treaty as a recognition and so we wouldn't close the door on them.

G. Abbott: So again, it is, as we have seen on a few other occasions in this chapter, a statement of fact, effectively. It's a statement of reality, but it really has no more force and effect than if the propositions had gone unstated. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is correct.

G. Abbott: When we have the reference here to forest tenures, it invites the obvious question of what form tenure may take, or should take, in the 2,002. . . . Well, not in the 2,002-square-kilometre area but in whatever area-based or volume-based cut would be awarded or sold to the Nisga'a under the terms of the Forest Act. Is there any particular idea or notion in mind, either by the Nisga'a or by the ministry, of the form of tenure that this is apt to take on?

[1555]

G. Abbott: There is, then, no definite form of tenure, apart from paragraph 79. We can, perhaps, look at that more closely when we get there. But the 150,000 cubic metres could come in one piece, three pieces or any number of pieces, presumably, provided that the aggregate annual allowable cut was not in excess of 150,000 cubic metres.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Correct.

G. Abbott: One of the questions that a colleague posed to me was whether the Nisga'a could take some or all of this tenure in the form of woodlots. If, for example, the Nisga'a made it part of their forest policy to create a large number of woodlots and provide them to Nisga'a citizens who wish to own one, could they in turn use their woodlot tenure, conferred on them by the Nisga'a Lisims government, to acquire a larger woodlot by connecting up to adjacent Crown land?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's pretty hypothetical. I mean, were the Nisga'a to allocate some kind of private tenure within Nisga'a land so that people would qualify, it's theoretically possible. But there would have to be an apportionment so that there could be a qualifying allowable annual cut for the woodlot program. I don't think there is an allocated apportionment to the woodlot program in that area right now.

G. Abbott: I think the minister's right. Certainly that's hypothetical. On the other hand, I would also assume, though, that some Nisga'a citizens may be very attracted -- as, indeed, are many citizens in rural British Columbia -- to the notion of owning a woodlot. I presume that that attraction to owning a woodlot would exist in the Nass, just as it does in Sicamous or in Williams Lake. There are lots of people that are very keen to get a woodlot.

The suggestion here is not that every Nisga'a citizen is going to run out and try to get their own woodlot, but I expect that some probably will try to establish a woodlot. Presumably, whether their forest laws will include a form of tenure called woodlots will be a debate at the Nisga'a Lisims government at some point. They may well attempt to establish a woodlot program.

Should they do that, the understanding I clearly have from the minister is that while the Nisga'a government may independently choose to establish woodlot tenures, there is not going to be an opportunity for adjacent Crown lands to be taken into a woodlot scheme of that sort. Is that correct?

[1600]

G. Abbott: Thank you. I appreciate that clarification.

Section 76, I think, is clear enough. When the government is in receipt of an application by the Nisga'a nation for a forest tenure, will the province be looking at the cutting levels which are being undertaken on Nisga'a lands after the nine-year period, after which the Nisga'a have control over the level of cut? To put the point simply -- as I'm glad to say we have frequently here -- if the Nisga'a government decided that the appropriate level of annual allowable cut on their 2,002 square kilometres was 50,000 cubic metres a year, as opposed to what the government thinks is a long-term sustainable yield, which is 220,000 or what the Nisga'a in the latter years of the transition period think is sustainable, which is around 130,000 to 150,000. . . . If the Nisga'a decided after year 9 that 50 in fact was the right level because they had a different sense of forest values, would the Crown have to take into account the fact that the Nisga'a had made this choice in terms of forest values? And would they therefore use that as an important factor in assessing whether the Nisga'a should be allowed to assume another 150,000 cubic metres of cut on the Crown land adjacent to those 2,002 square kilometres?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, if the tenure that they acquired happened to be a TFL and they were attaching some schedule A Nisga'a lands, then an AAC would be calculated for that portion of the land that then is appurtenant to the TFL outside of Nisga'a lands. So if there's an attachment of the land inside to land outside through a TFL-type tenure, then there will be an AAC calculated for the Nisga'a land portion of the TFL. There would be an AAC determined there. But the decision to transfer another type of tenure that didn't affect Nisga'a lands

[ Page 11714 ]

G. Abbott: The point that's being made is a reasonable one. The minister is saying that if, for example, the Nisga'a decided, for whatever reason, that they wanted to purchase a tenure of up to 150,000 cubic metres in Fort Nelson, in the Kootenays, in the Shuswap or anywhere else, they have the same right to do that as any other citizen of British Columbia has. There is nothing in the way of special conditions that would be attached to that purchase other than what would be attached to any other British Columbian making that purchase. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is correct.

[1605]

I guess, to get another point on the record here: why the 150,000-cubic-metre limit? What is there. . . ? Is there a provision in the Forest Act -- perhaps there is -- that distinguishes tenures below 150,000 and tenures above 150,000? What's to limit the Nisga'a, for example, from acquiring Skeena Cellulose as TFL No. 1, should they choose?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's certainly no provision, no magic, to the number as far as the Forest Act goes. The number is. . . . This section and this number reflect the longstanding interest by the Nisga'a to acquire a portion of a tenure or a tenure. I'm sure they have had private business dealings with companies that reflect this with companies in the area. It is their announced intention that they wish to acquire tenure or have tenure as part of the business activities in which they're involved. I don't think there's anything more or less to it than that.

It's just saying that we won't close the door and say: "You've got your own land; therefore you can't acquire tenure." We would hope they would invest some of their moneys to stimulate the economy in the area around them. This is simply a recognition that we won't close the door to processing an application off Nisga'a lands.

G. Abbott: To summarize where we have come from again, as has been stated, sections 76, 77 and 78 have no more force and effect in their stated form here than they would have had they been unstated. They have no more force and effect here than if they had gone unsaid.

Similarly, the 150,000-cubic-metre figure simply reflects an idea which the Nisga'a obviously had in mind in terms of acquisition of tenures that -- who knows? -- they may have had discussions about for years. They just wanted that figure inserted in here, because to them it represented the upside of what they would be looking for in terms of tenures. But again, there is nothing in sections 76 to 78 that would place any limitation on the Nisga'a nation, any more than it would on West Fraser, from acquiring TFL No. 1 from Skeena Cellulose Inc. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member is correct.

G. Abbott: I think we are getting things fairly clear here. This forest tenure section. . . . I understand now why the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was so anxious to get there. It really doesn't mean anything, in fact. Notwithstanding anything in these sections, the Nisga'a, as British Columbians, can do whatever they will in any event; so that's fair enough. Maybe that was too much of a simplification, but if it isn't, I'd enjoy being corrected.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me offer an explanation. This says that we can't change the law and disqualify them from applying for a licence. So this gives them some certainty that they will be allowed to apply. We wouldn't change the Forest Act to disqualify them.

[1610]

I have a few other questions on this. The issue of corporate concentration is mentioned at a couple of points, I think, in section 78. It may be mentioned in the appendices as well; I'm not certain of that. Maybe it's in one of the informational brochures that discusses this issue. But again, am I to assume that paragraph 78(a) is just standard language which would be used in every instance where any acquisition of tenure was being considered?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, this is consistent with current policy. These conditions are similar to those that the minister must consider under the Forest Act.

G. Abbott: So it's standard language under the Forest Act. The provisions around corporate concentration. . . . I thank heaven every day that I'm not a lawyer. I don't know when issues of corporate concentration would come into play or not. But is it the clear understanding of the government of British Columbia that acquiring, for example, TFL 1 adjacent to the 2,002-square-kilometre area would not be an instance where the provincial laws or policies around corporate concentration would be offended?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it shouldn't. The corporate concentration policy really is designed to prevent the creation of monopolies in regions or in the province.

G. Abbott: Given again, as we have been discussing here, that there is not a lot of force and effect to these sections, I am therefore assuming, as well, that there is no limitation around the Nisga'a, for example, acquiring this tenure the day after the effective date or five years or ten years after the effective date. This is no limitation around that -- or is there? Is there some limitation that flows through the transition period?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no time limitation.

G. Abbott: I have some questions on section 79 as well. Paragraph 79 reads: "In addition to the requirements set out in paragraphs 77 and 78, if the tenure to be acquired by the Nisga'a Nation is a Tree Farm Licence, the approval of the Minister of Forests will be conditional upon the agreement by

[ Page 11715 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is yes.

[1615]

One question of clarification. I think that anybody reading the transcript of this debate as a whole would probably not need this, but I just want to be sure that I've got it right. The treaty will come into effect on something called an effective date. For the purpose of the provisions of the forest resources chapter, there is something called a transition period, which is a term of years. During that term of years there are fairly specific allowances with respect to the annual cut that may be undertaken either by or on behalf of the Nisga'a or by or on behalf of provincial licensees. The transition period ends in year 9; that's the last year of the transition period. Or rather, there is a period called the transition period; then there is this period of years 6 through 9 which may not be in the transition period. The fact that I'm still unclear on that proves that I do need to ask this question. After year 9. . . . Let me put it this way. In year 9 there is a prescribed volume of harvest. It is 130,000 cubic metres. That's in paragraph 22(d) of the chapter. But after year 9 my understanding is that there is no prescribed volume of harvest. The Nisga'a may choose to harvest more than the 130,000 cubic metres; they may choose to harvest less. It is their forest; that is their decision. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is correct.

G. Plant: The next thing I want to return to for a moment is the issue of compensation. Earlier the minister was kind enough to provide us with a summary of section 60 of the Forest Act. I'll read the first sentence of that summary. It says: "Section 60 of the Forest Act contains significant provisions related to compensating a licensee when it loses harvesting rights." That's the end of the quotation. In fact, there is a legal obligation imposed upon the government to pay compensation under certain circumstances.

Now, we looked earlier at the interesting process by which the provisions of this treaty with respect to forest licences, the Nisga'a rights to manage and harvest timber and so on, will come into effect. We know from the answers that members of the government have given earlier that the government's view is that the provisions of chapter 5 and section 3 of the act are the legal tool -- if you will, the mechanism or the empowering device -- through which the existing forest licences will cease to be valid. The new regime, post-effective date, will come into play.

It occurs to me that it could be argued -- and I don't make any statement about the strength of the argument -- that since the taking is not occurring under the Forest Act, the obligation to pay compensation under section 60 would not arise. Now, that argument may be a good argument, or it may be a very bad argument. Others will debate that. My question for the Minister of Forests is: if the circumstances that would ordinarily entitle someone to compensation under section 60 of the Forest Act come into play with respect to the people who will be affected by chapter 5, is it the position of the government that it is legally obliged to compensate licence holders?

[1620]

G. Plant: It is one thing for the government to be in a situation where it is obliged to pay compensation because of the operation of the provisions of a statute of British Columbia. It's another thing for the government to undertake, voluntarily, a process that it hopes will lead to the payment of compensation, should that become necessary, by creating certain guidelines, by entering into discussions and by building a relationship that, hopefully, is a constructive one with the parties who will be affected by the coming into force of these provisions. That latter kind of process is a process where all of the participants and the observers might hope that it would result, in the appropriate and fair and just case, in some form of compensation. But it need not do that, because at no point is the government ever obliged by law, in fact, to compensate.

So there are those two different kinds of processes. My sense from the minister's last answer is that in terms of the possibility of compensating the holders of forest licences as a result of the taking that may occur because of chapter 5, we're in the latter process. That is, the government does not take the view that it is as a matter of law obliged to compensate. Rather, it is making a policy statement, if you will, that it hopes to be able to act in a way that is fair and just.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I could say what I said before: the treaty does not create a legal obligation for compensation. We've said, though, that it is the intention to negotiate fair compensation using section 60 as a guideline. We've used that elsewhere in the province to good effect, which proves that it can work.

G. Plant: One of the aspects of section 60 of the Forest Act. . . . And let me say this. While I don't intend to put the minister to the task of answering the question again, there may well be in the law, including the statute law of British Columbia, other places where people could argue that there are obligations to compensate for these kinds of things -- or there may not be. It's not simply in all cases a matter of section 60 of the Forest Act, but that doesn't, I think, detract from either my previous questions or the minister's answer.

But one of the aspects of section 60 is that the government is obliged to compensate an affected licensee to the extent that its AAC is reduced by more than 5 percent under either of

[ Page 11716 ]

[1625]

G. Plant: One of the documents that the minister was kind enough to provide to us earlier is a one-page document entitled "Management Units and Tenures Potentially Affected by the Nisga'a Treaty." I know that this document is a construct, if you will. It's based on estimates; it's based on projections, I suppose. I know that we've had a pretty long discussion about the reallocation process that the chief forester will have to undertake as chapter 5 comes into effect. So these numbers are as tenuous, I suppose, or as powerful as all of those assumptions.

One of the columns is entitled "Estimated quota reductions." Now, I don't claim to have studied the whole document and therefore can't claim that I understand all of it. But just on a first run through this, it looks to me as though -- and this is with all the qualifiers here -- the estimates are such that there will really be no operator or tenure holder within the Kalum TSA or the Nass TSA or the North Coast TSA that will experience an estimated quota reduction of anything significantly more than 5 percent. To be more precise, I don't see anybody over 6 percent in those three columns.

That conceivably would mean. . . . If those numbers were in fact to become, in the fullness of time, the real numbers -- at least in respect of AAC reduction and the impact of that -- there may well be, using those guidelines under section 60, no obligation to compensate in respect of AAC reduction. Would that be a relatively accurate way of analyzing the logic?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that's correct.

G. Plant: I should say that the same is not so with respect to TFL 1, where I get the estimated quota reduction to be in the order of about 20 percent. I assume that if that matured and became the reality, obviously that would trigger. . . . It would be well over the 5 percent. Therefore there's the potential for compensation in respect of AAC reduction -- subject, of course, to issues such as mitigation and so on. But is that also a relatively correct statement of the logic?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that's correct.

[1630]

It seems to me that with that base of knowledge it would not be a very big step for someone to take a stab at actually valuing the forest resource on Nisga'a lands for the purpose of determining, for example, the province's contribution to this treaty.

I recognize -- or I want to put on the record, if you will -- the observation that there are other land values in respect of Nisga'a lands that would not be included in that calculation. During the course of the debate on the chapters of the agreement that we've covered so far, we've touched some of those. I don't intend to go back over that debate. We've certainly looked at issues like the value for tourist purposes or the value, in commercial terms, of water rights.

Yet the province has put a number before the public of the value of its contribution to the treaty for Nisga'a lands of $106.7 million, which is not based on any actual values of the land but is rather based on imputed or ascribed values that derive from the negotiations with the federal government over cost-sharing and formulas that have been created -- not just for the purpose of cost-sharing in this treaty but, I assume, also to help the government sort out cost-sharing in all of the treaties yet to come.

I think it makes some sense to use ascribed and imputed values in a context where you really can't get to first base in terms of coming up with actual values. I guess my comment at this point is that I don't think -- based on what we've covered in chapter 5 and what I now know of chapter 5 -- that can be said about forest plans that the Nisga'a will acquire here. There are lots of studies out there; all of them are as good as their assumptions and as weak as their assumptions.

There is a study, recently prepared by Robin M. Richardson, called "A Comparative Cost Analysis of the Nisga'a Treaty." It is one study; there are other studies. There are a variety of numbers, but this is certainly one calculation. Mr. Richardson comes to the view that the value for the total operable forest in raw forest lands, for Nisga'a settlement lands, would be just about $273 million.

If that were really the value, if that number were the right number -- and frankly, I don't have the tools to say whether it is or isn't -- that would have, I think, a significant impact on public perception with respect to the value of the province's contribution to this treaty. As I say, we have covered the issue of ascribed value, imputed value -- the rationale behind using that formula -- pretty extensively, actually, during the course of the debate. I don't expect to have the government change its view on this issue at this point, but I thought that it was an appropriate moment to at least put on the record my concern that that approach -- the approach taken by the governments here which results in this $106 million or $107 million figure -- really may actually understate the value of these lands. Time will tell, I suppose, whether that's so or not, but if either minister wishes to comment, that would be fine. I just wanted the opportunity to make the observation about an issue that we have canvassed in the past but that has a particular context here in respect to forest lands.

[1635]

[ Page 11717 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Anybody could make a study that says that under a treaty somebody could completely cut every stick on a tree and sell it if they could. I doubt that they could, because that would deflate the market. I think the reasonable valuation is on a sustainable yield basis, and we've done all the valuations accordingly. If you take the overall land value and look at the foregone revenue from the trees -- which gives us a net present value -- I think those line up for parcels of land that are this size and nature. They're in a unique market of their own. I think that any of our studies will bear up, keeping in mind that they were negotiated values. There aren't tried-and-true market values for parcels like that. So I think the methodology stands up to scrutiny.

G. Abbott: Again, in paragraph 79. . . . Prior to my colleague's further discussion of some compensation issues, the minister had noted that "the approval of the Minister of Forests will be conditional upon the agreement by the Nisga'a Nation to the inclusion of a portion of Nisga'a Lands as Schedule A Lands" if the tree farm licence in question was tree farm licence No. 1, adjacent to the Nisga'a lands. I think I recall that his answer was that if they acquired a tree farm licence elsewhere in the province, that provision would not come into play. Am I correct in that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I didn't. . . . I said that any TFL situation would, yeah. There may be something that I don't know, that we don't know, about the impracticality or impossibility of doing that, were there to be vast separation in area, but we don't think that's possible. We believe this means what it says -- that is, any TFL anywhere in the province.

G. Abbott: The reason why I'm briefly pursuing this particular question is that, as we had discussed earlier, the figure of 150,000 cubic metres is in section 76 largely because the Nisga'a nation wanted to have the figure of 150,000 cubic metres in paragraph 76. Am I to understand that the reference to a tree farm licence and the inclusion of a portion of it has nothing to do with the Nisga'a wanting that particular reference in here? Is paragraph 79 something that is in here at the insistence of the Ministry of Forests, or is there some reflection here of the Nisga'a's aspirations?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We wanted it in here for the very reason that it exists in law and policy in British Columbia. We wanted to be able to use the public timber as a lever to manage private timber so we have a more even flow in the region. We think that's good for the regional economy.

[1640]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, inasmuch as that is a consideration on any timber tenure transfer. We often go through a public hearing process. The objective is to ensure. . .and let me quote from paragraph 78(b): "The tenure or tenures contain terms and conditions that address local employment and economic opportunities, including those in the Nass Area, and regional fibre supply needs."

So those are the general considerations. We just transferred from CFI to Tembec in the Cranbrook area, and we looked at the employment that would be created that way. So there are a number of terms and conditions. If there are appurtenancy clauses, we have to put those into the conditions. They can be modified. But the terms and conditions would have to meet, broadly speaking, the social and economic objectives of the Crown in the area.

G. Abbott: Obviously there's a reason why I'm asking the question at this point. It goes back to the extensive discussion that we had earlier on, when we were talking about the fibre supply in years 1 through 9. Basically, in the best scenario, we are going to be moving from a situation where that area produces an estimated volume of 220,000 cubic metres of fibre to mills on an annual basis down to 130,000 cubic metres in year 9. So there is a substantial reduction there, even if all of the timber is made reasonably available to local mills, as I think is suggested.

If we see a further reduction after year nine. . . . We have no reason to expect that, but it's certainly possible. There is nothing in this treaty that would limit further reductions from the 130,000-cubic-metre level. Given that we are already looking at a substantial reduction, particularly for Skeena Cellulose, who are looking at an estimated quota reduction, according to these figures, of 138,000 cubic metres -- potentially a 20 percent reduction in their fibre flow as a consequence of this agreement. . . . I would think that to see a further reduction in fibre flow in order to feed, after year nine, a new facility constructed on the Nass Valley by the Nisga'a, would obviously have some impact on fibre flow, on the economics of the mills in that area and on employment.

Is this the scenario that the province would have to bear in mind should they see an application for additional tenure as laid out in section 79 or the earlier sections?

[1645]

So there's been a huge reduction in the cut. As you know, some of the wood is surplus even to domestic needs and has been exported from parts of that region in the past. I think it

[ Page 11718 ]

G. Abbott: In fact, I don't disagree with a lot of what the minister says. But I do offer this one caution: if, in fairness to the Nisga'a. . . . When we, for example, are evaluating timber, we base it on a five-year period in order to get that sort of fair, broad-scope view of timber values over a five-year period. In fairness, then, when we are talking about the situation faced by licensees or existing operators in the area, we also have to look at their experience over a broader period, in order to arrive at fair conclusions about what their situation is and what the appropriate government response to their situation should be.

So I do hope that the principle we talked about under the same economic position is also the approach that is taken to ensure that fairness. Again, in fairness to the minister, he has committed to that on more than one occasion: that no one, whether it's forest workers in the northwest, contractors in the northwest or licensees in the northwest, should bear an undue burden in order to achieve fair treaty settlements in British Columbia. That's perhaps enough said about that.

The next point I want to discuss is paragraph 81: "Nothing in this Agreement limits the ability of the Nisga'a Nation, a Nisga'a Village, a Nisga'a Corporation, or a Nisga'a citizen to acquire a forest tenure under the Forest Act." It's not clear to me, given our previous discussion around paragraphs 76 through 79, what this means. Is it again just a confirmation of the unlimited theoretical ability of the Nisga'a to acquire additional tenures? Or is something else at play here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because in the other section we did talk about a tenure held by the Nisga'a nation, we just want to make it clear that we aren't limiting other legal entities from the Nisga'a to apply under the act.

G. Abbott: So again it is, I think, simply a confirmation similar to the earlier paragraphs, whether this was stated or not. There would be nothing in law that would in any event limit the Nisga'a nation, Nisga'a village, Nisga'a corporation or Nisga'a citizen from undertaking to acquire additional tenure. There is nothing that could limit that in theory or practice.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's correct.

[1650]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that is correct.

G. Abbott: Unless colleagues have additional questions related to chapter 5, the forest resources chapter of the Nisga'a agreement, that concludes my questioning. I thank the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for their assistance in resolving the questions which we have raised over the course of this portion of the debate. I do think we got to the heart of the matter on most occasions. I certainly found it useful in terms of understanding the agreement.

I do think that the Minister of Forests particularly -- and, I guess, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, as well -- have some significant challenges ahead in terms of meeting the goals of fairness and equity which have been stated on a number of occasions in our discussions here. I do hope that those goals are kept in mind as the government proceeds to finalize a number of the areas that are yet to be completed with respect to the final agreement. So with that, thank you. I guess I'll leave it to the Aboriginal. . . . I understand that we have some agreement as to where we go from here.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I think that by agreement we're going to move to chapter 9, which is "Wildlife and Migratory Birds." We are prepared to proceed. As we get into more complicated issues, staff will join us and leave us.

On the schedule, chapter 9.

M. Coell: Just to make a few opening comments, I think it needs to be said that there are many parts of this treaty that make sense. This particular chapter is one of those. It is one on which I wish to bring forward a few problematic areas. But from my initial meeting with Chief Gosnell, when we sat on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, it seems that this is an area that the Nisga'a were very firm on. This chapter, in many respects, goes back to all their hereditary rights. I think it has the potential of working for the environment, for the Nisga'a and for the betterment of species.

There are a couple of issues -- and I'll bring them forward now -- that I see as potentially problematic, and that would be the effects of this chapter and of conservation on areas outside the Nisga'a lands. That may affect forestry, and that may affect other first nations groups, as well, on how this treaty and the committee structure -- conservation structure -- is set up and how it works. That is one of the areas that I'd like to pursue with the minister.

[1655]

I guess the first area that I would ask the minister to assist me in would be the entitlements. Possibly, as we go through

[ Page 11719 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that all of us, Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a alike, will recognize the need to make sure that conservation measures are paramount, with respect to maintaining and maintenance of population of species. That, in fact, is consistent throughout this document, and as we go though it, I think we'll see where that applies. But there are standard practices with respect to management of populations. There are standard measurements taken, by species. With respect to the migratory bird populations, for example, there are flyways that are regularly monitored with respect to residential populations in that region. There are regular conservation techniques to tally population through successful reproduction and so on. And on the question of migratory animals within the region, obviously, in the establishment of hunting limits, there are some established practices within the conservation laws of the province of British Columbia. I think it's important to note that those conservation laws will apply.

M. Coell: The measures that we and the Nisga'a see as necessary will, once enshrined in this treaty, affect future treaties that are next to the Nisga'a people. I just wonder, being that this is said to be a template of sorts: how will the government -- or yourself as minister -- rationalize the conservation measures on other treaties that will abut this treaty? And what method is there to work out a fair distribution of either the wildlife or migratory birds? Maybe I can explain a little further. I see that as a potential problem, as, throughout the province, treaties are enacted that abut one another, with ecosystems and migratory animals that they share. In this section we have outlined only how one group will deal with those migratory animals. I just wonder whether the government has given any thought to how you'd deal with the next treaty that abuts up and has an ecosystem that is shared and animals that are shared back and forth.

[1700]

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that.

The treaty allocations, as the minister says, will change and, with proper conservation methods, should enhance species, I would say. Where I'm having some problems and need some assurance is: being that this is the first, how are we going to make sure that as the treaties. . . ? I believe there are two or three around it that will be affected by this treaty and the migratory animals and birds will share that space. Each treaty, I would presume -- as this one does -- will have a committee set up. How are those committees going to share information? How are we going to ensure that they're not working in isolation in different areas?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that one of the good things about this treaty is the fact that it starts to move us toward a more regional approach to wildlife management. As we get into sections 52 through 54, I think we will be able to talk a little bit about that when we talk about the wildlife management bodies other than those that may be on Nisga'a land.

M. Coell: The legislation that is going to be enacted for purposes of public health and public safety, with regard to the first statement. . . . Is that legislation that we as a province will be enacting, or is it legislation that the Nisga'a will also be able to enact with regard to public health and public safety?

Hon. G. Wilson: It refers to any legislation that we enact with respect to public health and public safety.

M. Coell: Maybe I wasn't specific enough. Is it provincial government legislation or Nisga'a legislation?

Hon. G. Wilson: That would be both federal and provincial legislation that may be enacted.

M. Coell: Then not Nisga'a legislation. What I'm trying to get at is that the legislation and different parts in the treaty allow for the Nisga'a to make laws, and it would be my understanding that they would be able to make laws with regard to public health and public safety. I just want to assure myself that this section is also meaning that level of government.

Hon. G. Wilson: It does. It will obviously cover authority that the Nisga'a will have to make laws on Nisga'a land with respect to matters of public health and safety.

[1705]

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, they're not linked; it says public health or public safety. I guess the example I'll give you on public safety is with respect to access to lands during periods of hunting. There is a public safety issue there on the land.

M. Coell: Thank you. I appreciate that; that is helpful.

The effect on forestry outside the lands -- does this chapter in any way affect the ability of landowners outside the

[ Page 11720 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: No, this chapter would not provide for that.

M. Coell: I mention that because I think it's a concern that was probably dealt with over the last few days somewhat, in the forestry chapter. But it's one that, I think, probably has some validity with ecosystems and changes to them and the effects that that would have on species that could be endangered.

Before I move on. . . . The ability to harvest is a communal right -- I think that would be a close way of describing it -- to the Nisga'a. There don't appear to be individual rights for Nisga'a citizens to hunt unless they are given those rights by the Nisga'a government. At present, that is different. I wonder if the minister can comment on that. It may be a very brief one if the minister agrees with what I'm saying. This chapter changes how individuals would have the right to hunt in that there would now be a communal-type licence given to the Nisga'a, and they would give it to individuals as they see fit. It wouldn't necessarily mean that someone could have the right to hunt.

Hon. G. Wilson: As the member will undoubtedly know, aboriginal people collectively hold the right. In this treaty, the nation holds that while the individuals will exercise that right -- if I can put it in those terms.

[1710]

Hon. G. Wilson: The Nisga'a government has the right to allocate, within the wildlife area, to the individual what that allocation will be. I hope that answers the member's question. So the Nisga'a government, within the wildlife area, will allocate that harvest.

M. Coell: I follow the minister. I think we'll probably have to see, I guess, what happens down the road. What I was hoping would happen is that there would be equal access for Nisga'a people, that it wouldn't be dished out to one group or another within the nation. You'd still, as individuals, have that ability to hunt. I don't see where it's guaranteed in here anywhere. It's guaranteed that the Nisga'a nation, their government, would have the right to point to people and say: "Okay, you now have the right to carry this out."

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not quite sure where the member is headed with this, and maybe it's because I'm not clearly understanding what the question is. I'm not trying to be obtuse in my answer. The Nisga'a nation will allocate to the individual their licence within the Nass wildlife area. If the Nisga'a wish, under the laws of general application, to apply for a hunting licence outside of the Nisga'a area, they're entitled to do that. They're not precluded from going and hunting elsewhere in British Columbia because of this treaty. If that's where we're headed, that's. . . .

M. Coell: I understand that. What I want to assure myself of -- and possibly this isn't going to; you'll have to wait and see how the Nisga'a government allocates that -- is that someone would not be, just by the fact that they're hunting now, given the right to hunt by the Nisga'a nation, for whatever reason. Maybe one family gets the right to hunt and one doesn't. I don't see the guarantee that we have now in the hunting.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm with you now. There is no guarantee. Conservation measures may dictate or the Nisga'a self-government, through whatever enactments, may decide that they wish to put restriction. . . . That's what self-government is all about. Governments sometimes restrict public access to a resource.

M. Coell: Thanks very much. That's very helpful and very clear.

With regard to Crown land and uses of Crown land, I don't see the entitlement or right to harvest on Crown land -- the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- as detrimental in this chapter. I see that the use of Crown land is similar to the way it is today -- that the right to hunt on Crown land is not changed for Nisga'a citizens or changed for any British Columbia citizens in this chapter. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: That's correct.

G. Abbott: When we were discussing compensation issues in the context of chapter 5, one of the questions I posed to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs early on was whether there might be any impact on fibre flows from the Nass wildlife area as a result of its creation and the terms and conditions under which it exists in this treaty.

I see in paragraph 2(b) the justification for the minister's statement that there would be no impact on fibre flows as a result of the creation of the Nass wildlife area. That is, that as the paragraph reads, "The entitlement set out in paragraph 1 is a right to harvest in a manner that. . . " -- I won't go through (a) -- "(b) does not interfere with other authorized uses of Crown land." I am presuming that one of the principal authorized uses of Crown land which is envisioned here is the extraction of logs for processing. Is that correct?

[1715]

G. Abbott: Could the minister provide me with other examples?

Hon. G. Wilson: It could be traplines or guide-outfitters or commercial recreation. There are many different land uses in that area.

[ Page 11721 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: If there's an authorized use, presumably that authorized use is spelled out in either some licence, some contract or some agreement. Therefore this clause simply says that these activities, as spelled out in section 2, must not interfere with those authorized uses of Crown land. It's up to the individual who believes that their authorized use has been interfered with to prove that it's the case. That would be a normal practice, as anywhere else in the province.

G. Abbott: Do we have an estimate from the chief forester of British Columbia of what the annual allowable cut currently is within the Nass wildlife area?

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't have that number with me, but I'm sure that staff who are monitoring this debate would find it for us.

G. Abbott: That would be a useful thing to know or to have on the record at some point -- what that estimate is. I presume that one of the ways in which we might quantify or measure whether in fact one authorized use -- that is, the extraction of timber -- was being interfered with is if, over some period of time, the annual allowable cut within the Nass wildlife area was reduced in some measure. Would that qualify as a way in which interference might be noted or measured?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not certain where the member is headed. They're two unrelated issues.

I know that there is a prevailing view among a small minority who think that, should first nations people have some kind of management authority over a large area like the Nass wildlife area with respect to hunting, somehow their rights are going to be in way abridged as a result. What this section says is that if they have an authorized use of that Crown land, their rights will not be abridged. This should take away the fear of any British Columbian who thinks that, through this Nass management area, somehow their rights are going to be diminished. The text of this agreement says that their rights will not be diminished if they have an authorized use of land.

G. Abbott: That's certainly, in part at least, a useful explanation. I've no idea what the annual allowable cut is in that area, but let's say it's 100,000 cubic metres, for the sake of argument. If there was an established AAC, a long-term sustainable cut, in that range and if the authorities, whoever they may be in respect of the wildlife area, determine that in fact logging's not the highest and best use of the area -- that it's more important in the interest of other forest values to reduce that cut by 50 percent or 76 percent or 100 percent -- would that fly in the face of. . .or, as the term is used here, be an interference in terms of the authorized uses of Crown land?

[1720]

But I want to clarify the point that I was trying to make earlier. There is a prevailing view -- and I hope the member opposite hasn't bought into it, because it's wrong. . . . There is no management right of this Nass wildlife area, so don't believe there is. There is not going to be any kind of infringement upon rights of non-aboriginal people as a result of the language in this particular chapter.

G. Abbott: I'm not informed or eloquent enough to buy into any particular scheme at this point in time. Really, my reference point for this particular section and issue is around the assurance which the minister provided, in a categorical way, in our discussion of compensation issues. The question I posed was whether there was a possibility that fibre flows from that area, known as the Nass wildlife area, could occur and therefore might be a compensable element or claim under the terms of this agreement. If it's really airtight -- there's no chance that we are going to see reduced logging cuts in the area -- then, fine, we can dismiss it as an area of compensable claim. But if in fact it is not that clear, then we need to explore it a little further.

Hon. G. Wilson: There are all kinds of reasons why the chief forester might reduce cut. It happens all the time. People feel that they've got allocations. They find that they don't, that there's. . . . That's why the courts are full of people who want to take issue with it.

G. Abbott: I do know that the chief forester can review annual allowable cuts for all manner of reasons, and that's entirely right. If there is an opportunity here to see AACs reduced at the. . . . Presumably, not at the. . . . The minister says that there won't be an opportunity to direct it. I suppose they could recommend, though, and the chief forester might choose to embrace their recommendation in doing so. Again, this is all about getting some clarity and assurance around whether compensation issues may arise in the Nass wildlife area.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think we've pretty much exhaustively discussed the issues around compensation. The answers that were provided on the forestry chapter would be no different in terms of their application to what is here. Where comfort can by taken, for the member opposite, is that section 2 says: "The entitlement set out in paragraph 1 is a right to harvest in a manner that. . .does not interfere with other authorized uses of Crown land." The intent of this section is clear. Now, there could be a whole host of other reasons why things don't work out for a licence holder.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise who the licence holders are in the Nass wildlife area, for forest licence purposes?

[1725]

[ Page 11722 ]

G. Abbott: What the minister has generously provided us with are management units and tenures potentially affected by the Nisga'a treaty. I'm assuming that the tenures in the Nass wildlife area would not be included in this, because the minister has just told me that those tenures are not going to be affected by the treaty. So how could they be in here?

Hon. G. Wilson: The member has virtually answered his own question. Those are people who are operating in that area. If there is cut reduction as a result of this treaty, it may affect those companies. We spent two and a half days, I think, talking about this, and I'm not anxious to go back and talk about it any more.

G. Abbott: I'm almost hurt by that comment. I felt that the two and a half days we spent together were kind of special, and I'm disappointed that the minister doesn't share that view and doesn't want to return there.

Jesting aside, though, the issue is an important one. I'm receiving assurances that the management units and tenures in the Nass wildlife area will not be affected by the Nisga'a treaty; that's the assurance I'm hearing. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: What the member is hearing is that they will not be affected by the provisions of the wildlife-and-migratory-birds chapter of this agreement.

G. Abbott: I will let the Environment critic continue in a moment.

If I should be one of those unnamed licensees who currently have quota in the Nass wildlife area, there is no reason why I should consider my certainty of tenure in that area to be any better or any worse affected by the existence of this treaty. In short, my position as a tenure holder would be no better or no worse whether this treaty existed or did not exist. My tenure may be affected by a number of circumstances dictated by the chief forester, but this treaty will not affect my hold on my tenure in that respect. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: Actually, if anything, they might be better off, because there'll be certainty after this treaty is signed. So my guess is that they're going to be better off. I don't want to say that they won't be any better or any worse, because my anticipation is that they'll be better. But let me say that they can take comfort in the fact that they will not be affected by chapter 9, "Wildlife and Migratory Birds," because the entitlements set out with respect to the right to harvest must be done without interference with authorized uses of Crown land.

G. Abbott: That's the statement I was hoping to hear from the minister, because I do think it's important to have it on the record, so that as we look at our experience with this treaty down the line, it does provide a measure which we can use to ascertain whether the treaty has been successful in that respect. That concludes my questions on that.

[1730]

Hon. G. Wilson: This paragraph would provide nothing really different than applies under the general laws in British Columbia. It essentially is a paragraph that suggests that there has to be a reasonable opportunity for harvest with respect to the Nisga'a wildlife entitlements and that the Nisga'a's wildlife allocation should not be inordinately reduced. The other provisions that are there, I think, are consistent with the same kind of conservation provisions that are right throughout the province.

M. Coell: Through the Chair, thank you for those comments.

The reason that I bring it forward again is because this is the first treaty. I suspect that wildlife-and-migratory-birds sections will be in many other treaties. They will abut against Crown land in other treaties. What I see as a potential concern is that if the sale or development of Crown land in any way infringes on the populations or changes the direction in which they may travel -- because of logging or mining -- that would and could have an effect on the potential allocation and reasonable opportunity to harvest. I think it's worthwhile discussing this a bit -- the fact that that may stop the sale and development of Crown lands.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's not quite as black-and-white as that. Maybe we need to focus in, just for a second, on a couple of the words. We're talking about wildlife allocations here. So this is a formula, essentially, that we're talking about. If there was a disposition of land that affected a particular species for which allocations had been made, the sale of that land may be conditional on access to it in order to harvest that species at whatever given time of the year it may be. It wouldn't necessarily prevent the sale of it; neither would it necessarily prevent the economic activity from going on.

We have joint-use allocation now, right around the province, with respect to multiple uses for Crown land, and I don't think that would necessarily be inconsistent here. The only thing that we have to focus in on here is that there has to be a reasonable opportunity to harvest and that the allocation can't be affected. Therefore, if that land was to be disposed of or somehow there would be some other allocation made against that land, it couldn't impact on the right to access -- to go onto and to access and to hunt or to do whatever.

M. Coell: The reason I bring it up is that in that area, one of the major industries is forestry. The likelihood that Crown land sold would be logged. . . . That would change the pattern of the movement of animals. I think this is a strong statement here. It says: "We shall not reduce Nisga'a's wildlife allocations." The sale of that land may do that for you. Without actually reducing the allocation, there may be no allocation for a number of years, as animals change patterns before

[ Page 11723 ]

[1735]

Now, others will argue -- and some hunters will tell you -- that actually, some of the best places to hunt are in clearcuts. It might in fact enhance wildlife opportunity and population. I think there is a whole series of variables that are at work here. The important point to consider is that nothing in this section is intended to infringe on or somehow alter any other authorized use on that land.

M. Coell: I appreciate that description. The point, I guess, that I want to make is for future treaties as well, in that you might have smaller land areas that would be more affected -- sharing numerous ecosystems. The government of the day will have to deal with how you compensate, if indeed you move the entire allocation so that there isn't an allocation. It takes it down to a level that will take a number of years for the ecosystem to come back and for the migratory animals to change their patterns again. I think that's something that can probably be looked at in the future.

If we can skip down now to point 9: "The Nisga'a Nation may not dispose of Nisga'a wildlife entitlements." Is that to say that they cannot sell those entitlements or barter them with others, be they Nisga'a citizens or others?

Hon. G. Wilson: No, the entitlement is the legal right and can't be bartered.

M. Coell: The select standing committee had some discussions about that particular right, and I was not clear whether that right could be. . . . I'll give you an example: a Nisga'a hunter goes hunting with someone else. An animal is harvested. Is that the Nisga'a right, or can that meat or whatever be given to the person who was with the Nisga'a?

Hon. G. Wilson: In the example that the member gave, assuming that it's the Nisga'a citizen who goes out and it's the Nisga'a citizen who hunts, it's the Nisga'a citizen who has the right to hunt. It's not transferable or barterable. You can't trade it.

[1740]

Hon. G. Wilson: No, the entitlement cannot be used as a commercial venture. The Nisga'a can't use that as a licence for a commercial venture.

M. Coell: So in reality, then, I guess you're not going to be able to develop individual guide-outfitters on an individual basis, because they are not going to be able to trade that entitlement. I'm just thinking: is there is a potential for job creation here, and are you cutting it off by not allowing that potential for individual Nisga'as?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, there are all kinds of potential for economic activity, but not through the use of this entitlement. This entitlement is for domestic consumption; it's not a commercial entitlement.

M. Coell: The point I'm trying to raise with the minister is that there are probably going to be Nisga'a who don't need this. They have the entitlement; they have the ability to go out to hunt. They may not want it, but they could use it as a job creation vehicle.

If that's the minister shaking his head, if that's the way it is, then I guess they could pass that allocation on to other members of the Nisga'a nation or just let it go if they didn't want to use it.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member is correct; they could do that. But they cannot use it as a commercial entitlement.

M. Coell: Maybe the minister. . . . Is there entitlement anywhere in the agreement that would allow for the development of guide-outfitting, over and above the individual entitlement we have? If there is -- as I say, it was a moot point. . . . But it seems to me to be an area that had some potential for the Nisga'a, for everything from hunting to, you know, nature experiences.

Hon. G. Wilson: Section 81 deals with guiding. . . . Sections 81 through 84 -- actually, through that section -- deal with guiding and guide-outfitters. I appreciate the member's thoughts with respect to economic activity. There is nothing to prevent commercial guide-outfitting or commercial enterprise. There's nothing to prevent the Nisga'a from engaging in commercial enterprise and activity, as any other individual might wish to do that. But the entitlement does not provide them that opportunity; they cannot use their entitlement for that opportunity. That's the distinction that we need to make. There's nothing to prohibit recreational and other kinds of activities from taking place in a commercial way, but they may not use that entitlement as a part of that.

M. Coell: I suppose that there are ways that could be renegotiated in the future, that it's not a line. . . . It just seems to me that their allocation is worth a lot more, to sell or develop that into a business, than it is for meat -- other than for ceremonial purposes or cultural purposes. There seems to be an allocation there that would be a very good generator of jobs. And if they don't have the flexibility to do that within the treaty, I think that's a shame, because there's an opportunity there that could be used to their benefit, I think.

Hon. G. Wilson: I suspect that if that member were to advance that idea in front of the Fisheries Survival Coalition, he might get a completely different answer. It is generally considered by many that commercial entitlements that would be treaty-entrenched are not a good idea. They are not entrenched here. In fact, they can't be renegotiated unless all three parties agree to make it happen. This whole section is

[ Page 11724 ]

[1745]

If we can move on to -- unless the minister wants to comment on that. . . .

Interjection.

M. Coell: I saw the minister wanting some time, so I wasn't sure.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

M. Coell: If we could move on to 11. . . .

Interjection.

M. Coell: Oh, I'm sorry.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Obviously, I have a couple of anxious people on the other side -- maybe with a plane to catch, or something.

I'd like to go into 11 in some depth, so I'll just ask a couple of questions, if I could, and then come back to it, possibly on Monday. There are a number of funds that British Columbia has set up, and I just want to assure myself that the Nisga'a nation will be able to make use of those funds. Also, will they be paying into those funds through fees collected, as others are?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes. They're spelled out under 11(a), (b) and (c). I think the member opposite makes a sound point. If he has some detailed questions. . . .

Given the hour, hon. Chair, I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask 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.

Tabling Documents

Finally, I would wish everybody a very pleasant weekend. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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