2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 6
[ Page 15215 ]
The House met at 2:09 p.m.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Today I have in the gallery two very interesting people that I would like to introduce to the House. I had lunch with them. It was very, very interesting, and we can be very proud. They are a young woman named Angela Anoliefoh, who is an athlete and student at Burnaby Central Secondary, and Geza Baranyi, who is a social worker.
[1410]
Angela is a 17-year-old student. She is a high jumper, and she participates in heptathlon events and is very good at it. She has a grade point average of 3.3, and she has just accepted a scholarship to Purdue University in Indiana, where she will be studying kinesiology. I would like the House to join me in congratulating her. She does credit to British Columbia, she does credit to her school and her coach, Ken Taylor, and indeed she does a great deal of credit to her own determination. Congratulations and welcome.
C. Clark: We have eight students representing the SFU B.C. Young Liberals joining us today. They're on their annual pilgrimage to Victoria to see how politics is done. I'd like to introduce each of them that's here: Mark Acosta, Afyia Khan, Parmjit Vinning, Dan Bjorkdahl, Chad Pederson, Andrew Haskell, Mac Runyowa and Ed Hsu. I hope the House will please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Wilson: Today in the members' gallery we have some very special guests from the Philippines. Gov. Ofelia Bulaong is the head of the Board of Investment of the government of the Philippines. She's accompanied by a delegation which includes Director General Augusto Santos of the Philippines National Economic Development Agency and Director Meynardo Orbeta of the Philippines Department of Trade and Industry.
Governor Bulaong is exploring joint-venturing initiatives and business linkages between Canada and the Philippines, and I'm most looking forward to our meeting this afternoon. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome to this House and to our province.
Hon. H. Lali: I have the pleasure to introduce two individuals who make my life a lot easier; they are my two constituency assistants. In the gallery are Wendy Eeckhout, who has actually been one of the longest-serving CAs on this side of the House, and also Millie Mitchell, who started out first doing part-time and replacement work in my office in 1993. I would like to ask the House to please make both of my constituency assistants welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to add my words of welcome to those of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for one of my hardest campaign workers. That's Parmjit Vinning, and I'm glad to see her here today. She's a good friend of the family, and I just want to ask the House to make her welcome.
Hon. J. Pullinger: As everybody in the House knows, I hope, this is Child Care Month. Today I have the honour of introducing a very special guest. Bobbi Brewer is a seven-year-old Okanagan girl. She's here today to celebrate with me the launching of Child Care Month. Bobbi drew the picture that has become the poster that's been distributed across the province and is in fact on the buttons that every member received this morning.
We've had a delightful couple of hours, including a visit by the whole family to the Premier's Office, where Bobbi presented the Premier with one of her buttons. I'd ask the House to please congratulate and welcome Bobbi, who is seven years old and in grade 1 at Alexis Park Elementary School, and also to welcome her family: her mom Sherry Louis, her dad Darrell Brewer and her ten-year-old sister Julie. I'd ask all the members to make this very talented family very welcome.
S. Orcherton: It's a pleasure today to introduce a constituent from the constituency held by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. The reason I'm introducing this individual is because she is my wife's cousin; I guess that makes her my cousin-in-law. In any event, she's visiting Victoria, and it's her first time to be at the Legislative Assembly and to witness question period in this House. I'd ask that the members make Ms. Carolyn Potts very welcome to these chambers.
L. Reid: We're joined in the precincts today by a lovely group of grade 7 students visiting from Richmond East. They represent General Currie Elementary School, and their teachers accompanying them today are Mrs. Topp, Mr. Avery and Mr. Reid. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.
[1415]
J. Cashore: We have in the gallery today three residents of Coquitlam, who are members of the Riverview Horticultural Society. They are Norma Gillespie, the president, and two executive members, Mary Brown and Donna Crosby. They're here today to witness the presentation of a humongous petition advocating the protection of green space at the Riverview lands. They deserve a great deal of credit for the work that they do on behalf of the environment in the area. Would the House please make them very welcome.
B. McKinnon: I would like to introduce to the Legislature 26 grade 5 students and five adults, and their teacher, Mrs. Douglas, from the Pacific Academy school in the Fraser Heights area in my riding. The students are here to learn about government, and I ask the members to please make them feel very welcome.
E. Gillespie: I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Dana Nutland, a grade 11 work experience student from the Comox Valley school district who is here doing a work-shadowing with me today. She's been to visit the Premier and the Speaker -- thank you, hon. Speaker -- and is joining us in question period now. Please join me in welcoming Dana Nutland.
R. Thorpe: I'd like the House to please welcome an associate that I used to work with back in the eighties, Marg and Bill Taylor of Penticton.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I ask leave to table ministry performance plans.
Leave granted.
[ Page 15216 ]
Tabling Documents
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is a pleasure rise today and table, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, performance plans for each and every ministry of government for the fiscal year 2000-2001. On March 27, budget day, I tabled the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act here. This act requires performance plans to be tabled for each ministry in the House. While that act is not yet law, we're not waiting; we're acting now.
Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to table the performance plans for each ministry. They include the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs; the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, including the Information, Science and Technology Agency and the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Ministry of Attorney General; the Ministry for Children and Families; the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry of Employment and Investment; the Ministry of Energy and Mines; the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations; the Ministry of Forests; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Labour; the Ministry of Multiculturalism and Immigration, including the Public Service Employee Relations Commission; the Ministry of Municipal Affairs; the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture; the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security; the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; and the Ministry of Women's Equality. There you go.
The Speaker: The minister tables reports.
Oral Questions
FUNDING FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
G. Campbell: In its most recent budget, the government announced a cut in the education funding for 60,000 students in the province of British Columbia. That obviously caused grave concern amongst their parents in the independent school movement -- and frustration and anger. The Minister of Education announced just last week that the decision was final.
My question to the Minister of Education is: how on earth can you possibly justify cutting $5 million in support to independent school students, their teachers and their parents when the government has wasted a hundred times that amount on fast ferries that make absolutely no difference to any British Columbian?
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am visible.
Hon. Speaker, this is obviously a very difficult issue. During the leadership campaign I made a commitment that there would be no change to the funding formula for independent schools. I did that twice during the leadership meetings. When I was made aware of this item in the budget, I was advised that that wasn't a change to the funding formula -- that it was a stricter enforcement of the funding formula.
I now have learned that it is in fact a change to the funding formula. I want to make sure that I keep my promise. I made an announcement about ten minutes ago that $5 million would not be cut and that there would be no change to the funding formula.
[1420]
The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition with a supplemental question.
G. Campbell: I'm very pleased that the Premier has finally decided that education is important enough for him to understand what his government's budget was. The Premier made a number of commitments during his leadership which he decided not to live up to. So it's not surprising that, once again, parents and students in independent schools were concerned about what this government has done.
My question will be to the Premier. Why on earth would you approve a Finance minister's budget, an Education minister's budget, that cut $5 million from independent schools, which was a direct assault on the students and teachers in independent schools across British Columbia -- when he said he would never let that happen?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have in fact
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh:
G. Campbell: The Premier has given us an answer. My question to the Premier is: does this Premier, like the previous Premier, find budgets boring? Doesn't he pay attention to students? Doesn't he pay attention to schools? Doesn't he understand what his government is doing? Why on earth would he create this uncertainty with parents and students -- 60,000 students -- in the public education system in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, this side of the House makes commitments for enhancing and improving education every year. Throughout the leadership campaign we did that, and we would deal with those issues in the next campaign. The opposition, in the only opportunity they had -- particularly this Leader of the Opposition had -- made a commitment to cut 15 cents out of every dollar in advanced education in British Columbia.
G. Hogg: Well over 100,000 people have been influenced by this disruption and uncertainty. There have been teachers, parents, students
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh:
[ Page 15217 ]
People sometimes make honest mistakes. This is not about heads rolling; this is about doing the right thing and keeping your promise. I've just done that. And if the opposition can't come to terms with the fact that they didn't have any other questions for this particular day, then perhaps they should reconsider their question period strategy.
The Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock with a supplemental question.
G. Hogg: A majority of these students have been from middle- and low-income families, and there were kids with special needs, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
G. Hogg: The Premier has stated that he's not prepared to name people. But is he prepared today, because of the disruption, uncertainty and problems that he's caused to all these people, to provide an apology to all those people for all he's put them through in the past number of weeks?
[1425]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I find it amazing that this opposition stands on the other side and attacks this side of the House about doing damage to education. We have consistently increased funding for post-secondary education and for K-to-12 every year of the last nine years of this government. We have created thousands of post-secondary spaces. We have made commitments to reduce class sizes in K-to-12. I have made a commitment that if we could afford it in the next budget and the budget after, over the next few years we would in fact phase out the tuition fees in post-secondary education in British Columbia.
BIJOUX FALLS PARK
J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Environment. Most of the new parks created over the last nine years have been in very remote areas. They're inaccessible to all but the very rich and a few privileged environmentalists, like former MLA Tom Perry.
In the meantime, fees have been introduced at Forestry campsites, and services at accessible class A parks are ever reduced. Bijoux Falls is a classic example -- a beautiful little class A park immediately adjacent to Highway 97 in the Pine Pass that has had the toilets and picnic tables removed. Can the minister tell us why she continues to alienate resource-rich land when her ministry won't service the parks that are already established?
Hon. J. Sawicki: The hon. member is right. This side of the House has created spectacular parks. In fact, we are very close to doubling the number of protected areas. We've done that in the lower mainland; we've done it in the hon. member's region of the province. We have done it in every region of this province, because we do believe in protecting the biodiversity and special places in this province for present and future generations.
The park that the hon. member is asking about was determined to be a small roadside park that more properly belonged to a Ministry of Highways rest-stop function. For that reason, discussions were made with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to be able to provide that function.
The Speaker: The member for Peace River South has a supplemental question.
J. Weisgerber: Bijoux Falls is much more than a highway rest stop. It's a magnificent falls and is accessible to seniors, handicapped people and people in wheelchairs. It's a beautiful place for a picnic. It's a great place for motorists and local people to stop, and statistics indicate that they do in serious numbers.
My question to the minister is two questions. Has she ever been to Bijoux Falls? And does she believe that those seniors and handicapped people who use the park should be expected to drive 40 kilometres to use a washroom?
Hon. J. Sawicki: I know that the hon. member feels very strongly about Bijoux Falls, and certainly we have heard from some of his constituents. The facilities at Bijoux Falls were moved to another highway rest stop. I will certainly concur with the hon. member that providing facilities inside our parks is incredibly difficult when you have the number of parks that we have in British Columbia. But I want to say that I am very proud of our staff and Parks B.C. in terms of trying to maintain the highest-quality facilities that we can provide within our provincial parks.
MENTAL HEALTH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
C. Hansen: Earlier in this question period the Premier made a comment. He said: "I keep my promises." Yet earlier today the B.C. Mental Health Monitoring Coalition put out a report that chronicles this government's record on mental health over the last six years. It is appropriately titled "Promises Made, Promises Broken."
[1430]
When they adopted the mental health plan, they made a commitment in the area of residential care for up to 244 people with severe and complex mental illnesses. Do you know what has happened to date? Nothing. They promised 35 more beds for emergency response. What has happened to date? Nothing. They promised day hospital programs and increases in 30 acute care hospitals for up to 1,800 clients. Do you know what has happened? Nothing. The list goes on and on.
I would like to ask this question of the Premier, in view of the commitment he made earlier that he keeps his promises: will the Premier stand up today and make a commitment that all of these promises will in fact be kept?
Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, we have a mental health plan that's to be phased in and implemented over five to seven years. We have made some concrete progress already, as I said yesterday, in terms of legislation that needs to be put in place so the rest of the plan can be implemented. We've done work around best practices -- best practices that are recognized as leading the way in the field of mental health in this country. We have a lot more to do, but this government is committed to implementing that mental health plan and the recommendations in it.
The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental.
[ Page 15218 ]
C. Hansen: Those are hollow words, because in the budget
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, you know what's really interesting when they talk about hollow words? It's that I've had the media wanting to talk to me all day about mental health. There have been hundreds of people on the steps of this Legislature advocating for increased funding for mental health and implementing the mental health plan. But when it comes to the opportunity for that opposition to hold the government accountable
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
REPORT OF MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCATE
A. Sanders: In a recent speech the mental health advocate outlined the lack of services, lack of timely care, lack of respect and lack of dignity that people with mental illness get from this government with respect to their issues. She outlined what everybody knows -- that "closer to home" for the mentally ill is alone under the bridge, alone in the park, alone in flophouses and alone in jail.
The minister has a report from the advocate. We haven't seen it. I'd like to ask the minister when we will be seeing his version of the report from this supposedly open, honest government that's going to give us information.
The Speaker: The light has gone on. I'll ask the minister to make a brief answer to the question.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The report will be tabled in this Legislature. I'm glad the member talked about homelessness, because when it comes to people with mental illnesses, it's true. I'd like to put this challenge out to the Leader of the Opposition: does he agree with his housing critic who says that we should not build social housing, but we should have rent supplements? Rent supplements will not house the mentally ill.
[1435]
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Petitions
J. Cashore: I rise to present a petition signed by 4,425 B.C. residents, urging that the Riverview lands in Coquitlam be preserved in perpetuity for mental health services and as public green space. These signatures are in addition to 17,000 names collected on earlier petitions also supporting this initiative.
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply. In this chamber, we shall be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the other chamber -- the Douglas Fir Committee Room -- we shall be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
E. Gillespie: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
E. Gillespie: I would like to introduce 48 grade 11 students from Vanier high school in the Comox Valley school district who are visiting the Legislature today, and I ask all members of the House to please make them welcome.
Interjections.
The Chair: The committee will come to order.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
On vote 34: ministry operations, $297,814,000 (continued).
G. Abbott: When we adjourned just before lunch, the minister made some comments about the opposition and about how successfully his ministry had resolved this situation. Frankly, I was ready to let the question
[1440]
I don't want to spend the rest of the week on this issue; I think we've canvassed it sufficiently. But I know I have a thick pile of e-mails and letters that I've received on this issue. If the minister would like to do that, we can certainly spend a great deal of time doing that. But I'm happy to sum up on the issue with just a few of the many correspondences that I've had on this matter, and my colleague will want to add to that.
Again, just to give you a sense of some of this, this is an e-mail I received on April 26 from Keith Fitzgibbon of Duncan. Actually, it's a copy of an e-mail to the minister. It says:
"Sir:
"Your office has indicated that 85 percent of respondents are satisfied with the province's offer to submit part of the taxes resulting from FRBC's incompetence in regard to forest worker income assistance. Please do not include me in that group. It's your screw-up -- fix it.
Keith Fitzgibbon"And this is from Darryl Clarke on April 26 to me:
"Of the many people I know that are impacted by this huge surprise forest worker retraining program tax debt, not one of them is content with only having one-third of the debt cor
[ Page 15219 ]
rected. The notion that 85 percent of us might be happy with still owing two-thirds of huge surprise tax debt is laughable.
"Thank you.
Darryl Clarke, Aldergrove, B.C."From Robert Ell of Courtenay -- and again, this is a courtesy copy to me of correspondence to the Minister of Forests:
"On Thursday, April 20th, 2000, I happened to come across the debate on the Committee of Supply B, Ministry of Forests estimates. Minister, first of all, I want to go on record as stating that my wife and I are not to be included in your statement that 85 percent of the people contacting you are satisfied with the provincial government paying only the B.C. portion of the income tax owing on payments provided under the forest worker transition program
. . . .
"I am still dismayed that when I met with you in Victoria on March 30, you indicated that you were not prepared to assist the workers any further and that all legal costs associated with this matter will have to be picked up by the workers themselves. Mr. Minister, this problem was caused by your own program. It is shameful that you now expect the court costs to be picked up by those who can least afford it. I was truly hopeful that you would in your new capacity of minister take an honest, independent review of the actions of FRBC. My disappointment with your decision is great indeed. Clearly if you and FRBC were honest in your approach, you would have offered to subsidize the cost of a court action.
"Your response to the questions asked by [the Forests critic] on April 20 are a clear indication that either you are not fully aware of the actions of FRBC or you have chosen to ignore them. I again request, sir, that you open your mind and heart to this matter and accept responsibility, as the minister of the Crown responsible for FRBC, to satisfy the legitimate demands of the thousands of British Columbians impacted by the failure of public policy. This matter is not going to go away."That's from Robert Ell of Courtenay. Just a final example, and again, we can read lots into the record if we're going to have a contest about that. But I'll just read a last one here. This is from Tony and Jill Rushton:
"Dear [Forests critic]:
"I just read last week's Hansard and would like to thank you for continuing to push for a resolution to the tax issue for those affected by the disastrous FWTP. While the [hon. Forests minister] may believe that most of the affected families are satisfied by the government's offer to pay one-third of the tax bill, we are not. I wrote to [the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Premier], thanking them for that start but suggesting that the government should pay the whole tax bill. I received a reply from [the Minister of Employment and Investment] that he had forwarded my letter to [the Minister of Forests]. I received nothing from [the Minister of Forests]. The Premier's Office was kind enough to forward their news release."Their letter concludes:
"This program, that I'm sure began with good intentions, turned into another mismanagement of our tax dollars and has created considerable difficulty for a great many B.C. families. The government should start to take some responsibility for their programs. Obviously I would like to see the government pay the whole tax bill.
"Thanks again for remembering us.
Tony and Jill Rushton"So those are a few of the many people that have contacted the official opposition with respect to this matter. There are many more. Believe me, if we want to spin the notion that everyone in the province of British Columbia is happy with this arrangement, that is utter nonsense. I'll invite my colleague the minister to respond to that.
[1445]
Hon. J. Doyle: I understand fully the concerns raised by the member opposite, and I am familiar with most of them. Government and FRBC are also concerned by the concerns of the clients out there who lost their jobs when there was a downturn in the forest sector. That is why government worked to start the forest transition plan, which by and large has been a great success. There have been some problems, and I'll admit them -- I'll agree with the member there -- but by and large it's been a successful program.
R. Coleman: Before I get to my letters, I'd like to ask the minister a couple of quick questions. First of all, how many calls have you received that make up that 85 percent that you're quoting? How were they qualified when they called FRBC to say they were satisfied with what you'd come up with?
Hon. J. Doyle: There were 299 calls to the Forest Renewal 1-800 line on this issue. These were clients who were out there and were just curious as to the agreement-in-principle that had been worked out between the federal and provincial governments. Out of those 299 calls that were received, 11 people said they were still opposed to the agreement-in-principle. But all the other people said that once the agreement-in-principle was explained to them, they felt it was a pretty good deal and satisfied their needs.
R. Coleman: Isn't it unbelievable that by phone calls from 299 people out of over 6,300 people affected, we tack a number of 85 percent against that and say: "Everybody's happy"? I got over 600 calls on the $75 transit fee in my riding in the last two weeks, and I don't consider that to be necessarily a scientific sample of the opinion of my total riding. Yet the minister is prepared to sit there and accept 299 calls. Did he think of doing a survey of the 6,300 people, if he got that many calls, to find out what the real numbers, the real concerns and real issues were with people?
I'd like to know if FRBC actually contacted those 6,300 people and said, "What do you think, really?" -- instead of just going by a few calls that came in over the telephone line.
Hon. J. Doyle: For the information of the members, it was 96 percent approval, not 85 percent. But for the information of the member across the floor, every person who was a client of this forest worker training program got a copy of the agreement-in-principle. Based on them receiving that, approximately 300 -- 299 -- have called the Forest Renewal office, and out of that, 96 percent said they were satisfied with the agreement-in-principle that has been worked out.
R. Coleman: I'd be curious to know how many of the 6,300 people that you put into some form of personal bankruptcy or financial distress actually even have a telephone left that they can pick up and phone you on. The fact of the matter is: for a government or a Crown corporation to take 299 calls and trumpet it as satisfaction is absurd. It's absolutely absurd that you would take that and trumpet out publicly that that many people would be satisfied. I have more e-mails of dissatisfaction coming across my desk than just about the number of phone calls that FRBC has received. I just want to read a couple into the record, because it's just amazing to me. I still can't get over the fact that you're actually accepting 299 calls as a sample when it's not even scientifically done. You haven't done a professional poll. You haven't measured it correctly
[ Page 15220 ]
and yet, at the same time, FRBC seems to think that the minister can use this as some sort of crutch to say: "Everybody's happy because they're going to pay their third of the tax."
Here's an example. Maybe this goes to your satisfaction -- I don't know.
"I am currently a full-time student attending the University College of the Fraser Valley. I am enrolled in the criminal justice degree program and have one more full year to complete my degree. I am one of the many people who have been hit hard by the Forest Renewal-Revenue Canada issue. I acted in good faith when I took the recommendation from Forest Renewal British Columbia to file my FRBC income as a bursary -- tax-free.
"Sir, I am in no position to be able to afford the tax bills that I am receiving. I have one more year to complete my education and am doing so through the use of student loans and savings from working as a logger during the summer. I am asking that this issue be brought in front of the Legislature as it is having a profound effect on myself and I am sure many others.
"Thank you.
Robert Pelz"
[1450]
Well, Robert, I brought your issue to the Legislature. It seems that out of 299 phone calls you're not one of them.
This is another issue. I'll read this one into the record too, because I'd like to know about this little poll. We have the 299 sample, but there's also another poll that somebody did. Maybe the minister would be aware of it and would be able to tell me what the results of this poll are.
"I was listening to 'Almanac' this afternoon on CBC radio, with Mark Forsythe, and he was discussing the NDP offer to pay the provincial share of the FRBC tax bill. On the program he read a news release statement from the NDP stating that a recent poll found that 80 percent of FRBC recipients are now employed.
"That's very interesting, because someone called me two weeks ago from Angus Reid, asking me to take part in an FRBC poll. At the time I thought: 'Great. Now I get to tell someone about this.' But the man on the telephone only asked me three questions:
1. Did I complete the FRBC program?
2. Was I employed?
3. Was I employed in the forest sector?
"That was it. I wasn't even allowed to elaborate. I am sure the information I gave them was being taken out of context because:
1. I have finished the FRBC program, but this is only because I've used up my allotted portion of funding. I did not receive career counselling because I was already enrolled at SFU and knew what direction I was going.
2. I am employed, but part-time -- just 20 hours per week -- because I'm still going to school full-time and will be until the fall of 2001.
3. I don't work in the forest sector because I'm training to be a teacher.
"Mr. Coleman, I expect the next move the NDP will make is to take full credit for me finishing school. If it was indeed the NDP who commissioned the poll, I find this absolutely shoddy and underhanded. They are attempting to transfer their burden of responsibility back onto our shoulders. . . .
So I would like to ask the minister: what was that poll? And would they table it in the House today?"Thank you for your support. It feels good to know somebody is attempting to help us."
Hon. J. Doyle: FRBC did not conduct any poll.
R. Coleman: Is the minister aware whether Angus Reid conducted a poll and used FRBC's name in the poll?
Hon. J. Doyle: No.
R. Coleman: There were 299 calls that came into FRBC. The minister trumpets 95 percent satisfaction.
I have one widow with a tax bill. I have other people that are going bankrupt. We have people that are losing their homes. I would doubt that any one of them would tell you they're satisfied. So 6,300-plus people are affected, less than half of 1 percent make a phone call to FRBC, and FRBC thinks this is the way we decide on things.
I was very satisfied with the way my colleague for Shuswap was conducting the debate and discussion with regard to this, and I was very happy with the fact that we are actually getting some chronology and information on the table. I was extremely disappointed with the shallow application of one letter prior to lunch that led us to this discussion this afternoon.
Hon. minister, I think you dropped the ball. I also think that FRBC should be absolutely, fundamentally ashamed to do any kind of press release that says 95 percent of people are satisfied because some people make phone calls to FRBC. There's nothing scientific about it; there's nothing professional about it. They're only trying to hide something under the table.
I ask the minister this: will the minister do a press release today and tell the press that they only had 299 calls, that it wasn't scientific and that for FRBC to use that information to try and shadow this thing up as being a wonderful decision on behalf of government was nothing but a sham as far as insulting the people who are affected and the 6,300 people in the forest worker transition program?
[1455]
Hon. J. Doyle: Forest Renewal sent out a package to all of the affected clients. Included in that package was a 1-800 number that they could use to call Forest Renewal B.C. Two hundred and ninety-nine clients decided to respond to that survey -- excuse me, not to a survey, but to the explanation to them of the agreement-in-principle. As I said, no press release went out; believe me, member, no press release went out. I was asked in this House sometimes over the last few days how the agreement-in-principle was being received and how it was going. I responded to those questions by saying, at different times, I think it was, 200 calls, and 250 to 300 as of, I think, last Friday. No press release was received or was put out by FRBC, so I don't think we have to put out another one to negate the one that we didn't send out.
The best thing to help the client or taxpayer out there is a job. I think that by and large this program has been successful in employing people who were unemployed.
R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, 6,001 people haven't responded. The people out there are facing debt, and they're facing bankruptcy. They're facing the loss of their credit, because they are out there trying to make a living in the job that you've helped them find, and then all of a sudden they wake up the next day, and they have a tax bill that you told them they weren't going to have.
[ Page 15221 ]
All through this process there has been nothing but a lack of clarity on decisions and recommendations from FRBC to these clients, a lack of clarity on what was being said and a lack of clarity on what the options were. It's sad; it's very sad. I would have to say that in my four years in this Legislature, this is one of the most disappointing discussions I've ever had in any kind of debate. I believe that you dropped the ball. I believe that you have 6,000 people out there hurting because you got them all tax bills they weren't expecting. And I think you've ignored the fact that that happened to them. You ignored it back in 1996, 1997, 1998 and as recently as 1999, in some of the ambiguous correspondence you sent to those people who frankly don't have tax accountants at their fingertips all the time. Frankly, they were just trying to make a living or get re-educated so they could get a job.
They had other priorities and you had a fiduciary responsibility to them, I believe, relative to the advice that you were giving. I don't think it was good advice. I'm just disappointed that we have to deal with it -- stand in this House for three or four days and have my colleague walk through this and walk through this and walk through this simply because nobody wants to pay attention.
Hon. J. Doyle: There were over 6,000 letters, I think it was, sent out to the clients on the agreement-in-principle. I encourage all clients to call the 1-800 number and have it explained to them -- the agreement-in-principle. If they don't like it, that's their right; if they do like it, that's their right. I'm just telling you, and I've told you and this House, how many calls we've had and how many people have liked or disliked the agreement-in-principle.
R. Coleman: I'm not going to argue with the minister about his feeling about the 6,000 letters that went out and the telephone calls that came in. All I want to do is say this, and this is a quote: "So, tired of going hungry so I could pay my bills, I gave up. I don't have medical -- and I need it -- because I have to file my tax return to apply for hardship -- or whatever they call it -- medical. I had to quit making mortgage payments in order to pay the bills and buy the groceries and pay the taxes."
It doesn't matter how many letters you sent, hon. minister; it doesn't matter. These are real people with real issues who have been affected by a Crown corporation that dropped the ball.
Hon. J. Doyle: Forest Renewal sent letters out on a regular basis to keep clients updated on the discussion between the federal government and FRBC. We sent the same letters out on the agreement-in-principle to inform those members that there was an agreement-in-principle in place and encouraged them to contact FRBC, whether they liked it or didn't like it, and some people have called. I encourage others to call to ask about the agreement-in-principle.
[1500]
G. Abbott: I don't propose to belabour this any further. The comments of my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove are right to the point. This is a human dilemma for a whole bunch of people in British Columbia. I think we have, over the past hours and days, thoroughly canvassed that. I think we can now let the record speak for itself with respect to the advice that was tendered and the reason why it was tendered. I believe that we have had a massive public policy failure here around this issue, but I don't propose to belabour it any longer. As I say, I think my colleague hit just the right note in terms of winding it up.
I am happy to return now to our discussion around the state of the forest industry and invite the minister to make whatever changes of staff that may be necessary to achieve that; or I can ask a question -- whichever the Chair would prefer I do.
Hon. J. Doyle: I would ask the Chair that we have a five-minute recess. I have to get something out of my office, if that's okay with the opposition.
R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today 40 students from Credo Christian High School who are in the gallery with their teacher, Mr. deJong. It's a grade 11 class and their chaperons are Mrs. Vander Horst, Mrs. Bysterveld and Mrs. Baartman. Credo Christian is an independent school in my riding. I'm sure they're glad to hear that the pressure from the opposition pushed them to restore the funding for their school.
The Chair: We'll take a recess for five minutes -- make that till ten after three.
The committee recessed from 3:02 p.m. to 3:04 p.m.
[S. Hawkins in the chair.]
G. Abbott: When we left this subject to discuss the forest worker transition program, we were discussing some broad issues around the state of the industry. The theme of the debate at the time we left it was cost-competitiveness. I had indicated some concerns with respect to how B.C.'s cost-competitiveness had been eroded over the 1990s as a consequence of some public policy changes, most notably the very prescriptive Forest Practices Code we have in British Columbia. We were talking in general terms about the possibilities of improving cost-competitiveness by replacing the very prescriptive code with a results-based code.
[1505]
The government has at times indicated, at least rhetorically, that it also shares the view that we need a results-based code in British Columbia, although obviously there may be some debate around exactly what a results-based code is. When I asked the minister about that very near the end of our discussion here -- and it's going back a few days now
My question to the minister is this -- and it's really a request for clarification on the point: is the minister saying that the people don't trust the government and therefore we have to have layered accountability around things like the Forest
[ Page 15222 ]
Practices Code? Or is the minister saying that the people don't trust the forest industry to deliver a results-based code without having oversight at every stage from the government? Or indeed is he saying both? That's my question to the minister, to begin this.
Hon. J. Doyle: What people are asking for in the province is a results-based code; they want a system of checks and balances. I've no doubt that government and industry RPFs and other officials in the ministry and, of course, in the private sector can work together to ensure that there are savings where at all possible, without in any way endangering the Forest Practices Code that is in place.
G. Abbott: So in terms of the question that I posed, it appeared from the quote that the minister was saying: "People are telling us in the province that they don't always trust the work that might happen out there." My understanding was that the minister was advancing that distrust as a reason not to proceed towards a results-based code. Am I now to understand that, rather than that, he was attempting to say: "Yes, we can go to a results-based code, and there is not a distrust of government and/or the forest industry to deliver that"?
Hon. J. Doyle: In no way was I implying that we did not trust the private sector. I have great confidence in the private sector. A day or so after I got this job, two-plus months ago, I addressed a meeting of the RPFs in Prince George. I know many of those people -- as you do, hon. member -- and I trust them fully. I have no doubt that they can work together with government officials to make sure that we are good stewards of the land and to deliver wood to yards or marketplaces at a competitive price.
G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that clarification. I think it's an important one, not just for registered professional foresters, but for the broader industry -- to know that the process towards a results-based code is not going to be in some way impaired by an emotional distrust on some people's part towards either the industry or the government.
[1510]
The document that I was working with at the time we recessed this discussion previously is a document by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled "The B.C. Forest Industry: Unrealized Potential," dated January 2000. We have agreed that PricewaterhouseCoopers is a very reliable observer of the forest industry in British Columbia; therefore we have to take very seriously the concerns that are sometimes raised by that organization. I want to put a few more of them on the record and allow the minister to respond to them.
One of the points raised in this document, on page 3, is around logging costs and operating costs for 1989-1998.
Is that a piece of analysis that the ministry would agree is accurate?"The chart shows that in the 1989-1998 period, average provincial log costs rose from $37 per cubic metre to $57 per cubic metre. The 1989 cost, trended to 1998 for inflation, would have resulted in a 1998 cost of $45 per cubic metre. The $12-per-cubic-metre gap between actual operating cost and the inflation trend line is almost entirely the result of the Forest Practices Code. The $12-per-cubic-metre gap is equivalent to increased costs of $680 million per year."
Hon. J. Doyle: We have no reason to dispute the numbers that are in the report you are quoting from.
G. Abbott: I think that's encouraging. I think it provides a good example of why we need to proceed to a results-based code in the province.
Again, in their further analysis on page 4 of this document: "This increase in logging cost coupled with the cost impact of policy changes restricting log supply is a primary reason why the British Columbia forest industry was, by the end of 1998, less competitive than that of eastern Canada. Differences in taxation and other public policies between B.C. and the rest of Canada also impacted B.C.'s competitiveness."
I'll ask the minister first whether he agrees with this assessment of the competitive position of the B.C. forest industry vis-à-vis that of eastern Canada, and ask further -- as part of the same question -- whether his ministry has done its own independent analysis of B.C.'s competitiveness in relation to the eastern Canadian industry.
Hon. J. Doyle: Looking at costs only is misleading, as it is only half the story. To get a complete picture, one must look at revenues -- the trees that grow in British Columbia versus other jurisdictions and what one receives for them in the marketplace.
G. Abbott: That is at best a partial answer to the concerns that have been posed here. The quality of timber certainly is an issue. The fact of the matter is that in the situation we have in the United States and in Japan, what we have seen is an erosion of B.C.'s market share in both of those marketplaces, as the high-cost producers are forced out when prices decline. We can perhaps excuse a marginal difference in, for example, stumpage -- around the quality of the timber. But I think it is a partial answer at best to say that somehow a qualitative difference in the fibre allows us to avoid the cost-competitive issues which, as I understand it from other documentation, have seen us lose market share to other competitors in Scandinavia and eastern Canada, and in our U.S. marketplace and the Japanese marketplace. Does the minister not agree?
Hon. J. Doyle: The loss of market that the member speaks about
[1515]
G. Abbott: I don't dispute the minister's response, but I hope he doesn't dispute this either. When we get into -- I guess it would be best termed "penalty wood" under the softwood lumber agreement, where there's an additional $50 or $100 levy on the B.C. wood, once people exceed their quota
[ Page 15223 ]
Hon. J. Doyle: When one takes into consideration the species that we're shipping in British Columbia compared to other provinces, we are not the high-cost producer in Canada.
G. Abbott: That surprises me -- and certainly it would be news, as well, to the industry that we're not. And I'm not sure what species the minister is referring to. I think that overall, we certainly are the high-cost producer. I hear that over and over again not just from the industry but from very informed folks like PricewaterhouseCoopers that monitor those things on an ongoing basis.
The other point which is made on page 4 by PricewaterhouseCoopers in the document, "Unrealized Potential," is this: "With the overall increase in the cost of logs and timber availability issues, it is not surprising that the actual log harvest from Crown lands has been substantially below the annual allowable cut set by the province's chief forester." That's Pricewaterhouse saying that we're getting a contraction in timber harvest well below the AAC as a consequence of the cost of logs and timber availability issues.
Again, I think we may have touched on this in previous discussions. The cut in '98 was well below -- indeed, probably close to 15 million cubic metres below -- the AAC as a consequence of some of the issues we were talking about. Could the minister remind me
Hon. J. Doyle: No, we did not cut the full cut in 1998. As far as the question that the member asked before that as to the shipments of B.C. products, markets were down in the world -- in Asia and other parts of the world. So we're not going to be cutting trees, hopefully, just to pile them up in someone's yard.
G. Abbott: The PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis goes on to note on page 5, and again I'll quote for the record: "The contrast between British Columbia and the rest of Canada in the last ten years is startling. The policy and taxation regimes under which the British Columbia forest industry now operates have made the B.C. industry smaller and less competitive, while the industry in the rest of Canada expanded and earned a better return on capital employed."
Again, the argument made here is from PricewaterhouseCoopers and is not intended, I don't believe, to be confrontational. It is intended to be a statement of fact. Would the minister agree that indeed the contrast, as set out here, is a statement of fact?
[1520]
Hon. J. Doyle: Part of the reason has to do with the fact that we have increased costs -- I'll agree with you -- to do with the Forest Practices Code. But we have been working with the industry, as you're aware, to try to reduce those prices.
G. Abbott: The PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis continues: "Had the B.C. industry been able to keep pace with the rest of Canada: direct and indirect employment would be up 2,500 jobs instead of down 25,000; capital expenditure would be almost $500 million higher in 1998 than the $729 million reported; [and] B.C. government revenues would be higher, reflecting the increased sales revenues, employment and economic activity generally." Does the ministry agree with that analysis?
Hon. J. Doyle: This assumes there's a market to sell the product in.
G. Abbott: That's the response now from the minister on a couple of occasions: you can't cut trees down if you don't have a market for them. The issue, I think -- and I'm not sure that the minister has yet dealt squarely with it -- is that if you are cost competitive, there are more markets that you can access and trade in. If you have a fixed-cost structure that is higher than your competitors, your ability to trade in the marketplace, particularly when prices are turning down, is very much impaired.
The purpose of this discussion is not to embarrass the government. The purpose of the discussion, I think, is to emphasize the point that if we see, for example -- as some people fear -- a further contraction in the prices that exist in the American softwood lumber market, we are going to find ourselves, as a high-cost producer, unable to make the changes that are necessary to keep us actively trading in that marketplace. That's the concern here, and the minister might like to respond to the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis from that perspective.
Hon. J. Doyle: There were cost increases to do with implementing the code and to do with the environmental standards that we felt were necessary in order to secure the markets out in the world. At the same time, we have worked
G. Abbott: I acknowledged this last time. There is some considerable skepticism, I think, in the industry about whether in fact $1.1 billion in savings has been had. Nevertheless, even if that is the intention, it is in the right direction. The question really is whether the government is moving quickly enough or effectively enough to try to take some of the unnecessary costs out of the cost structure that currently faces the forest industry in British Columbia. I don't believe the government has. I think the rhetoric from the government has been more ambitious than the actual changes that have been made to date.
[1525]
The PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis goes on to state on page 6:
"Had B.C. forest industry earnings not been diverted to support the excessive bureaucracy of the Forest Practices Code and keep stumpage at uneconomically high levels, they would have been available for reinvestment in existing and new operations in B.C.
"That reinvestment would have generated economic growth and employment, creating additional government revenues that could have spent on health, education and other important provincial programs. Instead, the government had to borrow funds to maintain expenditures on social programs."The point here that PricewaterhouseCoopers is making is that we are seeing too many resources devoted to what they term "excessive" bureaucracy. No one disputes that we need
[ Page 15224 ]
to maintain environmental standards, but we do need to deliver them in the most efficient and effective way. I think the minister should be concerned when an organization like PricewaterhouseCoopers is stating, and not too gently, that excessive bureaucracy of the code is one of the reasons why we haven't been able to make the reinvestment in the industry that we need to maintain competitiveness as well. I'll invite the minister to respond.
Hon. J. Doyle: The member is quoting from a 1998 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers. I'll ask him maybe to have a little look at the 2000 report that came out in early March, where we see that the return in British Columbia was the same as any other province in Canada. There's been a lot of work done, as I mentioned earlier, to reduce costs in the Forest Practices Code. Actually, there are six pilots out there right now, and they have actually been company-driven. I'm asking them to work to see if they can identify costs for the cost reductions on the lands.
G. Abbott: I'm afraid I need to correct the minister here. This is the unrealized potential. It's the report of January 2000. It's not 1998; it's January 2000. The minister noted that in 1999 the return on capital employed improved for the industry in British Columbia, and that's true. It did. In 1999 return on capital employed came up somewhere near 6 percent -- modest for returns on industrial investments but certainly up in the ballpark of where the Canadian average has been.
The one thing the minister doesn't note in that analysis is that it's the first time in five years that British Columbia has seen the same return on capital employed that other parts of the country have. I want, first and foremost, to make the point to the minister that this is the January 2000 report, not a 1998 document. Further -- and this is the last quote I want to address in this particular document -- I think this is a reminder of the potential we have that has not been realized to date in the B.C. forest industry.
This is a quote from page 7 of this January 2000 report: "If the actual harvest for the decade was at AAC levels" -- which is around 72 million cubic metres -- "average direct and indirect employment would be approximately 26,000 greater than today's levels." That's the Pricewaterhouse view. I don't think we can dismiss the cost-competitiveness issues that are raised in this document by saying that the markets didn't exist. For every notch that we are more or less competitive, our ability to compete in more or less markets is very much determined. I'll invite the minister to see whether he has any further comments with respect to that.
Hon. J. Doyle: Back to the report that the member and I have been speaking about, the member has to admit that the data in that report only goes up to 1998. It may be that the report came out in the year 2000, but it only goes up to 1998, so the report that he's speaking about is two years old. The next report that comes out in June of this year hopefully will more reflect the costs we see today.
Another thing I'd like to mention is that as far as our competitiveness analysis that was done in 1998, data was collected by Resource Information Systems Inc., a well-known and respected consulting company specializing in the forest products sector. The RISI information is copyrighted, so I can't go into detail here; however, I would be happy for staff to brief the critic.
I'd like to say that the employment numbers you mentioned are based on this information up to 1998. Today, in the year 2000, employment is back to very, very close to where it was in 1996, which was a very good year in British Columbia.
[1530]
G. Abbott: The report I've been quoting from is January 2000. I obviously will look forward to seeing the June 2000 report of PricewaterhouseCoopers. It will undoubtedly tell us more about 1999 than the January 2000 report did. Whether it will say we have turned the corner and succeeded in eliminating all the costs that we need to eliminate in order to maintain competitiveness in B.C
Another issue I want to ask about
Can the minister tell us
Hon. J. Doyle: There's none that I'm aware of or ministry staff here are aware of.
But I must get back to the report that you've been quoting from. If you look in that document, the January 2000 report that you speak about, all the information and all the graphs are from 1989 to 1998. So the information is two years old in that respect.
G. Abbott: Well, it is the most recent report of PricewaterhouseCoopers. I never made the contention that it was right up to the minute. The contention is, as they state in the report, that there are continuing cost-competitiveness problems in the British Columbia forest industry. The minister can dispute that if he wants, but it's not reality. I think the attempt to discredit the report by saying it's two years old is nonsensical. It's the most recent report that PricewaterhouseCoopers has generated. And until we get the next report next month, it's the one that I think we need to look at with interest for the important information that's contained in it.
The minister mentioned that employment levels in '99 were up. Certainly they were. Again, one would hardly expect otherwise given the dramatic improvement in American softwood lumber prices, particularly in the first six months of 1999. Of course, everyone was going flat out trying to take advantage of whatever quota they had and obviously to generate whatever profits they could.
But even with the industry operating at full bore, we still see less than the full AAC being cut. Further, we are still miles behind -- and I hope the minister will acknowledge this -- the claim in the jobs and timber accord, which I gather represents the policy of this government that we would create 21,000 direct new forest jobs in British Columbia over the five-year period after 1996 and that we would create over 40,000 direct and indirect new forest jobs in the province. When he
[ Page 15225 ]
says we're up where we want to be, is the minister saying that we've achieved the lofty goals of the jobs and timber accord? Or are we about 21,000 to 25,000 jobs short of that goal?
[1535]
Hon. J. Doyle: We haven't attained the goals that we would like, but we are, by and large, back to the 1996 levels. We have not attained the levels that were mentioned in the program announced by the former Premier in Prince George some years ago. Of course, that is before the downturn in the markets and other things that happened.
I must get back to
G. Abbott: The minister acknowledges that the province hasn't achieved the goals set out in the jobs and timber accord. In fact, they haven't succeeded in getting any one of those 21,000 new jobs. In fact, I suspect that we are even a little bit short of the '96 level. Clearly the jobs and timber accord was very much a kind of fatuous attempt by the government of the day to say, "Well, we can direct growth in the forest industry," and obviously it's been a complete failure. We're going to spend some time later on in these debates talking about the jobs and timber accord and how effectively, if at all, the goals contained in it have been achieved.
Again, if somehow the minister is saying that the report of January 2000 by PricewaterhouseCoopers
Part of this is cyclical, but part of it is structural. That's the only point I'm trying to make here -- that we need to address
I don't know why the minister keeps going back and saying that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of January 2000 is based on '98. Of course it is. And until we get updated information, that's what we're going to have to base our conclusions around. The issue is: do we agree that it's critical that we be as cost-competitive as we possibly can be, so that we can stay active in the American softwood lumber market as prices tail off to the $225 or $250 level? That's the point I'm attempting to make, and the minister may wish to respond.
[1540]
Hon. J. Doyle: The government recognizes how important cost-competitiveness is in the British Columbia forest industry. That is why we have worked with the industry to bring our costs down. None of this means that we can afford to be complacent on the issue of competitiveness in the world. That is why the government recognized industry's cost problems and acted. Over the past two years the government has moved ahead on a number of initiatives to enhance the industry, to make it competitive in the marketplace out there. Those initiatives were designed, often in consultation with the industry, to lower industry costs of delivered wood.
We must have been doing something right, hon. member, because we are almost back to the 1996 job level. Maybe we didn't reach the heights that we talked about earlier in the jobs and timber accord, but we are almost back to the 1996 employment levels.
G. Abbott: Would the minister acknowledge that staying at the current employment level that we have in British Columbia is very much contingent upon us being continually competitive in an American softwood lumber market where prices may decline?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.
G. Abbott: I want to address briefly here a document which is produced by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture. It's entitled "Profile 1999: Softwood Sawmills in the United States and Canada." This document discusses, among other things, industry capacity. I'll quote from the document: "Changing economics and technology have significantly affected the sawmilling industry in the past five years. By our account, 55 mills have been permanently closed since 1995, resulting in the loss of 8 million cubic meters of capacity. More than 50 percent of these closures have occurred in British Columbia, followed by the western and southern regions of the United States."
This is the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American Forest Service, saying that more than 50 percent of the closures in North America have occurred in British Columbia. Does the minister agree with those statistics?
Hon. J. Doyle: I had assumed that the information is right. But I don't know when this information came out that the hon. member is quoting from. It's possible that some of those mills may have started up again.
G. Abbott: The report is dated October 1999. It's an attempt to look at B.C.'s place in the North American softwood lumber market. I believe the information to be correct. It's further documented in a table on page 3, which goes into some details on the number of mills closed, the number of mills opened, the capacity volume closed or opened, expansion to existing capacity and net gain or loss. It is interesting to note that according to this study, in British Columbia 26 mills closed and four opened. There was a loss of capacity of 4.483 million cubic metres, 261,000 cubic metres opened and a net
[ Page 15226 ]
loss of 2.666 million cubic metres. British Columbia acts as the only producer listed here that has a net loss in production capacity in the period in question.
[1545]
I think it goes to underline that from a North American perspective, we have created a situation in the 1990s in British Columbia, with the addition of the regulations that we have -- particularly the very prescriptive code, which I think the former Minister of Forests agreed had cost the industry some $300 million a year in unnecessary costs
Hon. J. Doyle: The AAC has come down. There was some excess capacity in mills in the province. But you must remember -- the member is well aware of this; I am -- that there have been new mills. For instance, in Golden there's new LVL; there are OSB plants. So there's new reconfiguration of mills to a different product that's in demand in the marketplace out there.
G. Abbott: The minister is right; the industry is constantly changing. The question always is: are we attaining the maximum opportunity, the maximum value from the forest industry that we have in British Columbia? Are we cutting to the optimal harvest level? Are we securing the optimal return? Are we protecting our position in the marketplace as effectively as we need to? These are all the questions that are naturally asked when discussing something like the state of the industry in British Columbia. I celebrate -- just as the minister would -- when a company enjoys success, when a company diversifies. That's all welcome. But we do have to acknowledge that we have some severe problems, particularly in some parts of the province and in some parts of the industry.
I think the government needs to work absolutely tirelessly to ensure that at every juncture they are giving our industry the best opportunity they can to compete on a global basis with a world that is increasingly awash in wood and awash in new competitors to the forest industry in British Columbia.
In that line, I think one of the most impressive quotes I have seen around this issue comes from one of the most distinguished observers of the forest industry in British Columbia and certainly one of the most widely respected observers in British Columbia -- that's Dr. Peter Pearse. He wrote in Business in Vancouver, September 14, 1999:
Again, that's Dr. Peter Pearse. I think he reminded us in a most timely way that we can't forget that we've got vital cost structure problems to address. We can't let short-term improvements and commodity prices mask the real need we have to restore competitiveness in B.C. I invite the minister to comment on Dr. Pearse's comments in Business in Vancouver."The recent upturn in forest products prices is a blessing, modest and faltering as it is. But it presents another, more subtle threat to the needed forest policy review. The return to profitability, however transient and short of potential, has already begun to take the pressure off
. . . . This of course is short-sighted. The need for major changes in the way we manage our forest resources and our forest industry is obvious and long overdue. The problem won't be solved by a cyclical recovery in product prices."
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. J. Doyle: Like the member, I would agree that Dr. Pearse is a very respected individual in our province and, I'm sure, in our country and throughout the world. No doubt he does some work. The concerns and items that the member raised and that were mentioned by Dr. Pearse are likely the reason why, before he had written this article in the Vancouver magazine that you mentioned, we commissioned the Wouters report, which was delivered roughly a month ago, to look at other avenues and other ways we can do business.
[1550]
G. Abbott: One of the continuing problems for the B.C. forest industry has been the efforts by some groups to subvert the interests of forest companies, particularly coastal forest companies -- I think it probably happens to some extent right across the board -- and to subvert their position in the marketplace and try to turn buyers against the companies and so on. Can the minister advise what his ministry is doing, perhaps in concert with FRBC or on its own, to try to address what I think is a campaign of misinformation being directed against B.C. producers in the domestic and foreign marketplaces?
Hon. J. Doyle: The member asks a good question. FRBC, in the budget of this year, has got money in place to assist to correct misstatements that are in many, many cases out there in the world marketplace -- to let people know just what we have done in the past years to ensure that we are good stewards of the land.
When I met with the federal minister, Mr. Pettigrew, two or three weeks ago in Vancouver, I encouraged him to ask his cabinet colleagues in Ottawa to see if Ottawa would assist British Columbia in marketing and let the world know just what we do as far as our stewardship of the land and why, in some cases, there are campaigns out there which are very, very unfair and which of course come back and impact on the people in the communities that we all reside in.
G. Abbott: I'm pleased to hear those comments from the minister. I think we have not done what is necessary in recent years to try to combat what has been a very destructive campaign on the part of some groups to try to subvert our position in the international marketplace. I believe we need to do much more. Certainly I've had the pleasure of discussing this issue with officials from the IWA, from Forest Alliance, from a range of industry groups like COFI and the area associations.
I think people are convinced that if we want to continue to protect our markets, we need to begin, in a much more aggressive way, telling the world that we are doing a very good job in managing our forests and that our forest practices and our forest products are second to none in this world.
The government frequently says: "Well, we've got the most stringent Forest Practices Code in the world, therefore we have done our part to protect B.C.'s position in the marketplace." It seems to me that somehow -- and I don't blame the government for this -- there's been a disconnect in terms of follow-through on that. Despite having the strongest Forest Practices Code in the universe
[ Page 15227 ]
COFI, area associations. We need to get a broad range of groups on board to start taking the message to the marketplace that not only are our products second to none but our forest practices are second to none and that people ought to feel proud about buying B.C. forest products. I'll invite the minister's comments on that.
[1555]
Hon. J. Doyle: I agreed with the member a minute ago that there are very unfair messages going out to the world as to how our stewardship of the land is. I also, actually, meet with the IWA's Mr. Haggard on a monthly basis or every couple of weeks.
The real answer, I feel, member, is certification. It's something we're working on at the present time, and hopefully that will give British Columbia other products throughout the world once you are certified. So we're working with the industry. In the small business sector -- 13 percent of the tenure in the province is the Ministry of Small Business -- we set up, some weeks ago, three pilots to work on certification. So I think that certification, at the end of the day, will hopefully give us a fair shake in those marketplaces out in the world.
Also, land use plans
G. Abbott: I won't take exception to what the minister says. I agree that certification is part of the answer; there's no question about that. There's a thousand unanswered questions around what's the appropriate vehicle for certification. Is it CSA? Is it ISO? Is it the Forest Stewardship Council? These are important questions, certainly. I think that certification can be part of the answer. Completing the land use processes in British Columbia is part of the answer as well.
But when I look at some of the information that comes to me around the tactics that are used in international marketplaces by some of the radical environmental groups, and the consequences of that, I don't think that certification on its own is going to be the answer either, any more than the Forest Practices Code on its own was the answer.
If we have, for example, one of the tactics that's been used by Greenpeace Japan in recent months -- to some effect apparently, according to Interfor, who has been the primary victim of this
Hon. J. Doyle: Ministry personnel are in daily communication with embassies throughout the world to find out just what has been said in that embassy, in different parts of the world, and to address misinformation. But I agree: there's no end to just what we can do to make sure that we can keep those markets and, of course, hopefully get new markets out in the marketplace. And we will not get those markets as long as there's misinformation out in the marketplace as to our stewardship of the land in British Columbia.
[1600]
G. Abbott: I recently received
Can the minister advise what role the Ministry of Forests, in combination with the Premier's Office or indeed any other arm of government, has played with respect to this coastal forest conservation initiative?"During the past several months Weyerhaeuser, Interfor, Canfor, Western Forest Products, Fletcher Challenge and West Fraser have been working towards reaching agreement with the Sierra Club of B.C., Greenpeace and the Coastal Rainforest Coalition to establish an 18-month standstill on logging operations in many of the ecologically critical intact watersheds in the coastal rainforest and an 18-month standstill in our global markets campaign which has targeted these companies. It is our view that it will create a peaceful space in which all British Columbians can work toward lasting solutions that recognize the need for new forest management and protection designations for the coast."
Hon. J. Doyle: I think you're right. All members did get that communication from the environmental group that you refer to. As far as what government is doing, we're involved at the deputy minister level. The deputy minister of my ministry and other ministries are involved -- but not officially, because I've still got concerns, as all members of this House would have. There are people who are not at the table -- communities, workers, first nations. Those people are not at the table. A cabinet committee has also been struck; I think we're having our first meeting later on this week.
G. Abbott: I'm pleased to hear those comments, because that certainly is my concern and the concern of the official opposition as well. Forest workers and communities are the ones that are going to be directly suffering as a consequence of an 18-month or any standstill on the coast. The minister is telling me that the deputy minister's involved
Hon. J. Doyle: Deputies are not negotiating with this group.
G. Abbott: They are observers only.
Hon. J. Doyle: They are observers only; that is correct.
[ Page 15228 ]
G. Abbott: There are a number of concerns around this. I think the total AAC that could be affected in some way by this, in my understanding, is somewhere around seven million cubic metres. Again, the government will have better information on this than I do.
From the deputy minister's involvement, does it appear that the impact would be in terms of jobs on the coast, should an 18-month standstill be undertaken?
Hon. J. Doyle: The total annual allowable cut in the area that the member is speaking about is five million cubic metres. It's too early to tell what the impacts would be. Within days of getting this job and being fully briefed on this initiative between companies and environmental groups, I was in contact with mayors and other people -- IWA and other people -- in the affected areas to let them know. As I said earlier, and you agreed with me, ultimately this is about communities and people who live in them -- mayors, first nations, workers, all those people.
[1605]
G. Abbott: Is it the minister's understanding that an 18-month standstill could be negotiated between licensees and these ENGOs -- environmental non-governmental organizations? Is it his understanding that those two broad parties could put in place an agreement that would impact the annual allowable cut in the area without the agreement of government?
Hon. J. Doyle: Companies can voluntarily, as you know, decide not to cut. But if they don't keep up their annual allowable cut or cut it in the cut control period, they would be in danger of losing that cut.
G. Abbott: So the position the government is taking, at this point at least, is that the annual and five-year cut-control limitations will still be in effect regardless of whatever arrangements might be negotiated between the licensees and the environmental organizations. The minister's telling me that those cut-control constraints will still be in place irrespective of any agreement that might be negotiated between those parties.
Hon. J. Doyle: At this stage, existing first policies are in place. There's no change as to the discussions that companies and environmental groups are having.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Perhaps on behalf of you, as well, hon. Chair, but certainly our colleague the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, would like to welcome the students from Corpus Christi School who are joining us in the gallery today. There are 29 students and four adults. The teacher who is joining them today is Joanne Salas. On behalf of not only the Minister of Small Business and Tourism but the Chair and myself, I would welcome the students and ask the House to join with us.
G. Abbott: The minister mentioned that the annual allowable cut on the coast is five million cubic metres. Typically, an allocation per thousand cubic metres, I believe, is about 1.7 person-years. Is that what the formula would be on the coast? Perhaps it's a little bit higher than 1.7. If the minister would like to let me know
Hon. J. Doyle: I would agree with the member to some extent. The formula that we use is one job per thousand cubic metres, plus the spinoff jobs that follow that of course.
G. Abbott: We certainly, in any 18-month standstill, would be looking at a very substantial dislocation in terms of job losses. Would the minister agree?
Hon. J. Doyle: Not necessarily. There may be areas, possibly, that the groups are talking about -- unofficially, as far as government is concerned, at this time -- where operations are not presently ongoing.
G. Abbott: So from the government's perspective, if something like the coast forest conservation initiative was to proceed, it would be built around the assumption that cutting areas that would be left intact would be offset by enhanced cut in other areas where there was agreement that that could proceed. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: I feel that the last question the hon. member asked was about this. This discussion is between these two groups with the 18-month stand-down. I'm saying that if companies are not presently operating in the areas that are under discussion, there'd be no effect as far as wood coming out of the bush and jobs.
[1610]
G. Abbott: That would be true, except that as I understand it, there are cutting permits that have been issued in a number of those so-called intact watershed areas. There would have to be some movement into other areas, should this initiative proceed. That's certainly my understanding, but the minister can correct it if it's not correct.
Hon. J. Doyle: We would expect some impact. You make reference to cutting permits that may be in place, but in no way would the full AAC be impacted. Just for the information of the hon. member, within a week or two of me getting this job -- under discussions that had started previous to me being the minister and this coastal initiative -- I did travel up the coast to have a look at the affected areas and the communities that are involved, as maybe he has in his time as critic of this ministry.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise
Hon. J. Doyle: There is no agreement, as we speak, between industry and the groups that are presently at the table. They have agreed in the next 90 days to broaden the amount of people sitting at the table to make sure
[ Page 15229 ]
G. Abbott: There won't be any conclusion to this process for at least 90 days -- is that correct? -- and presumably some a deal longer than that.
Hon. J. Doyle: Whether it's 90 days or sooner or longer, it's really in the hands of the people at the table presently in the discussions.
G. Abbott: One of the questions I have is the relationship between this coast forest conservation initiative and the ongoing land and resource management plan process that has been ongoing, I think, for probably close to a couple of years now on the coast. I would have assumed that some of the issues that are part of the conservation initiative would have been addressed at some point or in some way by the LRMP table that has been active on the coast. Could the minister provide me with an update of where the LRMP sits in terms of its discussions and negotiations and its possible reporting out and how, potentially at least, the LRMP process meshes with the coast forest conservation initiative?
Hon. J. Doyle: The LRMP process was not moving along very fast, because by and large, some of the same people who are sitting down and talking today were usually knocking heads before. Hopefully, the fact that there is some discussion amongst the
Now that they are sitting down
[1615]
G. Abbott: My concern frequently is with groups moving the goalposts when they achieve some concessions or gains in one forum, but not achieving everything they're looking for, they effectively move the goalposts by moving the processes. I'm not convinced that we aren't in some way undermining the very difficult negotiations that have gone on around the LRMP table by effectively supplanting those discussions with a fresh set of discussions with, in fact, many of the same players that were all at the LRMP table. Somehow it seems to me that we do face a danger of goalposts being moved by having a new process overtaking an existing process, which has very much been promoted by the government.
Hon. J. Doyle: The question the member asked on LRMP
G. Abbott: I don't dispute these statistics. They're certainly consistent with the ones I understand in terms of the progress of LRMPs. My question was around the potential supplanting of one process -- i.e., the LRMP -- by a new process which may capture some of the players in the original process but which will have the effect of moving the goal posts, creating a new set of expectations which have only partially been met in the first negotiation. I hope that's not too complex a question, but I think the folks across the way understand the point I'm getting to. I'm looking for some acknowledgement that we don't want to see the current government-sanctioned LRMP process -- which, as the minister says, has been completed in some parts of the province, is ongoing and near completion in other parts of the province and is, in some cases, just beginning in different parts of the province
I don't think we want to put the message out there that if you don't get your way at the LRMP table, you create a market campaign and put pressure on to create a new process which will effectively supplant the LRMP. That's my concern, and that's what I want the minister to address.
Hon. J. Doyle: I agree with the concerns that the member raises. It's the very reason there are two groups at the table now: industry and environmental groups. That's why we have asked them to widen out their table to include some of the other people you mentioned earlier -- community leaders, workers, first nations and other affected people -- so that it is truly encompassing the people who live in that area of the province.
G. Abbott: I want to move on to the Ministry of Forests business plan 2000-2001. At this point I don't expect they'll require a change of staff, but I don't know. I'm happy to pause for a moment if they do, but I wouldn't expect it. In fact, the areas I propose to canvass in the business plan are pretty much consistent with the discussion we've just been having around land use planning on the coast, so I'll just continue with my questioning and assume that people will come and go as necessary.
The first question I have is from page 5 of the business plan. In the second paragraph down, it rightly notes: "In fact, less than half of the 49 million hectares of productive forest land in the province is currently managed for timber harvesting, some 23 million hectares. Of that 23 million hectares -- the current timber-harvesting land base -- less than 1 percent is accessed for timber removal each year."
[1620]
Now, I agree with that. We do currently have, I think, what would properly be termed a "working forest" of about 23 million hectares in British Columbia. My first question around the business plan is this: in the minister's view, do those 23 million hectares constitute the working forest in British Columbia? And does the minister share my concern that it is critical that we maintain that productive 23-million-hectare area of working forest in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Doyle: I agree it is 23 million hectares. At the same time, before we get down to the area which would be a working forest in a province, you have to finish the land-use plans that we've spent the last 15 or 20 minutes speaking about.
G. Abbott: The total area of British Columbia is close to 100 million hectares. As we've been noting, something around
[ Page 15230 ]
or perhaps a little bit less than one-quarter of the province is currently a part of our working forest or our area that is managed for timber harvesting. So roughly one in four hectares of British Columbia is currently being managed for harvesting. It seems to me that we can do all kinds of things with the other three-quarters. We can make three-quarters of the province, if we like, a park and protected area. It seems critical to me that we not see continued erosion of the 23 million hectares that remain. Does the minister share that concern?
Hon. J. Doyle: The 23 million that we more or less agree is -- or is -- in forestry in the province has other values. As far as making sure there is a working forest, as we talked about earlier, at the present time there are no doubt six members of COFI sitting down with environmental groups on the coast, looking at that same land base and possibly looking at some of it being removed from that working forest.
G. Abbott: Certainly one of the concerns I would have, in terms of a lot of the LRMP processes yet to be reporting out, is that we will see, in the balance, some substantial erosion of what I'm going to term the working forest.
I know that one of these days the government will pop up in the Legislature and announce that we've reached 12 percent. We've been on the brink of it, if in fact we're not there, for some months now. I think we're at 11.94 percent or something like that, and I'm sure it will be a political golden moment when the Premier pops up to tell us we've achieved the 12 percent.
All members of the House share that goal of 12 percent park and protected area in British Columbia. The issue, though, is that I think that with only 56 percent of the LRMPs reporting out, we are quite possibly going to see either some additional alienation or additional constraint on what is currently termed the working forest. Does the minister share my concern that what we need to do with LRMPs yet to come is try to ensure that at the end of all that, we still have the kind of fibre base that we need to maintain a viable, economic and productive forest industry in British Columbia?
[1625]
Hon. J. Doyle: I agree fully that it is important that we have a land base out there that continues to have trees available for the many, many communities that depend on them -- forestry being the biggest economic generator in our province. At the same time, we spent some of the last half-hour saying -- I think we more or less agree -- that we should finish the LRMP process on the coast and possibly start one on the north coast. At the same time, there are members of COFI voluntarily sitting down with the environmental groups today, looking at possibly taking some of the forests in the province -- the areas now in the allowable annual cut -- out of it, in order that they could protect some markets somewhere in the world.
The Chair: Member continues.
G. Abbott: Sorry?
The Chair: Member continues.
G. Abbott: Sorry, I thought there was some broader message there than "member continues." I'm looking at the time and
Is it part of the vision of the Ministry of Forests
Hon. J. Doyle: I agree with the member. It is important that we keep the land base for forestry as large as possible. But we must remember something: what we do on that land base has to be sustainable. We must make sure that what we do on the land base is sustainable. I'm sorry; I just forgot
G. Abbott: I think the sustainability issue would be more around the debate about the annual allowable cut, rather than the forest base. But obviously the magnitude of that working forest base is going to have a very important impact on annual allowable cut down the line. Perhaps that's the point the minister was getting to.
One of the references that's made at a few points in the Ministry of Forests business plan kind of intrigues me. It's first raised again on page 5, and I'll just ask for a clarification of this. The quote is this: "Unlike those jurisdictions that practise plantation forestry, British Columbia strives to manage forest lands to maintain natural attributes over the landscape and over time."
I'm not sure what is meant by that, and I'm not sure what jurisdictions the ministry has in mind when they make reference to plantation forestry. Is there a suggestion here that some jurisdictions are planting species which are foreign to that jurisdiction and therefore that's a plantation forest, as opposed to a properly replanted and tended new forest in British Columbia?
[1630]
Hon. J. Doyle: I just remembered
As far as the question the hon. member asked, I agree with him. But mostly what we're speaking about there are plantations that might be down in the southern United States or other areas like that, where they bring in species that are not natural to the area.
G. Abbott: So, effectively, if we attempted to cultivate large areas of eucalyptus in the southern interior of British Columbia, we would construe that to be a plantation. But the ongoing reforestation, replanting of our forests, in British Columbia would not in any case be construed as plantation forests from the ministry's perspective. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: In the replanting of our forests in British Columbia, we're trying to replicate nature as to what has grown there or what should best grow in that area.
G. Abbott: I appreciate the clarification. Every time there is a harvest planned for an area, there also has to be a silviculture plan for an area. That silviculture plan will specify 65
[ Page 15231 ]
percent pine, 25 percent fir and 10 percent cedar, or whatever it may happen to be. Obviously it's going to vary according to what the professional forester thinks is appropriate to the area. Typically, they will try to replicate, at least to some degree, what was there before. They may vary it a little bit according to projected economic returns, but they obviously will try to plant a forest that's going to grow there successfully. There's no point in planting eucalyptus in a place where only Douglas fir is going to survive. It would just be a colossal waste of time and effort.
We in British Columbia have been unfairly criticized as having some kind of plantation system. Just to be clear on this point: when we talk about natural forest, natural attributes and so on, the ministry is agreeing that there is nothing inconsistent in the harvesting of those forests and the replanting of them.
Hon. J. Doyle: We harvest all species in a sustainable manner at all times.
G. Abbott: The next question I have is on page 8; it's related, and it comes in the first paragraph on page 8. It says: "B.C. also has more of the world's natural temperate rain forest than any other jurisdiction -- an estimated 10.6 million hectares of the world's remaining 30 to 40 million hectares of coastal temperate rain forest." What does the word "natural" mean in this context?
Hon. J. Doyle: It means primary forest -- the original trees, as far as we know, that grew in that area.
G. Abbott: Again, just to be clear, the fact that an area has been replanted according to a silviculture plan in no way diminishes its ability to be described as natural from the ministry's perspective. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: Absolutely right; I agree with the member.
[1635]
G. Abbott: A little further on page 8, in fact the final paragraph, it says: "British Columbia also retains a greater amount of biodiversity than other jurisdictions with temperate climates. Maintaining biological diversity and the natural attributes of forests is of increasing importance for policy-makers and international environmental communities." Could the minister clarify what is being said there?
Hon. J. Doyle: It means that we're maintaining biodiversity in the new growth and old growth.
G. Abbott: The paragraph continues: "A key measure of biodiversity conservation is the amount of protected area. To date, B.C. has dedicated over 11 percent of its land base to parks and protected areas."
Again, this is where I'm concerned about the messaging around this particular paragraph. That is, when you say that a key measure of biodiversity is the amount of protected area, it seems to suggest that if an area is harvested, somehow it has lost biodiversity. The question is: does this mean that biodiversity is lost unless harvesting is prohibited through parks and protected areas? Is that the implication here?
Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is no. It just means there's a change in the biodiversity in the area.
G. Abbott: The implication is not that the only way to maintain full biodiversity is to have one very large protected area. That's not the implication here.
Hon. J. Doyle: No, but at the same time, protected areas do mean that you never lose that biodiversity in that protected area.
G. Abbott: The first paragraph on page 9 states the following:
We've talked a little bit about the certification issue. Is there anything else that we are doing in the forest policy framework to accommodate the international issues that are outlined in this paragraph?"Given these attributes, it is hardly surprising that British Columbia's management of forest resources is under continuous global scrutiny. Nor is it surprising that customer concerns about environmental issues is increasing and that the demand is increasing for wood products that are certified as sustainably produced. That kind of stewardship scrutiny will be an ongoing fact of life for B.C., and the province's forest policy framework must accommodate it."
Hon. J. Doyle: Protected areas strategy is one. Timber supply in a sustainable way is another way that we are doing this.
[1640]
G. Abbott: A little further down on page 9 it talks about some of the other international trends that are affecting the B.C. forest industry, and it notes: "These factors mean that our forest products are competing in an increasingly competitive international marketplace. British Columbia is highly dependent on its forest product exports and is a 'price taker' in global markets." These are some of the points that I actually was attempting to make a little earlier on in our debate about obviously being a price-taker rather than a price-setter and the need to be competitive in an increasingly competitive international marketplace. How is the ministry proposing to meet this challenge?
Hon. J. Doyle: FRBC is working on technology as far as advancing that, and also engineered wood products. The ministry is working on innovative forest practices.
G. Abbott: A little later on in the business plan the analysis rightly points to some of the challenges in being competitive, and I'll quote here the comment in the business plan:
That's certainly the case; it is going to be a challenge. Rather than focusing on whether we reduce environmental standards, it would seem to me that the key to addressing those competing goals is that we focus the debate around how those standards are delivered. We've had some discussion of this earlier in the debate, but I think it's an important point. I don't think it's acceptable to the industry, to the public of"Production costs are a key factor for success in cyclical, competitive markets. The ministry can expect ongoing industry pressure to reduce costs or keep them as low as possible -- particularly if commodity prices weaken. At the same time, environmental standards will have to be maintained or increased. This will undoubtedly create some interesting challenges and pressures for change for the industry and the ministry, and both will have to consider new ways of doing business in order to succeed."
[ Page 15232 ]
British Columbia or to the international community to see any sort of reduction in environmental standards in the province. The issue is around the delivery of those standards. If there is an accommodation possible between the competing demands that are laid out in the quote I just read, I believe it's through the most efficient and effective delivery of those environmental standards. Would the minister agree?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, we agree, and that is why we are doing code pilots across the province.
[1645]
G. Abbott: We'll certainly be discussing the four code pilots in time as well. I think they are interesting at least, although in my view they've been somewhat more constrained than is appropriate. They do offer some possibilities.
The next quote is again on page 11:
I think that goes to the heart of what we have been discussing -- that for government, new approaches will likely include using more market incentives to accomplish objectives rather than regulatory and legislative controls. Perhaps the minister can further explain just what is being suggested here."For industry, part of the solution to higher costs likely lies in the development of new products of higher value. For government, new approaches will likely include using more market incentives to accomplish objectives rather than regulatory and legislative controls, and the remaining direct involvement of government in forest sector decision-making will be more transparent and streamlined."
Hon. J. Doyle: Innovative forest practices throughout the province are a good example of what the member is mentioning. For instance, companies get to keep 50 percent of the AAC increase.
G. Abbott: In some respects, the innovative forest practices agreements are a good example of an incentive-based approach to managing forest production -- no question about that. I think, though, that we also need to look at the delivery of the code in the same way. We'll be talking about some examples of how there could be improved delivery of the code through the pilot projects that are on. I think an even more intensive process is needed than what we have seen to date.
At the bottom of page 11, there's a reference to the softwood lumber agreement. It notes: "The current softwood lumber agreement expires on March 31, 2001. British Columbia's recent experience with U.S. trade law and the importance of access to the U.S. market make it advisable for the province to consider changes which would minimize the potential for U.S. trade action." From the American perspective, I think that some of the impediments to improved relations between Canada and the U.S. on softwood lumber
Hon. J. Doyle: The key one would be looking at our stumpage to make it more market-based.
G. Abbott: Could the minister elaborate on
[1650]
Hon. J. Doyle: This is under active review. At the present time we're waiting to hear comments back from people, as we've said, after the Wouters report was released. We're waiting to hear communication back from people until roughly the end of the summer.
G. Abbott: Is stumpage the only area where it may be advisable for the province to consider changes which would minimize potential for U.S. trade action? What else are we talking about here?
Hon. J. Doyle: Stumpage is the main area that we're looking at.
G. Abbott: Are there any other areas that the government is looking at?
Hon. J. Doyle: Not at this time.
G. Abbott: One of the areas that is frequently raised, by at least some in the American timber lobby, is around the limitations on exports of logs from British Columbia. Is that an issue which has been raised in the context of SLA discussions as well?
Hon. J. Doyle: The issue has been raised by the U.S., but as the hon. member knows, there has been a lot of export policy in place in British Columbia for roughly 100 years.
G. Abbott: On page 12, first paragraph, it says: "While markets appear to be pushing us towards global companies with large asset bases, British Columbians are indicating they want smaller local enterprises and increased local decision-making. Indeed, people around the world are increasingly uneasy about corporate concentration and control and about the preservation of cultural identity." I don't know who wrote this, but how would one form the conclusions that are contained in that paragraph?
Hon. J. Doyle: As the member well knows, in communities throughout the province -- in a community like Revelstoke, for instance, close to the member's riding, and in my riding -- people are asking for more say over the trees that grow in their back yards.
G. Abbott: There seems to be a suggestion here, though, that British Columbians are intrinsically opposed to larger companies with larger asset bases. Is that a misreading of this? Is it correct that that's not being stated here? It certainly would appear to me that some assumptions are being made about what British Columbians think around that issue of corporate concentration, but perhaps I'm reading too much into this.
Hon. J. Doyle: I think what people are saying in British Columbia -- what this statement is trying to allude to -- is
[ Page 15233 ]
that we need a mixture of big and small. The member would well remember the discussion, when Weyerhaeuser took over MacMillan Bloedel, of some of the concerns that were raised in some of the communities where Weyerhaeuser presently does business.
G. Abbott: Again, to clarify a point: at and around the Northern Forest Products Association meeting, the Chair of Canfor suggested that there might be a reluctance on the part of the minister to allow or embrace any further corporate concentration in British Columbia. The minister, as I understand, had responded to that by saying -- at least this was the press report of the day -- that he did not have a bias against that, that the government was not contemplating any legislation or other means to curb any further corporate concentration in British Columbia. Now, the minister can clarify the point -- it's entirely possible that my reading of that was flawed -- and correct the point. But again, it would appear that what's being said here is something that is, at least on the surface of it, hostile to corporate concentration.
[1655]
Hon. J. Doyle: I'm well aware of the statements that were made by the Chair of Canfor in his speech in Prince George some weeks ago. When I was asked by the media about the concerns that were raised by this individual, I said that I would look at any transfers on a case-by-case basis.
G. Abbott: So the minister does not, notwithstanding what's being said here, come with any particular bias for or against corporate concentration -- correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct.
G. Abbott: A final question, with respect to this section at least, is just the second-last paragraph on page 12:
I'm aware of some of the arrangements that have been put in place by licensees with first nations in their operating areas. Is there something more here, in terms of a specific Ministry of Forests strategy around enhancing first nations' access to the forest land base? Is there something else at play here that is going to have an impact there?"One group that will, over time, take on a larger role in the forest sector is first nations. As treaties are resolved, first nations will be the new landlords for part of the forest land base. The ministry is moving forward with a strategy to provide first nations with greater opportunities for forest sector participation."
Hon. J. Doyle: It's the ministry's view that we would facilitate and work with first nations people throughout the province as we get through treaties.
G. Abbott: Thank you, but I do want to get some more information on this. Are we talking about a strategy that is distinct from the treaty process which is ongoing generally and which, hopefully, is resolving some of the issues around the management or ownership of the land base? Again, the minister can answer in relation to some of the initiatives on the part of licensees, which presumably have been sanctioned by the ministry. Is there a strategy here that is separate from or different from the broader strategy around treaty resolution?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes. If the member will go to page 16, he will see that we have a strategy in place.
G. Abbott: I actually do have some questions when we get to that point as well, so we'll address the specifics of that strategy when we get there.
Under "Strategic Goals and Objectives," the first line is: "Increasingly, the British Columbia public and international forest product buyers expect and demand that healthy and largely natural forests are maintained." Again, I just want some clarification on that phrase, because I find it a bit curious -- "largely natural forests." Again, why would that phrase be used in this context?
Hon. J. Doyle: What the statement means is that when a certain species was harvested in a particular area, we would do our best to replant the same species.
[1700]
G. Abbott: Again, I'm presuming that that wouldn't extend to having precisely the same forest profile that existed pre-harvest, but just similar species and a similar nature of the forest. The minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't want to dwell on the point. I think we've debated it sufficiently.
On page 14, it talks about some of the goals of the ministry. It talks about points 1(h), "meet critical inventory and data management needs of the ministry," and 1(i), "focus research and extension to support critical resource management needs." To what extent is the ministry looking to Forest Renewal to provide either the dollars or the delivery of (h) and (i)?
Hon. J. Doyle: For incremental forestry we're looking for Forest Renewal to assist.
G. Abbott: Now, the basis on which Forest Renewal B.C. operates is that it is supposed to fund projects and processes and so on that are incremental or in addition to what is done by the ministry. So they are not supposed to take over existing functions and projects of the ministry. But of course, the rules around Forest Renewal B.C. were adjusted two or three years ago to allow these so-called beneficial uses as well.
Again, what I want to know is around inventory. How much of the inventory work is going to be done by the ministry, and how much is going to be done by FRBC? Or at least what's the anticipation of that? When it comes to research, how much of that does the ministry contemplate doing -- you can give me approximate dollar values -- and how much is it expected that FRBC is going to be carrying?
Hon. J. Doyle: Excuse me, Chair. We have some numbers that we thought we didn't have. Now I will just sit down and get the numbers and give them to the member.
Okay, we thought we had the information here. We don't have it; we will get it to you.
G. Abbott: I'll look forward to receiving that when it's available.
Under point 2, which talks about ensuring the well-being of economic resources and the well-being of citizens and communities and so on, point (a) states that the goals "foster a regulatory and administrative climate which enables a competitive forest industry."
I'm puzzled why the term "enables" would be used when it would seem that what is being sought here is
[ Page 15234 ]
"encourages a competitive forest industry. " Can we read "enables" in this context to mean exactly the same as "encourages"?
Hon. J. Doyle: I would agree with the member. Encourage would be the same as enable in this context.
G. Abbott: In point (b) the goal is to "maintain or improve economic potential from forest, range and recreation resources." How is that goal to be achieved?
[1705]
The Chair: I'd like to inform the committee that in the precinct today are 48 visitors from the Glenwood School in Glenwood, Washington, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Allaway. These young people are from grades 7 to 12; they're also accompanied by three adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Doyle: They are in the goals, but a good example is finding ways -- like small pine, for instance -- that didn't used to be economical and now are economical in today's marketplace.
G. Abbott: Again, on page 14, and here it's point 3 where they're talking about the organization of the Ministry of Forests. It states: "With rapid change in the past few years, Forest Service staff have faced increasing complexity and uncertainty at all levels of their work. New initiatives and changes in the ministry's role have required changes in work functions for many employees." The report doesn't outline what those initiatives and changes are that have made life more complex and uncertain for ministry employees. Would I be safe in assuming that chief among these would be the Forest Practices Code? But if that's not so, advise me what is being discussed here.
Hon. J. Doyle: The Forest Practices Code and the land use plan.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise as to how he and senior ministry staff are proposing to address this concern around complexity and uncertainty in the work of ministry employees? How are they going to go about resolving that?
[J. Cashore in the chair.]
Hon. J. Doyle: Training over time -- and we haven't had so much change in the last year with legislation; there was not so much new legislation in the last year.
G. Abbott: The training would perhaps address part of it. Is there some contemplation of an adjustment in roles as well for the Forest Service in relation to things like land use planning and the Forest Practices Code?
Hon. J. Doyle: A lot of this is in place today, but we can always strive to do better.
G. Abbott: On page 15 there is a brief discussion of the results-based code initiative, and it sets out as the target implementation of four code pilots across the province. I would presume that the implementation of the code pilots is simply an interim target and that the real goal in relation to the results-based code initiative is reform of the code in substantial ways. Is that a fair assessment?
[1710]
Hon. J. Doyle: The long term is for a results-based code. The code pilots are to get us there.
Interjection.
G. Abbott: Just translating for the Deputy Premier.
I presume that the code pilots have been implemented at this point. What is the expectation of the ministry with respect to drawing some conclusions from those pilots and converting the knowledge that's gained from the pilots into reforms to the code? Is there any kind of target around that?
Hon. J. Doyle: First of all, we have to get them going and then assess the performance after that -- assess what happens after we get them up and running.
G. Abbott: Maybe we'll come back to this at some point; in any event, we can. If the minister wants to, perhaps other staff would be appropriate for that more intensive discussion. I think it's important that we understand that the pilots don't exist just to be pilots. They exist for a purpose, which is to see important lessons learned about creating a results-based code. Presumably the minister has some knowledge there about that. Will we be expecting results from the pilots in one year, two years, five years? What's the expectation around that?
Hon. J. Doyle: No one yet has been able to define particularly just what a results-based code is. Hopefully, when we get these pilots up and running, we'll work on the definition of what a results-based code is.
G. Abbott: So the minister is saying that it is, from his perspective, too early yet to try to set any goals or targets with respect to translating the experience of those pilots into changes in the Forest Practices Code -- correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct, hon. member.
G. Abbott: I don't want to go through all the key initiatives and performance measures that are in here. I do want to ask a few questions on the landscape unit planning initiative. Can the minister advise at what stage this particular initiative is and perhaps provide a general description of what the proposal is?
Hon. J. Doyle: We have done the training, and we're now going into the landscape unit planning.
G. Abbott: Could the minister provide a brief description -- perhaps I should ask for more than a brief description -- of what the landscape unit planning initiative is and what it will do?
[1715]
Hon. J. Doyle: It's setting aside old growth values and biodiversity.
G. Abbott: Can the minister advise what the anticipated cost of the implementation of the landscape unit planning initiative will be?
[ Page 15235 ]
Hon. J. Doyle: We're looking at the cost right now, before we proceed.
G. Abbott: But this landscape unit planning is, from the ministry's perspective, clearly an initiative that will come with a cost to the government, presumably, and to the industry, rather than being a cost-saving measure.
Hon. J. Doyle: There will be some cost to this, but at the end of the day, there will be some value to us by protecting the markets.
G. Abbott: The government has, on more than a few occasions over the past several years, underestimated the costs and overestimated the benefits of particular programs. What's the magnitude of the cost that's anticipated around landscape unit planning? Is it a dollar per cubic metre, $5 per cubit metre? The minister suggested that it's still under discussion. Obviously the industry is very concerned about any additional costs that will further undermine their competitive position. What's the magnitude of costs that we're anticipating here?
Hon. J. Doyle: As I said with the last question, we have a cost study underway at the present time. We want to work with the industry on this. I can't give you a number right now because we don't have it.
G. Abbott: If we don't know at this point what the cost is, presumably the target of advertising objectives for 75 landscape unit plans should be some distance away as well. I presume it would be simply reckless for us to contemplate the introduction of landscape unit planning without having a very clear idea of what the cost is going to be. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: Before we go ahead with the landscape unit plans
G. Abbott: Has the minister committed to the industry that, in line with the cost-driver reduction initiative of the government, they won't proceed with this if it's in addition to the cost structure, which will undermine competitiveness?
[1720]
Hon. J. Doyle: Industry and the province want to go ahead with these, but we truly want to look at the costs before we proceed. At the end of the day, we have to go ahead with these landscape unit plans.
G. Abbott: I have some limited understanding of landscape unit planning. But in the minister's view, the reason why it has to go ahead is because it does something which the code currently doesn't do. Is that what's being suggested here?
Hon. J. Doyle: Landscape unit plan simply meant the biodiversity part of the code.
G. Abbott: The landscape unit planning initiative is distinct from the identified wildlife management strategy which we had some discussion on last year. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: That is true.
G. Abbott: I'm not sure if the identified wildlife management strategy shows up in here; I don't think it does. I'll ask the minister at this point: what is the status of that in terms of implementation?
Hon. J. Doyle: We are proceeding with that and moving ahead with industry.
G. Abbott: Is it at the same approximate stage as the landscape unit planning initiative, or has it proceeded further? What is the projected cost to date on it?
Hon. J. Doyle: It has proceeded further, and the projected cost at the present time is 3 cents per cubic metre.
G. Abbott: I want to go over the page now to page 16, which continues to list some of the key initiatives and the targets around them. The second one down -- and I don't want to go through them all -- the forest policy review implementation initiative
Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct. We're speaking about the Wouters report.
G. Abbott: There is a considerable level of generality around the description of the initiative and the targets involved. I am assuming that, at this point, government continues its study of that but is not committed to the implementation of any particular portions of it -- nor in any particular time frame. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: At this stage, that is right, yes.
G. Abbott: Moving on to the first nations forest strategy, which we had some initial comment about earlier
[1725]
Hon. J. Doyle: In general, yes, that is true.
G. Abbott: For my information, then, could the minister advise of the pilots that were implemented under the Premier's economic summit -- the nature, range and number of pilots, and so on?
Hon. J. Doyle: Out at the Premier's summit on Vancouver Island we identified three pilots. One was to work with tenure holders as a pilot process.
G. Abbott: I admit my complete ignorance of the three access-to-timber pilots. Do these pilots involve the allocation
[ Page 15236 ]
of a portion of licensee AAC to first nations groups for the purposes of harvesting and/or processing of timber? What exactly is contemplated or contained in those pilots?
Hon. J. Doyle: What we're speaking about is joint management.
G. Abbott: When the minister uses the term joint management, does it refer to joint management of a portion of the operating area of a licensee? Does it mean joint management of areas which are contiguous to or particularly sensitive to a particular first nation? Is that what we're talking about?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, it could mean joint management of a particular area that's important to first nations.
G. Abbott: At what stage of implementation are these three access-to-timber pilots? Are they still being developed? Or have they been fully developed and are now in the implementation phase?
Hon. J. Doyle: They're still under development at this time.
G. Abbott: The second performance measure listed is: "Number of forest-related business arrangements involving first nations." In the next area it talks about the "increased number of forest sector business arrangements involving first nations." What's being contemplated here? I mean, I'm certainly familiar with a number of licensees in the province who have taken on, for example, harvesting agreements with first nations in areas which are either contiguous to or, for one reason or another, sensitive to a first nations body. Is that what we're talking about here, or is something else being anticipated?
Hon. J. Doyle: We're talking about joint ventures, harvesting agreements and sometimes even mills.
[1730]
G. Abbott: For clarification, the performance measures indicate "a number of pre-treaty and non-treaty-related agreements developed or supported," and the target is to increase the number of pre-treaty and non-treaty-related agreements developed or supported. How far has this objective been developed? Obviously up in the minister's part of the world and my part of the world there are a number of problems between first nations groups and the Crown. Is that part of what we're talking about here? Or is something else entirely at work?
Hon. J. Doyle: We're just starting, but the Wet'suwet'en agreement that was signed last week is another sense of an agreement that we have just signed.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise who the agreement was with and what the content of the agreement is?
Hon. J. Doyle: It's with the provincial and federal government, and it is to explore forest opportunities for the Wet'suwet'en on their traditional lands.
G. Abbott: I want to move on to page 18. The key initiative at the top of the page is the strategic management framework initiative. The performance measure is: "Establishment of corporate outcome measures and targets," and the goals are to develop those by March 31, 2001. I want to get a sense of what's being contemplated here.
Hon. J. Doyle: This is taking performance through to the next level of strategic planning.
G. Abbott: Did the minister say procurement?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Next level of performance of strategic planning.
G. Abbott: Oh, performance -- next level of performance. Thank you. I appreciate the translation from the Deputy Premier.
Interjection.
G. Abbott: Bilingual? Excellent.
The Chair: Hon. members, you're creating a problem for Hansard. Would you go through the Chair.
G. Abbott: Thank you for that timely reminder, hon. Chair -- much appreciated. The continuous improvement initiative: can the minister advise me what that is about?
Hon. J. Doyle: It is streamlining business policies at the ministry offices to make it easier for industry to work with government and to get timber out of the area.
G. Abbott: And how would that be achieved?
Hon. J. Doyle: It is internal to the ministry and is a full audit of the organization.
G. Abbott: I'd like to move on to page 21 of the business plan. We'll go to the expenditure budget and the $10 million for the bark beetle infestation. I'm assuming that the $10 million that is discussed there is over and above the $7 million that was provided to this function by special warrant recently. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: The special warrant was for last year. This is for this year's allocation, which is in this document.
G. Abbott: When we talked about the $7 million for last year, the $7 million was for the Ministry of Environment as well as the Ministry of Forests. Is that the case with the $10 million this year? Is that allocation to take care of parks and protected areas as well as Crown forests?
[1735]
Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise, then, what the anticipated distribution of those funds is going to be in terms of Forests versus Ministry of Environment?
Hon. J. Doyle: We're still in negotiation on that, but we anticipate it will be between a million and million and a half dollars.
[ Page 15237 ]
G. Abbott: I am presuming that the million to a million and a half dollars will be for the parks and protected areas portion, leaving some $8.5 million for Crown forests. Is it also correct, given that the $10 million is being funnelled through the Ministry of Forests budget, that the Ministry of Forests will also be directing the fight against the bark beetle in the protected areas?
Hon. J. Doyle: It will be a cooperative effort.
G. Abbott: I won't pursue that any further. The issue of forest health is one that will come up later in our agenda as well, so there may be some additional questions from other members around that.
The $10 million for the bridge replacement program
Hon. J. Doyle: It is the opinion of the ministry that it should be sufficient.
G. Abbott: Is there a reason why $15 million was necessary for last year but we think $10 million will do it for this year? Is it because there was a backlog of bridges to be replaced that had to be addressed by the $15 million?
Hon. J. Doyle: There was a backlog last year, and we did hit the critical ones first.
G. Abbott: I'd like to move along to page 24. Under that we're talking about the 1999-2000 accomplishments, and this is under "Enhancing Industry Competitiveness." The second initiative is the results-based code initiative. It makes reference to five pilot projects presently in the detailed planning stages. Is that simply a typo? I think there's reference to four elsewhere.
Hon. J. Doyle: There are five under review, and there are four that we want. There are five under review presently, but we want to do four on the ground.
G. Abbott: I'm still not sure I understand. There are four underway and another one in the planning stage. I think the minister is getting the necessary clarification.
Hon. J. Doyle: Sorry, member. There are six, actually, at the present time, but we want to do four.
[1740]
G. Abbott: We'll revisit that when we get around to talking about the pilots.
The compensation initiative at the bottom of page 24, compensation for lost timber harvesting rights. It notes the completed negotiations and agreement with MacMillan Bloedel regarding parks and protected areas on Vancouver Island. I'd like an update from the minister on where that sits. As I recall, the agreement was for some $83 million or $85 million in compensation to M&B -- now Weyerhaeuser, of course. Is that agreement now being implemented? As I understand it, there's currently a monthly drawdown or something that is involved in this. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: It has been fully paid out.
G. Abbott: The minister can give me the correct figure, but the entire amount has been disbursed. Was it disbursed in the '99-2000 fiscal year or the 2000-2001 fiscal year?
Hon. J. Doyle: It was $83 million plus some interest, and it was all paid out last year.
G. Abbott: The compensation initiative also goes on to note that the ministry initiated and continued compensation negotiations with several other licensees. Could the minister please note, for my information, who those several other licensees are?
Hon. J. Doyle: The other licensees are Slocan, Atco, Interfor, Skeena and West Fraser.
G. Abbott: The status of those negotiations
Hon. J. Doyle: Slocan, Atco and West Fraser are done.
G. Abbott: Slocan, Atco, West Fraser are done. Interfor is the one that remains to be completed. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: Interfor and Skeena are still underway.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what the negotiated settlement is with Slocan Forest Products?
Hon. J. Doyle: For Slocan we estimate it to be about $1.5 million, but we will get you the exact dollars.
G. Abbott: I presume that was compensation for creation of parks, but the minister can correct me on that if I am wrong. And will this settlement amount be disbursed in the 2000-2001 fiscal year?
Hon. J. Doyle: This was for two parks, and it was paid out last year.
G. Abbott: Could the minister provide me with the dollar amount of the settlement with Atco?
Hon. J. Doyle: Atco was included in the Slocan settlement because they had a joint venture and bought out one another's interests.
G. Abbott: And could the minister provide me with the same information with respect to West Fraser?
Hon. J. Doyle: It was a little over $100,000, and again, we will confirm the exact number for the hon. member.
G. Abbott: And again I presume it was disbursed in the last fiscal year.
[1745]
[ Page 15238 ]
Hon. J. Doyle: I do believe so.
G. Abbott: On the continuing compensation negotiations with Interfor and Skeena, I presume that those are two separate negotiations. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct, member. They are two separate negotiations.
G. Abbott: And the compensation negotiation for Interfor involves what elements?
Hon. J. Doyle: The compensation was for areas in Vancouver Island and the lower mainland for loss of AAC and roads. And there is still other discussion continuing.
G. Abbott: The discussions are continuing, presumably. The province is not close to completion of those negotiations. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: I just have to say that the best I can say at the present time is that it's a work in progress.
G. Abbott: The negotiations with Skeena Cellulose, presumably, revolve around compensation for the reduction, particularly, of TFL No. 1 of Skeena Cellulose as a consequence of the Nisga'a treaty implementation. I'm assuming that's correct. Would the minister advise what the status of those negotiations are?
Hon. J. Doyle: The member is right. Most of the compensation was for the lands -- that's to do with the Nisga'a settlement -- and negotiations are still underway on the settlement.
G. Abbott: Well, I won't ask for the status. Knowing it's a work in progress, it's not particularly definitive. I also know what negotiations are like, so I won't pursue that particularly anymore. So those are an inclusive list of the negotiations that are ongoing around compensation. There are no others?
Hon. J. Doyle: Two others that are just starting are TimberWest and J.S. Jones.
G. Abbott: Does the discussion with J.S. Jones revolve around the creation of a park in the upper Fraser Valley?
Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct.
G. Abbott: As I understand, those discussions have just commenced. The negotiation with TimberWest revolves around what?
Hon. J. Doyle: It is for a park on Vancouver Island.
G. Abbott: It's my understanding that that is a longer-running discussion, that talks have been on for some time with respect to that. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: Those talks just started. The member may be referring to other negotiations.
G. Abbott: One of the issues that has been raised quite forcefully in recent months is Husby Forest Products and their situation in the Queen Charlottes. There, through no fault of Husby Forest Products, they find themselves in the situation of having cutting permits which they can't exercise their rights on because of broader negotiations around resolution of land claims. Is there a negotiation contemplated between the ministry and Husby Forest Products related to their very difficult situation?
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. J. Doyle: In answer to the member's question, I can say regarding Husby that litigation is underway.
[1750]
G. Abbott: The position of the government is that where there is litigation, there is no negotiation. Is that the position, or is it simply that the government is responding to that litigation and would consider negotiation if they or the other party sought it?
Hon. J. Doyle: The government has an open mind on this.
G. Abbott: Could the minister provide me an update on the third bullet under the compensation initiative: "Coordinated contractor compensation working group discussions on logging contractor compensation associated with the Nisga'a treaty." Where does that sit currently?
Hon. J. Doyle: There's work ongoing on this very issue, and there's a meeting scheduled for next week.
G. Abbott: The final bullet under the compensation initiative is: "Supported compensated cost-sharing discussions with the federal government for treaties." Where do those discussions sit?
Hon. J. Doyle: Those discussions are being led by the Aboriginal Affairs minister. The Ministry of Forests is providing technical support.
G. Abbott: Do you know, hon. Chair, whether the other committee has reported out? It has? Go ahead.
Hon. J. Doyle: Earlier today, in discussion on the forest worker training program, there was information that I didn't have. I'd just like to read a statement into the record at this time.
Earlier today, as the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove was wrapping up his questions on the forest worker transition program, he asked whether Forest Renewal B.C. had engaged Angus Reid to survey program participants. I said no. I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record.
At the end of March 2000, New Forest Opportunities, a subsidiary of Forest Renewal B.C., contacted Angus Reid to collect data from a number of forest worker transition program clients located on the coast. New Forest Opportunities was unable to contact those clients and contacted Angus Reid to follow up. This data collection is part of the performance management for which delivery agents are responsible. Angus Reid attempted to contact 3,438 clients. Angus Reid was able to reach 1,464 clients to determine whether they had completed the program and whether they were currently
[ Page 15239 ]
employed. This information is part of a program evaluation and was never used in the public discussion regarding the tax issue.
The Chair: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove -- noting the time.
R. Coleman: I just have one question for the minister before we rise and report progress. I'd like to know if I can have a copy of that poll.
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, I'd be pleased to make a copy of the poll available to the member.
Mr. Chair, noting the time, I ask that we report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[1755]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick: I was just checking, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that today is Tuesday. Given that, I want to advise the House that we shall indeed be sitting tomorrow. With that, I would move adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:46 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 10: ministry operations, $40,607,000 (continued).
M. de Jong: When we left off, we were having a discussion about cash-land mandates, especially as it related to the six offers that were made in the fall of '99 and the early part of the year 2000. I think, insofar as the specific offers that were made and how the mandates incorporate some flexibility, I've probably got as specific an answer as I'm going to get. In fact, I think I got a very specific answer to that question.
I wonder, though, if I can approach the issue from this perspective. Insofar as the tables that are presently sitting or in fact the larger issue of land claims across the province, does the minister, the ministry or the government -- maybe that's the better agency to be referring to
Hon. D. Lovick: I can't be terribly specific, as the member well knows, but I can say that yes indeed we do have the planning estimates, which have been approved by Treasury Board and, in the broadest of terms, confirmed by the most recent Grant Thornton study that was published.
M. de Jong: Sorry, I missed the last part.
Hon. D. Lovick: Confirmed by the Grant Thornton study that was recently published.
M. de Jong: The document that I was referring to -- that is, the Treaty Commission commentary of a month or two ago -- refers to some common elements that it believes exist with respect to the six offers that it was, I think, analyzing when it prepared this document. It talked about law-making powers for first nations, tax exemptions being phased out, taxation authority, direct taxation authority over the citizens, the method by which land would be held by first nations. The last point it makes refers to something the minister alluded to earlier in his introductory remarks, when he was commenting on discussions that had taken place over the past number of days. In this document the Treaty Commission talks about the approach to certainty that was used in the Nisga'a treaty being adopted. That seems at odds with what the minister has, earlier today, informed this committee that the government's expectation or position now is.
[1450]
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure I understood the member's question correctly, but if what I heard is correct, then I must disagree. We believe that our principles -- everything we have taken to the table regarding certainty -- are captured in the Nisga'a final agreement. We are willing, however, to meet with those first nations that believe that the certainty language in the Nisga'a final agreement is equivalent to extinguishment. That's a debate that we're having.
The report I made this morning was to say that with my colleagues in the principals, my counterparts in the principals' meeting, we have agreed to approach the certainty question in such a way that all of the parties will feel that they are getting their day in court, as it were, and that their concerns are being heard. That's what we've agreed to do, because obviously we're not in any way committed to trying to force something on the other principals -- any of the other principals -- because we don't think that is the makings for a good treaty at the end of the day.
M. de Jong: I'm sure I didn't express the question clearly enough. Let me read what the Treaty Commission has said: "Although land and cash amounts differ from table to table, there are some common elements." It lists them. One of the common elements it refers to is as follows: "The approach to certainty that was used in the Nisga'a treaty would be adopted. That is, aboriginal rights would continue to exist, but they would be modified as set out in the final agreement."
I read that as referring to those specific provisions of the Nisga'a agreement and the language that is part and parcel of
[ Page 15240 ]
those provisions. And I read that to mean that the Treaty Commission believes it is the province's intention to incorporate that language into subsequent deals as a means of achieving that objective. If I have misread that or if the Treaty Commission doesn't in that document accurately reflect what the government is intending, then maybe the minister could advise us of that.
Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the clarification. Our preferred approach is the language we achieved in Nisga'a. As I've said before, there are some who believe that the language in Nisga'a is effectively the equivalent of extinguishment à la cede, release, surrender. The member will know what I mean by that phrase and what's embraced by it.
We, on the other hand, are arguing that our best legal advice tells us that the language in Nisga'a is not in any way tantamount to extinguishment. We have said, however -- and the Treaty Commission has been part and parcel of these discussions -- that we are willing to meet with first nations and the Canadian government and the Treaty Commission with the view to trying to persuade them that our language is absolutely the correct and acceptable language or to letting them show us another model that we believe will give us the same certainty but without calling into question the issue of extinguishment.
M. de Jong: In a few moments we'll talk about some of the attempts we were told about last year that the government was launching to expedite negotiations and to proceed on a regional and in some instances a provincewide basis. It would seem to me that this is an issue that lends itself to that approach.
It is troubling to me -- and I suspect to the minister, but I'll let him articulate it in his own terms -- that this discussion around language for treaties would be recurring. It is possible that the province and the federal government will be, if I hear the minister correctly, signing treaties -- perhaps over as short a span as five years -- that contain different wording.
[1455]
The minister and we might say: "Well, our intention is to achieve the same objective." Yet at some point surely there is wisdom in saying to the people on the other side of the table: "Look, we understand your concern; we understand your reaction to any notion of extinguishment. The language that we have adopted in the Nisga'a treaty does not employ that term, and this is our position." We seem to be going around this track over and over again. The minister must be troubled at the extent to which it remains unresolved today.
Hon. D. Lovick: I would be disingenuous if I didn't acknowledge that I am troubled somewhat, because I am one of those who like to believe that what we achieved in Nisga'a could well serve as a template, to use that terrible term that got us in trouble before. But others obviously had difficulty with that, had questions about it. What we said is: "We are quite prepared to sit down and work with you, either to demonstrate that our language does indeed satisfy all of your -- or, you know, satisfactorily resolve our -- requirements and also not do what you fear it might do
We have now an agreement with the First Nations Summit and the principals to look at that issue of certainty through newer lenses, if you will -- still committed to the same things. We have agreement, in fact, in proceeding, and that's the first hurdle. At the end of those discussions, we hope we may well come up with another rendition, if you like, of certainty language that will be acceptable. My hope, though -- and I'll be very blunt -- is that at the end of the day, the language that we used in Nisga'a will indeed satisfy.
Let me volunteer a little information to the member that may clarify this somewhat. Part of the problem with extinguishment and the language of extinguishment, the member opposite might like to know, has not much to do with the Nisga'a treaty itself. Rather, it has to do with the federal government's existing policy on extinguishment -- not ours, the federal government's policy. I think it's safe to say that what the first nations would like the federal government to do is to renounce and reject, if you will, that stated cabinet policy from before.
The problem there, I guess
M. de Jong: That's also helpful, but I recall from previous discussions that the minister and I have had in previous years that we went through this before. The minister expressed his frustration about the length of time it was taking for the federal government to respond to positions that the province and first nations negotiators had put forward around the question of finality and certainty language. At some point, I presume, there was finally agreement, and the federal government finally came around to a point where they could agree to language that had been tabled, I think, with respect to the Nisga'a treaty.
I recall that extending over at least two or three years. We would have this discussion, and the minister would say: "Well, the problem is that the feds never get back to us with their position on language that is being proposed." Isn't there a danger that we're about to embark on a similar odyssey where, at the behest of a first nation, all we are doing is providing that opportunity for the federal government to dither for another two or three years? What assurances has the minister received from federal counterparts that in tinkering -- if that's the right word -- with the language that presently exists and is the provincial government's preferred position, we're not going to be facing another lengthy delay?
Hon. D. Lovick: That's a question that invites a kind of colloquy, so I'll resist that temptation and talk rather about what I think is the central issue. Certainty language -- we believe we have got the best that one can in fact draft. Our federal counterparts are now persuaded that is also the case. The difficulty is that some -- not all, certainly -- first nations are still apprehensive about that language. They're afraid that, as I said before, it might be the equivalent to extinguishment.
[1500]
What we have tabled -- indeed, I did this at our meeting on the weekend -- was past agreements from the principals meetings in which we say that extinguishment and cede, release and surrender are not a precondition, if you will, to
[ Page 15241 ]
getting into the treaty process. So I think we have done everything we can do, save and except to acknowledge that the policy of extinguishment is dead, dead, dead. I'm quoting now the First Nations Summit representatives; that's the language they wanted.
The federal government is the one that has to respond to that, not us as a province. I have reason to be optimistic that the federal government is now grappling with that, notwithstanding that, as I say, they have difficulties because of past cabinet practices and longstanding procedures and practices.
M. de Jong: With respect to declaring the traditional language dead, am I correct in assuming that that language was adopted insofar as the adhesion agreement was concerned with McLeod Lake and Treaty 8.
Hon. D. Lovick: If the member is asking whether the old traditional language of cede, release and surrender is alive and well in the McLeod Lake adhesion agreement, yes, he's right.
M. de Jong: So what the minister is saying is that it's dead insofar as one aspect of the negotiating process is concerned. Insofar as adhesion agreements with existing treaties, it still lives; it breathes.
Hon. D. Lovick: The language of cede, release and surrender, which, as everybody says, is equivalent to extinguishment, exists in every treaty in Canada up until those of the last decade. All of Canada's treaties with first nations are cede, release and surrender treaties. McLeod Lake is also that. When I said: "Dead, dead, dead
M. de Jong: Can I, just insofar as the six cash-land offers that were made in those six particular groups
Hon. D. Lovick: My deputy advises me that the best answer is that it's a kind of continuum. There are some who would probably accept the language of Nisga'a and others who are perhaps more closely connected to the First Nations Treaty Negotiation Alliance. The member has probably seen the position paper taken by that body. Those are ones who will say that the existing certainty language is extinguishment, and therefore it's absolutely unacceptable to us. So there's a continuum. My position, I think I can say with some comfort, is that I don't think that certainty language is a deal-breaker, if you like, for the tables that we've come this far with.
M. de Jong: It sounds like the specific certainty language is still on the table for discussions in all six of those treaty rounds.
[1505]
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: In his introductory remarks the minister pointed to the fact that May 11 will be implementation day or the effective date. I'm not sure if he specified that or suggested that that was the hoped-for effective date. He can clarify that.
The question I want to put to the minister relates to the fact that, I think, four days thereafter the Supreme Court in British Columbia will hear argument on one of the cases that has been launched with respect to the Nisga'a final agreement, and to what extent the minister believes that is relevant to the outcome that might have influenced the selection of the effective date. I guess the ultimate straightforward question is: having waited to this point, if a decision is to be anticipated in the next number of weeks, wouldn't it have been wiser to wait until that point?
Hon. D. Lovick: Two parts to the answer. There was a request for an injunction to hold off the implementation date until that matter had proceeded through the courts. That injunction was rejected, which we believe simply corroborates the wisdom of our decision in saying that the best legal advice we have received tells us that this is indeed entirely constitutionally acceptable. That isn't problematic.
Second, I think to a significant degree this is the Nisga'as' call, and they've waited, arguably, 120-plus years. So I think that both ourselves and Canada were rather reluctant at this stage of the game to say: "Look, we want you to wait another few days, because there are some who believe that this is constitutionally not acceptable."
M. de Jong: At the risk of trying to oversimplify what is admittedly a very complicated exercise and assuming May 11 is the effective date, what happens? Is there a transfer of funds on that day, a first instalment, and some of the bodies referred to in the treaty acquire their jurisdiction to exist? There's lots of magic associated with the arrival at the effective date. But in terms of the priority items, maybe the minister can remind us of what they are and what they require of the provincial government on that date.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm going to rush in where perhaps angels fear to tread and answer that question. It's incredibly complicated and incredibly complex, but perhaps I can give a sort of overview, albeit briefly. Then, if the member wishes, we can certainly give more detailed information.
Yes, there will be a transfer of funds. I think the member knows full well that the complete transfer is taking place over a significant time frame, however. So it isn't the case that all that money will flow the first day or something.
In preparation, I have already been asked to sign a number of orders-in-council and so forth. All of those are essentially to effect the transfer, so that when the Nisga'a take ownership of particular land -- let alone particular responsibilities and regulatory abilities on that land -- that obviously requires a divestiture of our responsibility to them. I have signed a number of those things; I would hate to guess how many documents I have indeed signed. That's essentially what happens at this point. The effective date, the implementation date, which seem to be one and the same
M. de Jong: How much provincial money transfers on that date? Do we have that figure?
[1510]
[ Page 15242 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry.
The Chair: My apologies for dallying.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'll just have to learn to jump more slowly, Mr. Chairman.
I am advised that the figure has been recently revised to factor in the inflationary pressures and so forth. So I will give the member a figure in the neighbourhood, if I may, rather than exactly, and that figure is apparently $1.6 million.
M. de Jong: Does that derive entirely from the ministry budget? And if it does, where within the ministry budget would it derive from?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, for the delay -- I'm having to search for that very particular and specific information. The amount of money is indeed included in the budget. It's a special account, and the sum, I believe, is $2.2 million.
If I may, let me just refer to the member's earlier question and give him a little more specificity. In order to prepare for the effective date, Canada, British Columbia and the Nisga'a developed a closing agenda document that identifies and tracks approximately 800 particular documents required to bring the Nisga'a final agreement into effect. The provincial government is therefore responsible for numerous activities identified in that closing agenda. For example, in order to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, the province has to pass 12 orders-in-council and three ministerial orders. Three of the OICs must be passed prior to the effective date. That's the kind of administrative chore I was referring to earlier, member.
Did I give a satisfactory answer on the money, the amount and where you find it? Special account -- it is in there.
The Chair: The debate generally comes through the Chair. I'll try to be more involved as the day passes, if the members would just respect the standing orders. Thank you.
M. de Jong: The short answer is that I think the minister almost gave me everything I needed. The summary document that the minister is referring to -- I'm not sure that's a document that I have seen. It might be helpful if that were available -- if that's something the minister can make available -- as a summary of what takes place on or in advance of the effective date. If he's able to provide that document, that's helpful.
What I think I heard the minister say, Mr. Chair, is that there is a special fund of $2.2 million within the budget this year, of which $1.6 million will be accessed on the effective date of May 11, leaving $0.6 million. I would ask the minister to advise the committee if he believes that amount is sufficient to cover any other treaty-related obligations -- final settlement obligations -- for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do believe that money is sufficient. I apologize for the fact of ignoring the Chair. I should know better.
The Chair: The Chair will try to read a little less and pay more attention.
[1515]
M. de Jong: The minister has, I think, restated again today the government's position, which won't surprise anyone, with respect to the litigation that has been commenced around the Nisga'a final agreement. This is not the place for us to debate the correctness of that position. But I think it is appropriate and valid for the opposition to ask this question: notwithstanding the government's advice and its belief in the validity of that advice, what, if any, contingencies has the government got in place in the event that that advice is wrong?
Hon. D. Lovick: I think the contingency plan is to be found within the treaty itself, namely the provisions for amendment.
M. de Jong: Let me follow that line through. I think what the minister is saying is that it is his belief, therefore, that if the result that derives from the litigation is other than that which the government is anticipating, he believes that problem could be corrected by amending the treaty. The problem is that if the litigation gives rise to a different result than the government is looking for, that will likely involve a declaration that the document is of no effect. Amending that kind of document doesn't help us.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm very reluctant to start marching down this particular road, simply because it truly is the realm of speculation. Certainly we can't prejudge what the courts might do. I will simply say that we are confident. I've said that on a number of occasions, including the debate on the Nisga'a treaty, and the member and I have certainly shared some time there. I think I have given about as complete an answer to that particular one as I am able to give, frankly.
The Chair: I'll thank you, minister, for the response. The Chair will caution the committee on the debate around hypothetical questions and hypothetical answers -- that they must be relevant to the minister's estimates in the ministry.
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, it's difficult in pursuing these matters not to be cognisant of the fact that the government has been confronted by a number of significant legal decisions that it did not anticipate or certainly did not hope for. I think even the minister would acknowledge that the government presumably did not launch off into the Carrier Lumber case hoping for that result. Nor, I presume, was it getting advice that that was the result it was likely to be met with. I can provide a litany of responses from ministers who received legal advice and proceeded in accordance.
But I think when we are considering the minister's budget, when we are considering the payment on May 1 of $1.6 million of taxpayers' money and the possibility, not purely speculative
The Chair: Minister, with a caution from the Chair on standing order 61 and hypothetical
[ Page 15243 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll take your advice. I think I am -- as I said a moment ago, I believe I explained I am -- very reluctant to engage in that kind of speculation that is purely hypothetical. We will address that problem when and if it arises, confident that it will not arise.
[1520]
M. de Jong: Until my last question, I was careful not to try and become overly specific. It was not my intention to ask the minister to lay out point by point what the contingency plan would be in the event that the government were confronted by a court decision that it does not anticipate. I began the line of questioning by asking whether or not such a plan existed. I've heard nothing to indicate that it does beyond the minister's statement that we hope it's not going to happen and we don't think that's going to happen.
Surely the government has an obligation that extends beyond that. But if that's the response -- if the government's position is that we don't take this seriously enough to plan at all for that contingency -- then I hope the minister will say that in clear and unambiguous terms. He'll hope that those words don't come back to haunt him, I guess.
Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the member's caution; I'm sure it's offered in good spirit, and I will accept it as such. But I have made my position clear.
M. de Jong: I said earlier this morning that I wanted to spend a little bit of time revisiting some of the policy statements and predictions that were part of this estimates process last year for the year then following. I think it's a relevant exercise insofar as many of those issues remain before the government. Also, it's a way to assess, I think, the degree of faith we should put in what the government and minister have to say for the year coming.
So if we can do that, there was one quick matter that I want to just revisit from this morning. We were talking about the possibility of mandates changing in a dramatic way, and we danced around that. Maybe the minister didn't. I shouldn't castigate him unnecessarily; I'll only do it when it's necessary, in my view. I think that discussion took place around Delgamuukw.
As I recall, during the leadership competition there seemed to be a difference of opinion emerge between two of the participants. The now Premier made some very pointed comments that the minister's predecessor, in characterizing that Delgamuukw, essentially gave first nations joint tenancy over all British Columbia Crown lands. The Premier said: "That's just not so." I think he described it, actually, as a cockamamy position. It might otherwise be irrelevant, but that individual was -- either at the time or just previously -- the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
Let me just ask the minister, and then we can get on with other matters: does he take the Premier's view of that matter? I think he does. Or is he drawn to his predecessor's suggestion that somehow Delgamuukw represents a declaration of joint tenancy for aboriginal people over B.C. lands? We should just get that out of the way, and then we can move on.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear and very succinct. I reject the proposition that Delgamuukw confers joint tenancy on the land base in British Columbia.
M. de Jong: Well, it pleases me that the minister hasn't fallen into the trap of, as the now Premier mentioned, making up policy out of his hip pocket. Good on him.
We spent some time with the minister's predecessor talking about an expedited treaty process. At the time -- and this would have been in May and June of last year -- the minister's predecessor talked about all of the work that was going into moving that process along. He talked about documents that were under what he termed "active consideration internally." I should read the quote: "The expedited process and a process to move these treaties along -- that is now under active consideration internally, but those documents have not had wide distribution."
[1525]
It sounded to me, from that exchange at the time, that there was quite an elaborate plan in place, and maybe we have now seen the results of that, and some of those documents have been made public. Is the government satisfied that that work has now been done and that the documents that the minister's predecessor was referring to are in the public domain? If they aren't, will he place them in the public domain?
Hon. D. Lovick: I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the member is referring to the two things particularly that were referred to by, I guess, my predecessor -- namely, the treaty-related measures, something which I have explained, and which we have indeed tabled. Second was our commitment to accelerate the process of making offers, which took the shape of half a dozen different offers or proposals made to first nations. I think those are probably the two particular things the member refers to.
M. de Jong: We talked about the wisdom of trying to get smaller bands together. I think there was general agreement that that was viewed by the government as a positive thing and a way to expedite these matters. We may get into this in more detail when we do more of a table-by-table analysis. The minister's predecessor said that the government would like to see that whole process dealt with. We'd try to get more groups together into smaller forms, either through tribal alliances or through tribal councils, so that he could, as he said, reduce the duplication and costs of negotiations. I guess I could say, on one hand, we've got the same number of tables going today as we did 11 months ago. So what efforts have been made, and where does it make sense? It's nice to say these things, but have we seen any results?
Hon. D. Lovick: First let me clarify that it's not about making smaller tables; it's about making smaller groups into bigger tables. I'm sure that's what the member meant.
Let me give an example of a success story, on the one hand, and then on the other hand one that didn't work. In the transboundary group there were four different entities there, and what we have succeeded in doing with those four is making them into one. The result of that has, frankly, been some good process. We think in that case the model works. Others have had the opposite effect. For example, the Vancouver Island alliance has in fact
That opens the door, of course, to the member's other part of the question -- namely, what is the theory? Do they
[ Page 15244 ]
work? Do they not? Alas, the only answer, I think, is that they're very site-specific and circumstance-specific. It comes, at some point, down to the chemistry and the good or bad relationship between the member players. I think probably the key for the ministry is a willingness to be able to accommodate the circumstances as we find them and to cut our cloth accordingly.
[1530]
M. de Jong: Okay. But I think it's fair for me to ask that the minister identify more specifically some of those areas where the government would say that it's virtually a necessity or that it's something the government is actively pursuing. I don't know if it's the Katzie or the Yale band; these are pretty small entities. I guess I'm pushing the minister a little bit. We all talk about the wisdom and advisability of consolidating negotiations, and yet all we seem to do is consolidate -- or all we seem to do is talk about it. Will the minister, as part of giving the public some means of measuring the success of the government, identify for us today those -- if not an exhaustive list -- four or five or six sets of negotiations that he or the government believes could logically be consolidated without any prejudice accruing to people on the other side of the table?
Hon. D. Lovick: As I get into reflecting on the specifics, just from my work with individual bands and regions in the province, I recognize again just how incredibly complicated and complex it is. Some work very well; others we're not so sure of.
Let me come at the question in two ways. First of all, it is quite true that the ministry is indeed looking at doing an analysis of those whom we are trying to serve and whose interests we are trying to protect -- first nations interests, that is -- with a view to efficiencies and how we can improve and make the process better, etc. So there are probably a number of different overtures, if you will, that have been made to various bands and band councils and so forth.
The predicament lies in part with a definitional problem -- namely, the definition of first nation. That's a discussion we have been having and we propose to have with the federal government and with the principals at our next meeting in June, as I say. I'm referring to the definitional problem of what a first nation is, because the answer to that question is: with whom you negotiate. We are talking with our federal counterparts, as well as with the other principals involved in this process, to grapple with that. We expect that will be on our agenda for June.
To the specifics that the member wanted a list of, I'm reluctant to do that. But I can give a couple of examples. For example, in the north, the top chunk of the province, we recently made an agreement with 17 different bands across the province in fact for a northern wildlife management protocol. So even though they're not necessarily doing the same treaty, that broad protocol is something that we think would take shape in the treaty or in different treaties.
Similarly, we have tried to do things with, say, the Carrier-Sekani tribal council in the Cariboo area. The predicament again, though, is that you have a couple of bands that have a falling out or a difference of opinion or whatever with the rest, and the question then is whether the whole process is suddenly sidetracked thereby.
I'll give you an example. In the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, one band, the Saik'uz band, is entertaining litigation with the province at the moment. Because of our structure, we have to effectively say: "Well, I'm sorry, but the negotiations are on hold as long as that litigation obtains." So there's a price to pay for the efficiency of size on the one hand, though clearly also some advantages to be had from combining.
[1535]
M. de Jong: I wasn't trying to underestimate the complicated nature of the thing or the challenges in the type of scenario that the minister describes with the Carrier-Sekani. I think my colleague from Chilliwack will at some point today talk about how that plays out in the lower mainland. So I don't want to underestimate the challenges. But I am trying to get a handle on what it means when a minister for the government says that certain things are going to happen.
By the way, the example that the minister offered with respect to the wildlife management area is a good one. I don't know how it's working, but it is presumably the kind of thing that is trying to be achieved on certain issues on a regional, integrated basis. But the minister's predecessor talked about the need to start looking at regional tables. He said at one point that he was encouraging bands right across the province to proceed within the context -- these are his words -- "of a larger umbrella set of negotiations." He said then on that day in May that we're making good progress on that.
I'm wondering what he was referring to when he said we're making good progress. Can the minister point to events that have taken place over the last 11 months that point to larger umbrella sets of negotiations that maybe I'm not aware of?
Hon. D. Lovick: The two examples that instantly come to mind, in terms of dealing with the larger entity as opposed to the smaller, would be the two things that we did this past weekend at the principals' meeting -- namely, that agreement we came to on certainty language and in terms of the protocol to get closer to an agreement or to get an agreement on certainty language.
That was done with, arguably, the whole First Nations Summit, some 70 percent of the bands, all those in the treaty process. I say that with the caveat, however, because the task group can't necessarily speak for and deliver the whole summit. That's a systemic problem. But they attempt to be spokespersons and attempt to represent the interests of the summit. We did that one, as I say, on interim measures and the other one on certainty.
So there are examples of my predecessors' vision, if I may use the term, in terms of, "Why can't we get the biggest table of all and the larger tables and resolve some of these problems?" where I think we can point, with satisfaction and some pride, to our successes. Alas, there are others that give us the opposite conclusion. On Vancouver Island, as I say, our efforts to combine there, quite frankly, just have borne no fruit whatsoever.
M. de Jong: I'm just not sure I can listen to that answer and feel particularly optimistic. Again, I don't underestimate the challenges and the difficulty and the complications. But surely the objective here is to try to obtain from first nations who have signalled their willingness to negotiate treaties and land claim agreements an acknowledgment that if we are going to expedite this process, there is surely some obligation on their part on issues -- we talked about the certainty lan-
[ Page 15245 ]
guage -- to come together and be bound by what is negotiated. It's easy to stand on the opposition side and be critical; I understand that. But it is very difficult from where we stand to see a great deal of progress in that regard.
[1540]
It may be, as the minister has indicated, that it takes two to tango, and there just isn't a willingness on the other side. But then I think it becomes a question of what tactics the government of British Columbia can employ to create a better sense of willingness on the part of first nations groups. I'd be interested to hear what the minister believes is available in the government's arsenal to encourage first nations in that respect. We've talked about this every year, and every year ministers stand up and make statements about how optimistic they are and the progress that we're likely going to see. And every year, I'm sorry to say, the progress is minimal or negligible. I don't think this year is any different.
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think it's safe to say that we've had no success. I would indeed be happy to have that debate anytime. But the member is quite right to say: "Gosh, you know, isn't there a way we could find to make this better?" I want to simply tell him it's not for want of trying. In my relatively short tenure as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, albeit two different terms, we tried a number of different things. We came up with accelerated treaty measures, ways to speed up the process by putting land and cash at the front and leave the tougher questions about self-government and so forth, or governance, to the end of the process -- and Lord knows how many different variations on that kind of theme.
But the problem there, as with so many others, is essentially the sociology of first nations in this province. Nobody should have any illusions about this. Every first nation is independent, and tribal councils. Agreements whereby they will all sit down together and negotiate as part of a group, whether that's in Stó:l\mo or Nuu-chah-nulth or Carrier-Sekani or whatever
If anything, I think if we put it in a historical perspective, we can probably argue with some conviction that we have had huge success in the last six years, given that sociology. Bands that have stuck together and have joined together didn't talk to each other to a huge degree before the treaty process. You can argue that the culture has changed in some significant ways.
I would also make the point that as I listened to the member speaking, I heard my federal counterpart Bob Nault, the federal minister, making that speech. I've heard him give it more than once. I can tell him the reaction it receives, which is the kind of thing I was alluding to -- namely, the sociology, you know. "Don't you tell us that we have to get on all of ours together, because we're independent nations," etc.
I think we've done pretty well. The fact that the principals' meetings have now become more formalized
M. de Jong: Okay. Let's try to quantify the minister's optimism as best we can for the future. Give us some measuring sticks. I don't share the minister's optimism with what has taken place in the past, but he says we're moving in the right direction. How will we know 11 or 12 months from now that the minister was justified in his statement today that the government is moving in the right direction? If we're talking about umbrella negotiations, what are we going to see 12 months from now to justify the minister's optimism and to measure that optimism against?
[1545]
Hon. D. Lovick: There are two answers, I guess. The first one -- and this may well not be the kind of thing that most people factor into the equation -- is the absence of conflict, the absence of legal action, the absence of blockades and all of those kinds of things. I just remind everybody of what was happening in this province before we had a Treaty Commission process. That showed every sign, quite frankly, of becoming a great deal more volatile and tense and difficult. So I think we shouldn't forget that our success, to some degree, is what we have prevented from happening.
In terms of more specifics -- the positive versus the negative yardstick -- I think the fact is that we have significant numbers of agreements on the ground. The interim measures agreements, for instance, are many in number and, I think, very successful. We also have very few people who have walked away from the treaty tables. All those first nations are now at the tables, including the six who have apparently somewhat peremptorily rejected the first offers and so forth. We're hopeful that we'll be able to table another three or four offers in the next six months or a year. If we're very, very lucky, we may even get another agreement-in-principle or two in the next 12 months.
I want to, if I may, take this opportunity to say that the difficulty here and the difficulty that this ministry has to grapple with -- and any Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs by any government insofar as that government is committed to signing treaties with first nations and resolving land claims in the province
But it's a volatile community; it's a community that's just coming into its own, frankly. It's a community that's saying, based on its own reading of recent litigation and court cases: "Maybe we can do a lot better." So it's volatile, and it's difficult, all of which leads me to the simple conclusion that I'm very reluctant to say: Ah, don't worry about it; a year from now everything is going to be 15 times better. I'm optimistic still, because I think most first nations have indeed come to the conclusion that this is the only game in town, litigation is the only way to resolve these differences. The ultimate measure of success -- probably the best thing we could do, in my very frank opinion -- is: let's get a deal. If we can get another agreement-in-principle, that will probably do more to encourage and make the treaty process work than 15 pronouncements from meetings of the principals.
[ Page 15246 ]
M. de Jong: Here's one of the problems, from the point of view of the opposition. That reluctance that the minister referred to and that I think he genuinely has today
[1550]
So if we're going to have two more land-cash offers, if that's what the minister anticipates taking place over the next 12 months, okay, that's a place to start. Where are we likely to see those offers? If we are hopeful, as the minister says, of reaching another agreement-in-principle, then presumably that will involve a table that the minister is focusing on, and there is some indication now that there are prospects of that happening. Which table is that? Where is that degree of progress being made? I think these are fair questions to ask the minister.
Hon. D. Lovick: I believe I answered that question some time ago now and gave the two examples of those tables that I thought were working.
Let me, if I may, just point out one other dimension of this problem. I'll be brief. The other dimension of this problem -- and I've alluded to it a couple of times, but I haven't been very specific, and I'm sorry if I wasn't as specific as I perhaps should have been -- is about aboriginal politics going on in this province at the moment. I mean, nobody should have any illusions that every first nation in this province thinks that settling treaties and the B.C. Treaty Commission process is a good one. You've got roughly 30 percent of first nations in the province who say: "It's not the way to go. We can do better using other strategies." There is a battle going on in the province as we speak and some huge politics. Those that are in the treaty process, then, are frequently accused of being sell-outs, people who are betraying the faith, etc. -- a tremendous kind of cross-pressure.
I say that primarily, right now, for this reason. If I were to give the member opposite a list of the 20 that I feel, personally, most optimistic about, the ones that I think will actually make a deal with us, what I'm probably doing is setting them all up for incredible pressure -- I won't say attack, but certainly amazing pressure -- from those others who say, quite frankly: "Don't you dare make a deal."
We've seen that. We've seen that in a couple of tables, and I've had chiefs come to my office and tell me about the pressure they are facing. I understand that, because, you remember, the whole process of making treaties in this province is a political arrangement. It's not a legal one; it's a political one. So I'm simply suggesting: let's understand their politics and the difficulties they have. I don't want to mark them out as, "Ah-ha, the next target," for those who are opposed to settling treaties.
There are a couple, and I've given the member some specifics, Mr. Chairman. I am still hopeful that we will have some others to put on the table in the next short while.
M. de Jong: On the one hand, I am sympathetic to the description and the plight that the minister has to contend with and is attempting to recognize on the part of first nations. On the other hand, though, followed to its logical conclusion, we are asked to accept the notion of: let us not talk about this too much; let us not be too open about where progress might be made or where the province might want to devote more resources, for fear of offending those who have signalled that they have no interest in the process in the first place.
Far be it from me to rush to the defence of the government, but it must involve itself and negotiate with an opposition nipping at its heels, subject to
Hon. D. Lovick: Relentlessly.
[1555]
M. de Jong: Well, let the record show it was the minister's word, not mine. That is part and parcel, presumably, of reporting to a constituency. Surely we are entitled to proceed on the basis that a band or a group is at the table, that they want to be there and that we don't need to fear that if something wrong is said, they will leave. I think I understand what the minister's saying, but I'm not comfortable with that notion that we're going to offend someone.
Hon. D. Lovick: After hearing the member's question, I'm not sure he does understand the point I was making. So let me try again. There is no secret about the process. There is no secret about the number of first nations we are sitting down at the table with. There's no secret about the offers we are tabling. There is no secret about the fact that we are doing interim measures or agreements with first nations almost on a daily basis in this province.
All of those first nations are thereby ones who are committed to trying to work with the province. What the member is asking me for -- and if I misunderstand, my apologies
When they do that -- when we get to the point of tabling offers -- then they have in fact crossed the bar. They have jumped that particular hurdle that says they are prepared to stick their necks out and be subjected to whatever kind of criticism might happen. My concern is simply that those others who are gingerly and tentatively getting up to that point could very well get scared off by being named at this point. If that sounds incredibly cautious or chicken, well, so be it. But I think, frankly, it's prudent, and I can't offhand and even on reflection think of a better approach. I think we need to allow ourselves that little bit of room to manoeuvre.
M. de Jong: Well, I guess I might be better persuaded if progress over the last year or two had been greater than it has. But all right, let's just turn our attention, if we could, to another issue that came up last year and contained some promises of future work and development.
We talked with the minister's predecessor about the notion of land-banking as a function of preparing the way for
[ Page 15247 ]
some of these settlements. We talked about it in some fairly specific ways. We talked about rural areas where ranching operations, for example, were coming on the market -- viable operations -- and the wisdom of the government becoming involved in the purchase of those lands. And we talked about how you value them. We can get into that in a moment. The former minister made some observations about how you do that.
The previous minister did talk about being in what he termed active discussion with the federal government about sharing in the costs associated with that land bank function. He characterized those discussions as being both active and exploratory, but I think that he said that he hoped to have something available for us very shortly. I can find his reference. That's the general topic, and the minister may be able to advise what became of those discussions.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think those discussions have been incredibly successful. The principal conclusion of them was the treaty-related measures initiative that we talked about, one part of which is the acquisition of lands that might, at some point, be used in treaty settlement.
[1600]
M. de Jong: The specific discussions we had related to some difficulty that the minister was experiencing in having the federal government see its way clear to assuming an obligation to share in the costs. Is the minister telling me that as part of the treaty-related measures agreement, the federal government has now, to an extent that the province is satisfied, assumed financial obligation where there are situations that develop that both parties believe call for the purchase of land with a view to holding it for use in subsequent settlements?
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct, and the federal government is on the hook for 50 percent.
M. de Jong: My colleague from Delta South is here, with some specific questions as they relate to the area she represents. I wonder if the minister might entertain those questions from her now.
V. Roddick: The meeting last week in Delta South with the new chief treaty negotiator for B.C.'s southern region, Katherine Gordon, was appreciated. I wish her well in her new appointment. I would like to ask the minister: how does the ministry view the 2,000 acres of expropriated Roberts Bank backup lands known as the Brunswick in treaty negotiations?
Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that those lands the member referred to haven't been specifically allocated or set aside for treaty, but they may be used for treaty settlement.
V. Roddick: When you say "may be
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, let me just backtrack a minute, which may be of assistance to the member. The Tsawwassen band, which is obviously the one most directly affected by this and in contention, is apparently now at stage 4 in the process. They are seeking an agreement-in-principle in the year 2000. They have said they're hopeful they might do that. We are now working with them to develop a workplan in terms of serious negotiation, because we are now at stage 4. Part of that process is a public meeting -- the main table for those negotiations which are open to the public -- which will be held on May 11. I suspect that at that point, precisely those concerns that the member referred to will be there.
It's worth noting, too, that we agree with the member's contention that those lands are -- because of the uncertainty surrounding -- causing some difficulties, and therefore land selection will be put very much in the front of the process of negotiating with Tsawwassen, so that we can answer those questions sooner rather than later in the process.
So I think the fact that there is a public meeting, the fact that a workplan is being developed and, as well, the fact that we have stated very clearly that even if we were to transfer Crown land to a first nation -- land that is presently designated ALR land -- it would still be subject to the same ALR designation
[1605]
V. Roddick: You say "may be." It has absolutely been tabled in black and white by the Tsawwassen first nations that that land is under negotiation, and they want the ALR zoning removed from those lands, and they want to do heavy industry and intensive housing. So when you say "may be
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I think the member misheard me, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm sorry if I wasn't. I'm saying that lands that are now under ALR designation, in the event that they are transferred, will remain under ALR designation and will be subject to the same provisions for removal as any other ALR lands. So there's no fast track; there's no special deal whereby a first nation, because part of their land settlement includes ALR land, will ignore the ALR designation. That's just not the case.
V. Roddick: Let me just clarify that for my own sake, if that's possible. You, or the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, are absolutely stating flatly that the ALR zoning will remain on those lands in the Brunswick -- the 2,000 acres in Delta South.
Hon. D. Lovick: What I am saying, and I'll be as emphatic as I possibly can or as I am able, is that land that is now designated ALR, in the event that it is transferred as part of a treaty settlement claim, will still remain with the ALR designation, including the Delta or Brunswick lands, or whatever that particular name is. The new owners of the land will have to go through the same process that anybody else would, with the same likelihood -- or unlikelihood -- of success in getting those lands removed. That I can say with absolute certainty.
V. Roddick: Hon. Chair, could the minister then take this one step further, possibly? And if you can't answer it, at least try and find an answer. We are concerned that if that happens, i.e., you do transfer -- sorry, the ministry does transfer it
[ Page 15248 ]
the lands are transferred or are used in treaty negotiations, it's my understanding that the federal government does not recognize the ALR in this province. We've had examples of that. Would this be an automatic thing for the ministry? Although it transfers it in good faith, it then comes under the federal government, because the Indian Act, in my understanding, is still under the federal government. They could just shrug their shoulders, and the ALR is then removed.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think I can give the member an answer that she would like to hear -- okay? If we do a treaty, the land will no longer be under the Indian Act; it will no longer be reserve land. The land that we are talking about is provincial land. It will not, then, ever be transferred to something like a reserve, subject only to federal jurisdiction. The member needn't worry about that happening, because that's not how the treaty process works. As I say, it's the end of the Indian Act, it's the end of the reserve status, and it's the end, effectively, of federal designation to determine what regulatory mechanism appears or doesn't appear.
V. Roddick: Has the ministry acted on the recommendation of the municipality of Delta and implemented an agricultural impact study on the question of these lands and on the request from the Tsawwassen first nations to remove it from the ALR?
Hon. D. Lovick: I will take that question under advisement, if I may. I don't know of an agricultural impact study. I do know, however, that part of our process is regular and ongoing contact with the local municipal authorities. There have certainly been discussions, but whether or not that particular study has been done, I don't know. I will certainly find out and report back to the member.
[1610]
V. Roddick: I know that the Delta municipal group, with their treaty negotiation group, requested the implementation of an agricultural impact study. So if you could find out whether or not you will do that, I would appreciate it. As we have said, any change in the zoning status not only affects the first nations historic lifestyle and the original farmers that are still on the land, but it hugely affects the critical mass of agricultural land in Delta South, to say nothing of the province. Will the ministry please make sure that this agricultural impact study is commissioned and is used in the ongoing treaty negotiations in Delta South?
Hon. D. Lovick: I think that is an entirely appropriate recommendation, and I would certainly pass that on to the people at our table. Let me, as well, simply reiterate that the province is indeed committed to the preservation of agricultural land, and our commitment to the agricultural land reserve is not transitory.
V. Roddick: How does the ministry differentiate between the Brunswick wetlands as they were over a hundred years ago and the Brunswick as it is now? It's farmland -- diked, created and maintained by our local pioneer families.
Hon. D. Lovick: If I understand the member's question, she's saying: "How is it that land that may not have been there in the past is now in fact being debated in terms of whether it will become treaty settlement land?" The reason is simply because it has nothing to do with land claimed. Rather, it's talking about a negotiated treaty settlement. That's all. If I understand the member's question correctly, I think I've answered it.
V. Roddick: Yes, you've more or less understood it, but the fact is that this farmland was not original, virgin Crown land. It is man-made land expropriated from our pioneer farmers. It is land that is less than a hundred years old in most of the cases. How can the ministry really consider using this, when there's a great deal of Crown land at its disposal throughout the province? How can the ministry, in all conscience, consider using this -- locally it's referred to as bait -- in the treaty negotiations?
[1615]
Hon. D. Lovick: Part of the process, of course, is in putting together a land-selection model. That means looking at a number of different variables and a number of different available properties. What that frequently means in certain areas, such as where I live, is the absolute paucity of Crown land. There just isn't any.
And at the end of the day, in all likelihood, what will happen is that there will be significantly more money than land on the table. Then, at the end of the treaty settlement, the band will go out and, on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis, purchase land. In the case of Tsawwassen, I don't know how much Crown land there is in the area where the Tsawwassen people now live. Clearly, to say that there's lots of Crown land
What we do, as I say, is try to consult with all the respective stakeholders -- all of the parties directly and indeed indirectly affected. We look at all the possible combinations of land and cash. We look at all the possible places where we might acquire the land. It's early days for me to say what might happen at the end of that process, but the process is being worked through. Certainly the people of Delta, through their representatives -- the municipal government -- will have their opportunity to say that they don't think this is the best property. Similarly, the Tsawwassen people -- if their intention was indeed to make that industrial land for industrial development -- when they encounter the rules of the agricultural land reserve, may well say: "Well, that's the last place, then, that we would like, at the end of the day, for settlement."
Again, I'm dealing, I'm afraid, in the realm of speculation at this point, but suffice to say that the process is very elaborate and very consultative and obviously is trying to work at a solution for the best interests of all of the parties.
V. Roddick: The mention of cash is very encouraging. Hopefully, the ministry will take that into consideration in this case, so that the land can go back to the original buyers -- the farmers -- because they want to
I have just one more quick question, if I may. Delta South, as you are aware, does have very grave concerns about our
[ Page 15249 ]
local treaty negotiations. These concerns were compounded recently by the overlapping claim to the Brunswick by the new Wilson band. What is the status of these claims? What steps is the government taking to resolve the now-overlapping land claims?
Hon. D. Lovick: Earlier today I talked about providing news to my colleague across the way that was hot off the press. Well, the member's question is truly hot off the press as well, because this designation is very recent indeed. The people that we are talking about have not yet been registered as an Indian band. They have been acknowledged as status Indians thus far. It is premature to talk about what we might do with them until they become a band.
But what I can tell the member is what the policy is regarding overlaps. The policy by which we operate under the B.C. treaty process is that overlaps are to be settled by the first nations before an agreement-in-principle is signed. That's the policy, saying: "We, the government, don't intend to rush in and try to solve that problem." Indeed, we had a significant problem, because we weren't able to do that with the Nisga'a and the Gitanyow.
I think nobody in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs wants to go through that difficult process of trying to choose between A and B. Rather, the position that the Treaty Commission and our process takes is that those things should be settled between the competing interests. But as I say, it's premature at this time, because they haven't received band designation. Rather, they simply have their status as Indians under the Indian Act.
[1620]
V. Roddick: Perhaps they have not received their status under the Indian Act, but they are definitely planning on doing that. Can I just ask you to reiterate to me what I feel you just said, what the ministry said -- that the overlapping land claims have to be settled before you will go ahead for an AIP with the Tsawwassen first nation, because this has suddenly come to the fore?
Hon. D. Lovick: The member, I think, can take some comfort in the fact that when the band gets -- presuming it does -- its status as a band, then it will have to file a statement of intent with the B.C. Treaty Commission. If the statement of intent shows that the new band
V. Roddick: Yes, it does. We call it the Wilson band.
Hon. D. Lovick: We'll just call it the new band for the moment. But if the new band's statement of claim was entirely within Tsawwassen's statement of claim -- am I correct? -- then the Treaty Commission wouldn't accept the statement of intent -- all right? They simply wouldn't accept. If it's, rather, overlapping in part, then it apparently has possible legitimacy in the eyes of the Treaty Commission. At that point, however, as I say, our process kicks in, whereby overlaps are to be reconciled before a final agreement is signed.
V. Roddick: So if this new Wilson band has no land outside the existing Tsawwassen area claim, then the treaty negotiation would turn down that claim. Is that what
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, but with a slight clarification and elaboration. Either it would turn down that claim or it could say to the new band, the Wilson band: "You, the Wilson band, should go and meet with your counterparts, the Tsawwassen band and see if you can work out your respective statements of claims to show where you claim you had exclusive territory and exclusive jurisdiction in the past -- that kind of thing."
M. de Jong: A couple of issues arising out of that
Hon. D. Lovick: The first point, Mr. Chairman, is that they cannot file a statement of intent or claim until they have achieved recognition as a band; that has not yet happened. Second, it's not two members; I understand that some 30 members are connected with
[1625]
V. Roddick: I'd say 300.
Hon. D. Lovick: Thirty, I thought.
A Voice: Yes, 30 had got status.
Hon. D. Lovick: So far, 30 have obtained registration. Applications continue to arrive with the federal government. As many as 400 people could apparently obtain registration. Thank you, member, for that.
The member's question, more particularly, had to do with the status of one's claim if it falls entirely within the jurisdiction of another claim. The answer I gave is indeed the correct one -- that if your entire claim is already, or is perceived to be, in somebody else's territory and their claim, then it will not be accepted by the Treaty Commission. Rather, they will say: "You guys have got to work this out or show us that there is an overlap, not that one doesn't exist, because it's been entirely subsumed by the other."
M. de Jong: Is that also the case where the claim may not fall exclusively within another band but may fall within area claimed by two or three bands?
[V. Roddick in the chair.]
Hon. D. Lovick: I can't give the member an absolutely sure answer on that, because the only ones we have dealt with so far have not involved two or three. However, I think it is safe to conclude that the commission would have some considerable difficulty with a claim of that kind and therefore, I suspect, would likely invoke the same kind of procedure, saying: "You people had better work that out before you expect us to try and adjudicate."
M. de Jong: As a matter of course and in this case specifically, does the ministry take a position with respect to this group seeking involvement in the
[ Page 15250 ]
signalled that they intend to. Does the ministry take a position before the Treaty Commission with respect to the advisability of them being granted status to join the Treaty Commission process?
Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Chair, we do not have the yea or nay position to say whether to accept the statement of intent. However, on receiving it, we can look at that and say that this one is fraught with problems and so forth. We can make those concerns known to the B.C. Treaty Commission, with a view to having them solved before it proceeds any further.
M. de Jong: Does the province make submissions with respect to the application for the achievement of band status?
Hon. D. Lovick: I believe there is a protocol whereby the federal government does consult with us, but no, we don't make formal application.
M. de Jong: This discussion began, broadly speaking, around some questions that my colleague raised respecting ALR lands. Some time ago, I think part of the debate that we had involving the Nisga'a treaty
[1630]
I think my colleague has, in a very local example, raised the concern that, particularly as we move south into more populous areas where land is not as readily available, there is every likelihood of that result occurring. In a few minutes I'll ask the minister a little bit about progress associated with the municipal land inventory that was launched last year. But is the minister in a better position today than his predecessor was last year to comment on that Ministry of Agriculture report that does not offer a very positive prognostication for what is going to happen to Crown-owned ALR lands by the time we get to the end of this exercise?
Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Chair, at the risk of sounding like I'm quibbling, I want to advise the member that it is my information that the document to which he alludes was not a formal report from the Ministry of Agriculture. It was an unsolicited observation by a policy analyst within the ministry, and we have not accepted that as a telling or important analysis of the problem.
I would also just point out that notionally the concept of saying that what is now Crown land with agricultural land reserve designation
M. de Jong: Okay, that's helpful. I'm sorry I didn't hear the first part. Did the minister question the validity of the opinion expressed? I got the second part of his answer -- that even if it does happen, even if at the end of this exercise there is no Crown ALR land left, he doesn't necessarily see that as a problem. But I wasn't sure I heard whether or not the minister disputes the finding or the observation by the Agriculture ministry official.
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have the details here, but I am advised that after some examination by our people, we don't accept the premises, apparently, on which the document was based. The document was not presented by the ministry as a formal, complete study. It was, rather, the opinion, I take it, of a policy analyst within the ministry -- I gather, moreover, unsolicited. Is that correct?
A Voice: I think so, yes.
Hon. D. Lovick: It wasn't, in fact -- I won't say commissioned -- requested as giving us a position on this particular matter.
M. de Jong: When I began this, we were talking about land-banking and where the province might take advantage of opportunities to purchase lands with a specific view of holding them for use in treaty settlements. There have been some examples of that in the past. What we've never really done, though, is sought -- or haven't asked, I don't think, and therefore we haven't received an indication from the ministry -- a more comprehensive review of where those negotiations are taking place. I don't know if there are so many of them that it's an unrealistic question to be asking for an answer to as part of these discussions, or whether there is a handful of specific negotiations for the purchase of land taking place. I don't know to what degree that is a part of what is taking place around these negotiations.
[1635]
Hon. D. Lovick: The treaty-related measures, which is the best specific illustration we have of what the member refers to as land-banking, is pretty new stuff in terms of actually pointing to particular properties or something and saying that here's where we're doing one. What I can say is this: namely, the concept of treaty-related measures is to help us get treaties. That means that where we see land that is very clearly in question, and the first nation agrees and we agree, as does Canada, that in all likelihood that particular piece of property will be part of a final treaty settlement, however many years hence
That's the way the treaty-related measures process works, and obviously it's going to be done on the basis of where we think we can do it with the greatest efficacy. If you think you're 50 years away from a treaty somewhere, then that's not one of the places where you're going to use relatively scarce treaty-related measures moneys to do that.
Having said that, though, I also want to point out that under the heading of interim measures -- the ones that we the province do on our own volition and with our own resources -- we have also set aside significant amounts of land in this
[ Page 15251 ]
province. Ninety-three million cubic metres of forest lands are effectively set-aside lands. Don't quote me on the figure, because I may be wrong on it, but it's a hugely significant number of acres simply because they are sensitive. The first nation will say to us: "Wait a minute. We think that's our land, and it's going to be ours in the treaty anyway, so don't try and do any more harvesting activities there." In effect we have something like a land bank, only they're using Crown lands.
I think the member's question more particularly has to do with private land. What I can tell him is this: in three of the six proposals that we now have on the table, three of those involve some private land, which we would purchase on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis to achieve the final treaty settlement.
M. de Jong: That is also helpful. Over the course of the past year, can the minister advise whether purchases have taken place from private landholders that would fall within the category of treaty-related land-banking?
Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is no. We do that only when we have an agreement on the land selection base. Rather than going out and saying, "Well, let's get a whole bunch of land, because we might need it," it's rather a matter of saying: "If we have agreed that this is what we think is going to be the basis of a treaty settlement, then we might consider doing it." We have done it. For example, in the area of Ditidaht-Pacheedaht we purchased a waterfront property, as I recall.
[1640]
A Voice: No, we didn't purchase it. It was a proposal.
Hon. D. Lovick: Oh, we didn't. It was a proposal. Then we didn't accept the offer, and therefore we left it hanging. My apologies; I scare my deputy very much when I do something like that. If the offer had been accepted, then presumably we would have purchased that land owned by a private entity, with a view to making that land banking for the treaty settlement.
M. de Jong: I think last year there was an example of lands that were purchased in the Kamloops area. It may be more accurate to describe that as a purchase relating to a specific claim, and that may be the case. The minister can alert me to that.
But there are always suspicions in various communities around the province. My colleague referred to a Crown land example where the government is out collecting land that might be used for the purpose of satisfying land claims. I think the minister said: "No, that hasn't happened in the past year." If that's the case, then that's a useful answer. To those who would suggest otherwise, I would say: "Well, no, the minister is indicating that that hasn't happened, and one wouldn't expect to see any lands purchased by the provincial government over the last year become the subject of a land claim." Let's maybe start there and make sure I understand the minister's answer correctly.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct.
M. de Jong: The minister also volunteered that three of the six cash-land offers contemplate the transfer to first nations of land presently owned privately -- I think I'm stating that correctly -- and would require purchase of that land by the Crown. When an offer like that is made and those lands have been identified, at what point are those landowners made aware that their lands fall within that category? Are they aware now, for example, that someone's got their eye on their land?
Hon. D. Lovick: In each of the three instances referred to, the private owner approached the band and said: "We would be willing to do this, because we know what you're contemplating, and perhaps this would fit with your purposes and ours too."
M. de Jong: Am I correct in making this statement: at the moment the province has not initiated any discussions for the purchase of private lands with a view to purchasing and then subsequently including those lands in a cash-land offer with a band? I want to make sure I said that right, so that I'm not tricking the minister. The province hasn't initiated any discussions, and the only discussions that presently exist in that respect relate to situations where the landowners themselves have come forward and offered their land to first nations.
Hon. D. Lovick: The only way I can answer the question without running a risk of not giving a complete answer is to be very specific indeed. In the case of the Ditidaht-Pacheedaht it was a TimberWest property. TimberWest had put the property on the market. We, the Crown, were contemplating purchasing that land, based on our discussions with Ditidaht-Pacheedaht and the advice given by our negotiator. We got an option to purchase that property, with a view to making that particular deal.
The other possible example of how this works would be in my own area in the Snuneymuxw, or Nanaimo. As I mentioned some time ago, the problem in Nanaimo is that it is a very small reserve. Quite frankly, given the size and the number of people, historically it was one of the embarrassing land deals in the province because it was so small. But there are lands there that have been alienated that are some of the few remaining parcels available. It is possible that the Nanaimo band may come to the provincial government and say: "Look, given the scarcity of land, why don't you, the provincial Crown, consider making a deal whereby you the Crown would purchase that alienated piece of property, which is apparently on the market, and then that would become part of a treaty settlement later?" That's another model, if you like.
I think I can conclude from those that the answer to the member's question is yes. I don't think it is the case that the provincial Crown is rushing out, saying: "Let's start looking for lands to buy in the event we might need them." It is rather much more table-specific and driven on a treaty-specific basis, I would think.
[1645]
M. de Jong: The last question that flows from that is: with respect to any of the other negotiations that are taking place, are there other areas where
[ Page 15252 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the member's question is no. But again, I want to give the example.
I understand that in the Cariboo what has happened is that certain ranchers have approached us, the provincial Crown, and said: "If you're talking about a major land settlement in this particular area, we the ranchers suggest that you would probably find it a lot easier, and maybe even cheaper, to purchase privately held land, because the Crown land that would otherwise be available is incredibly encumbered with grazing rights and various other things." Therefore the ranchers say to us that it may well be preferable, then, to purchase that land. So we don't rule out that possibility, but as I say, we're not actively going out and saying: "Let's start reading the newspapers and looking for properties for sale."
M. de Jong: Actually, that segues nicely into the last point I wanted to raise on this. There is another scenario, or there's perhaps another explanation, for why those approaches are made by owners of privately held land. That is the suspicion they might have that as part of general settlement agreements, their access to Crown lands may ultimately be impacted, and as a result, the viability of their ranching operation may suffer in the future. Though I don't doubt that what the minister is saying is correct about who is taking the initiative, it may be an initiative that is taken out of some fear.
That gives rise, I think, to the question about how the Crown purports to value this land. We talked about this briefly last year. The reason I bring it up now is that the minister's predecessor described that question of valuation as being a priority for him and something that the ministry was devoting some energy to developing a policy around. From the perspective of a private landowner, they are confronted by a situation where the value of their operation might ultimately be impacted by virtue of the fact that there are claims under negotiation on either side of them. The viability of that operation is going to be impacted, and the value of their land, therefore, is going to fall.
[1650]
They are left feeling that they have no other option but to come to the Crown and say: "Look, I'm not sure I can continue. You might as well buy my land." And the Crown says: "That's fine, but guess what -- the value of your operation has dropped significantly." They feel very hard done by, insofar as they don't believe their
Hon. D. Lovick: The difficulty, as it is explained to me, is that thus far what we have been threatened with is people wanting more for the land, because they're figuring, frankly, that the government is over a barrel and needs to get it. Therefore we're being confronted with paying what we think is probably beyond a reasonable value.
I guess the short answer to the member's question and what the ministry has apparently come to conclude, after the discussions last year
M. de Jong: I don't want to make a big deal about the nature of the discussion. The previous minister actually alluded to some examples where he said that tactics were being used that were unacceptable in terms of acquiring land or valuing the land. I think he accurately pointed out that there is this tension between the obligation the Crown has to get the best value for the taxpayers' dollar on any purchase versus treating those landowners fairly. And I thought the work that was going to be undertaken -- based on his describing it as a priority item, and he may have overstated the point there -- would relate to determining the timing around which the Crown valuation would crystalize, because the minister points to a circumstance where now he says certain landowners are saying: "Well, you want our land; we're going to inflate the price."
We had this discussion last year within the context of landowners saying: "My land is subject to claim, and now you want to pay less money for it on that basis." I thought the work that the minister's predecessor was referring to would have focused around determining or establishing some mechanism by which the valuation could take place -- tough to do, pretty specific in different circumstances. I guess what I'm hearing is that there's still not a policy, per se, that prospective vendors could look to as the guiding principles around which the Crown develops its offers.
[1655]
Hon. D. Lovick: The policy, such as it is, is the same one that was traditionally used by people like Highways, and that is simply to hire the independent professional appraisers -- more than one. You usually take a median between two or three offers. I have some experience with that. I know how the dynamic plays out, because in my constituency, where we built the Nanaimo Parkway, it's amazing the kind of discussions that go on in terms of what land is worth versus what it used to be worth, that kind of thing. I remember reading all the arguments in the course of that debate. Some were that there was a short decline in the market value of one's property as they were talking about building the highway and as they constructed it, but within two years of building it, then it would escalate hugely. I think probably the best mechanism one can come up with is something like the trained appraiser working, obviously based on a market appraisal or market system.
M. de Jong: Two very short questions. Has the province, as part of any treaty negotiation, ever either expropriated or threatened to expropriate lands? And does the province rule that out categorically as something that it would consider doing?
Hon. D. Lovick: I almost feel there should be a drum roll for this answer. The province has never and will never expropriate private land for treaty settlement purposes.
M. de Jong: One last issue arising from this broad discussion: the minister indicated that it is the province's position
[ Page 15253 ]
that no agreement-in-principle will be signed off by the province where there are existing unresolved overlapping claims. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Lovick: Let me clarify, if I may. I believe I said agreement-in-principle, and the correct answer is actually a final agreement -- that no final agreement
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
M. de Jong: Well, if the example is not one that the minister wants to refer to specifically, so be it. There's not much I can do about that. But I think the minister was saying that there are overlaps, and there are overlaps. I guess what I do need from the minister, then, is a better indication of or an example of some sort
I don't want to be in a position six months from now or eight months from now where the minister is touting a final agreement, if that were to happen, and there are some outstanding overlaps, and his response is: "Well, these are not serious overlaps." What is a serious overlap, and what isn't?
Hon. D. Lovick: I am sorry. I should have given a more specific answer rather than just say I won't give an example. That would have absolved this problem.
The basic criterion that one uses for the two kinds of overlaps -- or the dividing line, if you will, between them -- is exclusive versus non-exclusive use. I think that's something the member can relate to.
[1700]
If we have, for example, a wildlife management area, quite conceivably that could be shared. That would not be a deal-breaker, if you will, because they overlap, and they were still struggling with who gets to use and how much of the time. When we're talking, however, about an exclusive use -- you know, actually only in that territory or some other particular uses that are indeed exclusive -- then you have a serious problem with an overlap.
M. de Jong: I think that's an important and significant distinction, and I understand it. I'm not sure I agree with it tactically as a negotiating position. But if we are then restricting application of the rule to core lands, as it were, exclusive-use owned lands, isn't the rationale behind this policy something like the following? That is, all the various features of these very complicated agreements generally involve the aboriginal participants and both levels of government, and we have to resolve all of these outstanding issues. But there is one matter that really does fall exclusively within one camp, and that is the overlap issue. It might relate to exclusive-use lands, but it might also relate to disputes around wildlife management areas.
But if there is going to be an ongoing dispute that might involve litigation or might not, then surely the time to put all these issues to bed is prior to signing off on the final agreement. I question the logic of the distinction that the minister has made as a function of achieving finality on these deals.
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't dispute what the member is saying. If indeed the overlap -- whether we call it exclusive or non-exclusive use or significant or not so significant -- is one that is likely to get us into ongoing dispute or to litigation or things of that sort, then pretty clearly we have to be careful. I would suggest that at that point we would invoke the rule that says that you had better sort out the overlap before we have a final agreement.
I'm advised, however, that there are circumstances in which some first nations say: "We will establish a protocol agreement whereby we will say, 'Here's how we're going to use this,' but don't ask us to settle forever, beyond the protocol agreement, our perceived claim to that territory." In other words, we still have the overlap, but it's one that we can live with and are not going to worry about. They will sign an agreement accordingly. Or the language of the treaty may resolve that problem to their satisfaction.
M. de Jong: The protocol example that the minister offers, I think, satisfies what I thought the original test was, and that is that it has been resolved. If you have a protocol, presumably you have a settlement of the overlap issue as it relates to either exclusive use or
I don't think we use the words "wriggle room" anymore around here. But it is the suggestion that there might be examples where the government would proceed, where there are overlapping claims on non-exclusive-use lands and no protocol agreements or no agreements in place that effectively resolve that overlap. If that is the case, if the government wants to preserve that option -- and maybe it does -- then really what it's saying is that it has a preference, but it doesn't have an ironclad policy.
[1705]
Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence and my colleague's indulgence. I wanted to get an example of how this actually works. I'm advised that what the exercise is ultimately about is risk assessment. It's a matter of looking at a particular agreement where we have an overlap and saying, "All right, how do we resolve these differences?" and sometimes that's apparently very difficult to do -- understood.
The largest part of the problem -- namely, a battle over who has use of the territory -- is solved by the exclusivity argument. In other words, we would never sign an agreement or agree to an agreement in which there was an overlap over exclusive territory.
The other issue has to do with the matter of the kind of uses within the territory and what the likelihood is of conflict and difficulty. If our analysis tells us that there is an overlap on the corner of two first nations treaties, but the only interaction is moose hunting, let's say, and we recognize moreover that the entire territory, by the terms of the treaty, is subject to a wildlife management regime whereby the number of moose that are stipulated is given -- so it's not a matter of them getting it first or us getting it first; rather, each side gets what is its due -- then it is perceived that that is a lower risk. We could conceivably sign a deal then, in which that overlap is technically still unresolved.
[ Page 15254 ]
As I say, though, the answer is ultimately a political judgment, I guess. It's about risk assessment, and I guess we trust to the ability of those who have been working with the respective first nations and on the land and examining all the complexities of the agreement.
M. de Jong: I guess a couple of things flow from that, then. I think it's a candid description of what the government has done and intends to do. But it really guts the policy. I mean, it is, as I say, perhaps an accurate description of what the government is doing. But it is a far different thing to say we will not sign a final agreement with outstanding overlaps; that's not what that means at all. I will momentarily try to persuade the minister why the original articulation of the policy is one that should be adopted and why it makes sense to do that. Maybe I'll do that now.
[1710]
I understood the minister's use of the terms "risk assessment" and "political judgment." The other term that came to mind as he was going through that description was "risk assumption." By following that approach, it seems to me that what the province is doing is saying that we will assume the risk. I don't know why we will make an assessment of that risk and then we will assume it. I don't think I understand the logic that says the provincial Crown should assume that risk.
Presumably these settlements, when we get to them, are going to be viewed, as the minister pointed out time and time again in Nisga'a, as imperfect, and presumably by all parties. But there will be attractive elements of it to all parties; they will be agreements that the parties want. As a function of negotiating, the province gets one chance to say to that first nations group sitting on the other side of the table: "You tell me that there are features of this agreement that you find attractive -- attractive enough that you want to settle it on that basis. You're going to assume the risk with respect to the overlaps, because you're going to resolve them. You're going to have to settle that. We are not prepared, as a Crown, to make the assessment that the minister spoke about."
The government only gets one chance to do that, because the incentive they're after, it seems to me, disappears depending on what position you have vis-à-vis the overlap. I think you could make an argument with respect to Nisga'a, for example, that
Hon. D. Lovick: It's interesting that we have not been combative thus far, so I'll gently say: what do you mean you could drive a truck through? No, I disagree. It's not a policy that, given what we have said about where it might not be fully invoked, you could drive a truck through. Indeed, I think it's a rational, logical policy, if you start from the proposition of why we are doing this stuff in the first place.
The huge motive for us -- a huge impetus for the treaty process -- is to get certainty on the land base. That's the provincial interest; that's what we are arguing we should do. Forget for a moment the justice issues, and forget for a moment the legal issues, even. Rather, talk purely in economic terms. We are carrying out the process of negotiating treaties in this province because there's a powerful economic argument to do so called certainty. Recognizing that the hindrance, the obstacle, the impediment to achieving certainty might be something like an apparently irresolvable overlap, we have said it's better, then, to carry out a careful risk assessment in order to achieve the certainty we require, without risking, we think, litigation or major problems.
I'll run through it again. First of all, the basic policy is that the first nations have responsibility to resolve the overlaps. That's the first premise. The second premise is that where that isn't going to happen or is apparently incapable of happening, then we will not agree to a treaty or to rights or to land arrangements which will have a detrimental effect on the other first nation -- those who will be severely impacted by doing so. In other words, exclusive occupation is the best example, but I'm sure we could think of some others.
If it's essentially a matter of looking at one small piece of a territory where the issue is two first nations having what they perceive as equal rights to pick berries and do some gathering or to do some hunting in the area or something, we are suggesting that the risk inherent in leaving the overlap unresolved -- that resides in that activity -- is not sufficient to prevent us from achieving the certainty of negotiating the treaty. So that's the policy.
[1715]
The member is quite right to point out what he sees as the weakness, the flaw in the policy, and says that maybe we should or could do it better. He's absolutely entitled, of course, to that opinion, and I appreciate the points he has made. But as I've explained here, our reasoning is that to achieve certainty, we are prepared to entertain some risk. We think we've minimized the risk hugely. But there is nevertheless, at the end of the day, conceivably a risk inherent in what we do and in the policy.
M. de Jong: To use the example the minister gave -- and it's as good an example as any -- the question would be the downside, in that example, to saying to the first nation, "Look, we've resolved this, but you've got to decide; you've got to reach an agreement on the berry-picking issue. Then we'll sign off" -- the downside to the government adopting that position.
Hon. D. Lovick: The only downside is if they don't agree, and they say: "Wait a minute. Forget it, you guys. We haven't talked to these guys for 50 years; we hate each other. We aren't going to resolve it. We've managed to resolve all the tough ones, like the exclusive use, but that little one -- no way." And we say: "Well, wait a minute; we want the treaty. We think the treaty is, at the end of the day, good for all of us. Therefore we, as the provincial Crown, are prepared to accept it."
The only downside is that it may
M. de Jong: I think it's been a useful discussion. I certainly have a better understanding operationally of how the government intends to apply its approach around these issues, albeit I may disagree with the strategy or the tactics.
The ministry initiated a process. Again, this derives from a discussion we had last year during the estimates, around a
[ Page 15255 ]
municipal Crown land inventory, and this is more relevant insofar as urban-based treaties in the lower mainland are concerned. When we had that discussion last year, I think it was still in the early stages. There was amongst municipal officials some concern about what gave rise to that request, what was in the ministry's mind and whether or not there was some prospect that lands heretofore utilized by municipalities were suddenly on the table, with respect to urban-based treaty negotiations.
The difficulty we had at that time was that the process, I was told, was far from complete. The minister wasn't in a position to offer much information beyond the fact that he felt it was a very important exercise and was a necessary component of preparing for negotiations in the more urban parts of British Columbia. So I guess the question for the minister is two-part. How does he see that exercise as fitting within the negotiating process or as a tool for use in the negotiating exercise? Has the work been completed? Is there a book or a map or a compilation of municipal Crown lands that one can now access, and where might that exist?
[1720]
Hon. D. Lovick: There is work going on, I'm happy to report. I understand that the British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation did a pilot study -- on Delta lands, as it happens -- with a view to saying, "How difficult is it to assemble this information? What are the variables?" etc., etc. I also understand that within the ministry, we now have the capacity in-house to generate that information. At the moment, I gather, the lower mainland's treaty advisory committee is working with some of that information. We are sharing that information in terms of assessment of the Crown land inventory that is obviously impacting directly and involved in municipal jurisdictions. So some of that work has been done.
I think the member was asking whether there is a handy-dandy book or something like that available. It seems to me that if we're taking things to the treaty advisory committee and so forth, then all of that information ought to be available.
M. de Jong: Let's use Delta as an example, then. Is it possible for someone who resides in Delta, or a member of the Tsawwassen band who is interested in knowing what Crown lands might be available for settlement, to access a database that says: "Here are the provincial Crown lands within the boundaries of the district of Delta"? Is that in place now? And if it is, is it accessible by members of the public?
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, the study is in place. I understand that it was done in consultation with the local government in Delta, the municipality. In terms of accessing it, I don't know exactly where it is or where it's housed. I would think that in terms of just a basic Crown land database on the Net, most of that stuff would be pretty accessible. But I will take a look at that issue and see if I can get the member a more definitive and specific answer.
M. de Jong: It's curious that the minister would say that, because last year when we had this discussion, that was my impression as well. I wasn't clear what it was that was being done. It didn't strike me as being an overly complicated matter to verify, through the land title system, land owned by the Crown. But I think I was led to believe that there was something else taking place here and that it wasn't quite that simple -- that what was being compiled was something different. That would be a question.
Another question would be: has what has taken place in Delta been replicated around the province, or is that still work in progress? Particularly when we get into tables in the more urban-populated bases, this all leads to an ability on the part of everyone to understand what Crown land is available and then, in fairly short order, to discount
[1725]
Hon. D. Lovick: First, there was something more. I understand the data base is hugely more informative than just Crown land. It talks about tenures, it talks about private properties, and it talks about encumbrances and just about everything. So that's why it is perhaps more than what I might have indicated earlier.
Regarding whether Delta has been replicated, I understand that that hasn't been done, exactly. But the essential information has certainly been done for other jurisdictions. The reason is that Delta was a pilot project. I gather that it was very elaborate and very formal and very expensive. Therefore, I think the subsequent iterations or incarnations of this information were perhaps less a Cadillac model then the Delta project. But the same information is indeed available.
M. de Jong: So it was a Crown asset inventory or a Crown land inventory that the minister mentioned included a myriad of things -- land tenure agreements, and I think he also said private lands. I'm not sure if he misspoke or whether private lands are also listed on this Crown asset inventory. If they are, are they only listed when they include tenure agreements? I'm not sure I followed that aspect of it.
Hon. D. Lovick: I want to clarify. It's not just a Crown asset inventory; it's a land base inventory. That's because it was done not just for treaty negotiations purposes. Rather, it is indeed a cross-government initiative, providing us with that database and that information on the entire land base, in effect. So various other line ministries obviously had an input into this. I would imagine even identifying things like, for example, streams and drainages and agricultural properties and private forested lands. I would imagine that there are a number of different variables that would show up on that map.
M. de Jong: I was led to believe that the exercise was initiated specifically because of a perceived need for information respecting treaty negotiations. Although it may be put to use for other purposes, it was specifically requested for use as a tool for treaty negotiations. If I'm incorrect, maybe the minister can tell me that.
Hon. D. Lovick: It is incorrect to say that the impetus was entirely the treaty process. British Columbia Assets and Land -- which the member well knows is in the process, to some degree at least, of disposing of Crown assets -- requested the information. I gather that others also wanted
[ Page 15256 ]
that information. Fortuitously, I guess, all of these interests converged, and therefore the project was undertaken. Obviously it's a huge and important interest to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, but there are other competing interests as well.
M. de Jong: Is the work complete now?
Hon. D. Lovick: Apparently not. The Delta project is complete. Let me explain what the project is, which I think will make clear what exactly this thing is that we're discussing without definition. What we're looking at doing, I gather, is bringing together the material on a number of different databases into one or two databases. I guess the short response is to say that probably all that information is out there, but it's just that we're not sure where and in what form. The attempt is of course to rationalize the existing systems and put them all into one or two particular places, so they will be readily accessible to all of the various interests that may want to examine them.
[1730]
M. de Jong: Let's deal, then, with a manageable example. Delta, apparently, is complete. The work is done. What use would provincial Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs negotiators around, for example, the Tsawwassen table
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, it remains to be seen whether it has been useful. I guess we won't know that until we get to the end of the process and then until the decisions are made, which some will consider great news and others may not.
I think it's important that the member ask the question. Well, the member for Delta South, who raised these issues first, asked the question. She obviously registered some understandable concern on behalf of her constituents about the Delta backup lands -- that 2,000 hectares. Conceivably, if we know all the Crown land that's available there, we can look at it. Then we could, quite potentially, conceivably go to the table and say: "You don't need to earmark this land, because there are in fact all these other packages that would probably be as good and as useful to you for your land settlement selection." And also that would probably, dare I say, be less controversial than the Brunswick lands.
I think the answer is: yeah, this has a function -- very definitely, I think, in Delta. And by extrapolation, we can probably say that it has in just about any area, especially when we get into the urban centres where, frankly, there isn't a huge amount of Crown land -- at least, instantly visible -- that we know about.
M. de Jong: Okay. Broadly speaking, we've got a bank of data that tells us within, for example, the city of Vancouver, what in the work is complete there. We've got Crown land totalling X number of hectares or acres. We've got some information about that. We've got information about rights-of-way, and minimally at least, the provincial negotiators know the extent of the limitations they are under in terms of land when they are dealing with that component of the cash-and-land offer and land selection. That would seem to me to be the extent of the use to which the ministry would put this information.
I guess my last question
Hon. D. Lovick: Let me start with the second part of the question. Is the only interest in terms of saying, "Here is the available Crown land -- end of story" and that's the only purpose it serves? I'm advised that one of the other uses of this database, which I guess is a kind of variation on the first theme, is that one can take that map, that information, and say to other stakeholders like municipal government: "What is your interest in these other Crown land properties? Do you have an interest in these lands? If you had your druthers, which should we be choosing?" I think that's an important thing, if you will, to get other people to buy into the process.
[1735]
The first question the member asked was if the ministry budgets or pays for some or all of this. We contribute to something called the coordinated land investment
A Voice: It's in our budget.
Hon. D. Lovick: It's in our budget. Okay.
M. de Jong: I guess the question begs asking: total budget for the project, and what part of that comes from the ministry?
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think I can find the Delta model, but I can give the member the total budget for CLIB. In case I didn't make it clear earlier, let me do so now. We administer and fund this particular activity. Other ministries come and ask for access to that particular fund. That's why I said it was a corporate entity.
The total budget was $3.250 million. Let me give an example. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks requested from us a report on the Crown land ownership status in the greater Vancouver regional district. That was done, or is in progress, and was $160,000 drawn down on that particular account. Characteristically, that's the way it works.
M. de Jong: The project is administered by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs but conducted by BCAL. Is that how this works?
[1740]
Hon. D. Lovick: A number of different agencies -- just looking down my list, I see Fisheries; Forests; land use coordination office; Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; B.C. fisheries; Small Business, Tourism and Culture; a number of other agencies within government; and other ministries, as it happens -- are drawing on the information. By the way, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to provide the member with this list if he wishes to see who's on first.
M. de Jong: Okay. I think the last issue I want to address insofar as a review of the discussion we had last year
[ Page 15257 ]
relates to an exchange that the minister's predecessor and I had around the costs of negotiations as they were accruing to the various first nations participants. Being on something of a numerical roll, I can tell the minister that last year we were told that the accumulated cost of negotiations on the books for first nations participants in the B.C. Treaty Commission process was estimated to be between $80 million and $90 million. That's the reply the minister gave last year.
I guess the simple question now is: in the intervening 11 or 12 months, how high has that figure gone up, presumably?
Hon. D. Lovick: Again, pardon the delay. We will get an exact figure for tomorrow, but I understand that the B.C. Treaty Commission has apparently given us a figure of approximately $120 million. Eighty percent of that is in loans; the other is in grants at the moment.
M. de Jong: Okay, that's helpful, and I appreciate that the minister will get a specific figure for next day. That's a significant increase. If we went from $80 million to $90 million to $120 million, that's in excess of a 30 to 35 percent increase.
I guess the lesson we take from that is that these debts are mounting at a significant rate, and I don't know
Of course, and the minister knows this, the suspicion on the part of many people who are watching these negotiations is that there will be an irresistible temptation on the part of (a) the band -- an understandable temptation as a deal-maker, deal-breaker -- to say, "Listen, we want these loans forgiven; that's the key to this," and (b) a government or governments that want to put together a deal to say yes. I know the federal government says that's not what happened, and we didn't have that discussion around Nisga'a. But people remain very suspicious of that fact. There are undoubtedly examples now; there were a year ago. The minister didn't provide me with a specific example, but he alluded to the fact that there are examples now of bands who have incurred a debt that he didn't think they could realistically recover.
There's more debt there now than they're likely to recover in any sort of settlement. That has to be unsatisfactory. It seems to be occurring at an accelerated pace. I don't know what the minister's response is to how you prevent that, but it speaks to a fundamental flaw in the system we've got in place right now.
[1745]
Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, let me just say very clearly that we in this ministry are monitoring that debt very closely for precisely the kinds of reasons the member alluded to. What a heartbreak it would be
Was there something else in the question that perhaps I've missed? I think I've probably got it. It must be getting late.
M. de Jong: Well, I'll ask the question, but I'm not sure the minister is going to answer it. If there are bands or tables where the provincial government is of the view that, if we haven't yet arrived there, we are getting close to a point where the government doesn't contemplate an offer that would include sufficient cash to overcome the accumulated debt -- or there would be very little left over after settling that negotiation-related debt
I am going to ask the question: which ones are they? Is the government making its concerns known to those negotiating partners, because we're not
The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.
Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that there are three small first nations that we are watching closely, because we are concerned. I understand, moreover, that those three first nations have indeed made approaches to the B.C. Treaty Commission as well as to the federal government -- not to us -- about their concerns.
We, for our part as provincial Crown, have done all we can. Namely, we have worked very hard to accelerate our process of tabling offers. That's why the six offers came out so quickly and why, as I said earlier, we're committed to getting out some other ones as quickly as we can.
It's worth noting, however, that tabling those offers, as I said earlier, wasn't exactly greeted with shouts of enthusiasm. Rather, people were saying: "That isn't enough; that's not going to do it."
We think that we the provincial Crown are doing our part to try and ensure that we negotiate and get those offers out so those people will quit having to spend their capital because of negotiations that seem interminable, as the member suggested. He's right; that's a systemic problem with the process.
[1750]
I think it may be the case -- and who am I? I don't want to crystal ball - gaze -- that two years from now the First Nations Summit may well say, "Look, given present trends, this process will take too long, and it will not, unfortunately, pay the dividends we all hoped it would. Therefore we the First Nations Summit may come up with our own suggestion for an accelerated process, perhaps on the grand scale" -- something that was effectively dismissed two years ago when we talked about an accelerated process, a model
I don't know if my predecessor brought this to the attention of the chamber, Mr. Chairman, but we looked, for example, only about a year ago at the matter of generic treaties. You know, let's get maybe a 12- or 20-page treaty which everybody can sort of sign on to, and then the finer points and the details we can work with. But the basic generic concept we can deal with. Those issues aren't dead. I appreciate the member's concern; it's one that I share too. The last thing we want to do is be talking about negotiating treaties but take so long that at the end of the day, there is no benefit to the first nations.
[ Page 15258 ]
The Chair: Member for Matsqui, with an eye on the clock, noting the hour.
M. de Jong: Let me leave with this observation and then make the motion. My concern is that before we get to the point where the attractiveness of the kinds of accelerating processes that the minister describes becomes apparent to first nations, the first stop along that train ride is at the station that says: "Look, forgive our debts." And at this point -- I say this fairly -- I think there is, on the part of many bands involved in the negotiation process, an expectation that that is a demand they will make and that it will be acceded to by government.
I'll leave it there and perhaps make the motion that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:52 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada