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)
THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 8
[ Page 15309 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm waiting for orders of the day, and I was waiting for the member for Peace River North to tell us about an introduction -- unaccustomed as he is -- but he didn't.
Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. In this chamber, we shall be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In Committee A, we shall be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
[1010]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
On vote 34: ministry operations, $297,814,000 (continued).
The committee recessed from 10:18 a.m. to 10:22 a.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
G. Abbott: I'd like to begin with a couple of follow-up questions on page 38 and 39. The question relates to recommendation 7 in the Wouters report: "The government should establish a review committee to evaluate Forest Practices Code pilot projects and make recommendations to government." Has that review committee been established?
Hon. J. Doyle: That has not yet been established.
G. Abbott: I was going to ask what the government's rationale for creating an overall review committee might be. I know we have now started four code pilots in different parts of the province. I don't know whether it would make a lot of sense to have a central committee trying to look at that or whether there should be committees for each of the four. I don't know. But I presume the government is still thinking about that. Are they?
Hon. J. Doyle: Once the pilots are established, we then have to do an evaluation at that time. We don't know just yet what that would be.
G. Abbott: I think recommendation 9 is one of the more -- I don't know -- prominent of the recommendations, at least. I will try to phrase this carefully. It is a recommendation that is of considerable concern to me. Just so everyone knows what we're talking about, recommendation 9 on page 39 is: "The government should establish an independent commission to review the assumptions and methodology used in the timber supply review process. The review should consider the following
[1025]
Now, I have some grave concerns about this particular recommendation in that, as I read it -- and perhaps the minister can correct me -- what's being proposed here is an independent commission which, I'd have to think, would in important ways affect the independence of the chief forester in British Columbia. I think that if we start down the road of even an independent commission, what we have is a group of people who will be appointed by government and who, while they may well be professional in every respect, will bring to that commission a set of views around where the annual allowable cut should be going
Further to some of the discussions we've had earlier in estimates, I think that if we have a chief forester who is basing his timber supply review reports on science, that is something we must very zealously protect the independence of. I have some grave concerns about this recommendation. Perhaps they are misplaced, or perhaps they are right on the mark. I'll invite the minister to provide his comments on this.
Hon. J. Doyle: Recommendation 9 on page 39 of Mr. Wouters's report is under review as we speak. I, like the member, have full confidence in the abilities and capabilities of the present chief forester in every way. We have confidence in the current process of determining AACs. But we are always open to constructive discussion of other ways we can do business. That goes for any part of our business. So, as I said, I agree with the chief forester. The recommendation is under review, but we're looking at
G. Abbott: I don't get the overwhelming sense of confidence from that answer that I would like. Is the government still considering the possibility of an independent commission that might act under the kind of formula that's being suggested here by Mr. Wouters? I think -- at least in my view, and again I'll invite the minister to correct me if I'm wrong -- that what's being proposed here is effectively a second guessing of the role of the chief forester. I think that if we start down that road, it will create the dangerous precedent of the authority of that office being undermined.
It may seem like a fine point I'm pursuing here, but I think it's a critical one. If we're going to have an independent chief forester, we can't be having a committee on the side that is, I think, in many respects trying to duplicate or second-guess what is being done by the chief forester.
Hon. J. Doyle: We received the Wouters report a month or
G. Abbott: Is it the minister's understanding that should the government, after some consideration, decide to accept
[ Page 15310 ]
recommendation 9
[1030]
Hon. J. Doyle: I cannot speculate on that. As I said, we've just received the report. We're talking about it. We've asked for further input from people right across the province, including further input from stakeholders.
G. Abbott: Well, I think the minister has heard my views on this. I sense that he shares them. Obviously he doesn't want to express them quite as forcefully as I am, as the opposition critic. That's fair enough. We won't dwell further on recommendation 9. But I do hope the minister takes to heart my concerns with respect to that recommendation. While Garry Wouters makes some useful recommendations here, that one in particular concerns me about its impact on a part of the Forests ministry which I think has maintained an independence over time that is commendable -- one that we must protect.
I'll move on, then. We've covered a number of the recommendations between pages 39 and 57, where I have my next question. It is on recommendation 8: "The government, through Forest Renewal B.C., should contribute $25 million annually to a forest research and development fund to be distributed by an independent board. The board should direct research and development activities on enhanced forestry, innovative technology, products, markets and processes." What is the government's view with respect to recommendation 8 on page 57?
Hon. J. Doyle: FRBC is already contributing more than that -- actually, $32.7 million.
G. Abbott: The minister anticipated my subsequent question that FRBC is already doing this. The recommendation struck me as a little curious as to why we would arbitrarily pluck $25 million from the sky as an appropriate figure for this kind of work and run with it as a recommendation. But obviously the ministry has already anticipated that as well.
Moving on, page 61 contains quite an interesting table. It's a table of how employment in the forest sector has varied over time, from 1983 through to 1999. I'm sure the government has had an opportunity to look at this table as well. Do the numbers in the table generally reflect the numbers that the ministry has gathered over time? Are they correct from the ministry's perspective?
Hon. J. Doyle: These are the numbers that ministries rely on. They're not ministry numbers, but these are the numbers that we rely on.
Hon. S. Hammell: May I have leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
Hon. S. Hammell: In the gallery are students from A.H.P. Matthew Elementary in Surrey. They are accompanied by Mark Keelan and I'm sure some other parents, as well as other teachers. They're here visiting the precinct and getting a lesson on Canadian and B.C. history. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Abbott: The first line in the table is entitled "Forestry Services." What's the minister's understanding of what occupations are contained in forestry services?
Hon. J. Doyle: The first line of "Forestry Services" is consultants and contractors.
[1035]
G. Abbott: Does the table embrace those who are employed in the public service?
Hon. J. Doyle: No.
G. Abbott: We'll move on to page 68 in the Wouters report. The first question revolves around recommendation 1: "The government should establish an annual community diversification fund of $30 million to be administered at the community level. This fund will replace the existing FRBC community funds." What's the government's view with respect to recommendation 1?
Hon. J. Doyle: Recommendation 1 is very similar to what FRBC is doing presently, but they would be devolving this back to the communities.
G. Abbott: One of the reasons this particular recommendation is puzzling to me is that for several years now, there has existed on the books of the province, under the Ministry of Employment and Investment, a natural resource community fund. The fund was originally endowed with $25 million. Over time it has produced many millions in interest revenue to British Columbia, but very little -- I think less than a million dollars -- has ever actually been expended out of that fund. Given that, I'm curious as to why we would create another such fund.
Hon. J. Doyle: Following up on my last answer, this is very much like what FRBC is already doing. It's just that it would be administered differently.
G. Abbott: It's probably not worth pursuing the detail of that at this point. It would be speculative at best, in any event.
In my view, some of the murkier thinking contained in this report is contained in this "Communities and Workers" section. An example of that would be recommendation 1, but the second recommendation is the same. It says: "The government should provide for local community-based decision-making as recommended in this report with respect to: land use planning; forest management; management of community diversification funding."
The minister and I are both well schooled in local government. We have both spent our years there. One of the things that kind of puzzled me about the report was that there seems to be a sense that somehow we empower communities, either through the local government or some other means, to begin to take control of the forests around them. To me, if we're talking about simplifying or streamlining the forest policy framework in the province, this recommendation in fact flows in the opposite direction.
[ Page 15311 ]
There is certainly a legitimate role for local communities and local governments in planning processes that have very critical impact on the forest industry, and the land and resource management process is probably the best example of that. But I sense that what we're talking about here is something more than the LRMPs. Again, I think it's something that will tend to clutter up rather than streamline the forest policy framework. I'll invite the minister's comment with respect to that.
[1040]
Hon. J. Doyle: Recommendation No. 2 that you're speaking about, on page 68, does not clearly identify just what authority it says has been transferred to communities. The report was received a month or six weeks ago. Government hasn't had a chance to look through the report and just see whether we see anything in there that we could use.
Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. S. Hammell: The second half of the students from A.H.P. Matthew Elementary have arrived in the gallery. They are grades 4, 5 and 6. The event has been organized by Mr. Keelan, one of their teachers, and I'm sure there are other teachers and adults accompanying them here. I would appreciate it if the House would make them welcome.
G. Abbott: Does the minister acknowledge or agree with my general concern around the possibility of recommendation 2 having the effect of cluttering rather than streamlining the forest policy framework in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Doyle: We agree that it is unclear just what Mr. Wouters was speaking about. We think that he was speaking about some of the FRBC work that's done on a provincial level right now being devolved down through to local communities.
G. Abbott: If in fact that was the case -- that we were talking about something along the lines of the model that has been developed in Merritt for the management of Forest Renewal B.C. funds in that timber supply area -- then I'd say that that's interesting and useful, because in fact that is in many ways a promising model. My reading of this was that Mr. Wouters intended something much broader than that, but I may be seeing problems where none exist. But the government is obviously continuing their review of that.
The same apprehension on my part exists with respect to recommendation 3: "The government should appoint a task force to review and recommend structures for local community-based decision-making with respect to land use planning, forest management and community diversification considering: models for community-based decision-making; the degree of authority required for effective decision-making; financial and accountability mechanisms." Again, if we're simply talking about how local FRBC funds are managed, that's one thing. But if we're talking about providing some new model for the management of forests in British Columbia, I have some considerable apprehension about that. Again, I want to hear some assurance from the minister that he shares that apprehension.
Hon. J. Doyle: I do share the words that the member across the floor just said. This recommendation is Mr. Wouters's words, and I assume they're what he feels he heard out there. Again, government hasn't done any work on shaking it down to something in this recommendation that we will proceed with.
G. Abbott: Recommendation 4: "The government should provide increased opportunities for new community-based forest tenures, through: strategic alliances; forest stewardship agreements; 5 percent takeback on tenure transfers." Does the government understand that what Mr. Wouters is referring to here are community-based forest tenures along the lines of the Revelstoke model? As I'm sure the minister will recall, when we were talking about some of the aboriginal issues that were raised by Mr. Wouters, he used many of the same phrases, such as strategic alliance, forest stewardship agreements, and so on. Of course, in the earlier draft he used the 5 percent takeback figure as well.
In this recommendation is the government's understanding that he's referring to the Revelstoke-type model? Are we talking aboriginal community model, or are we talking both?
[1045]
Hon. J. Doyle: Revelstoke, as the member and I know, has been a great, great success. Revelstoke, as the member also knows, has a TFL of approximately 100,000 cubic metres. I feel that Mr. Wouters was, in the back of his mind, thinking about Revelstoke and seeing if there were ways we could put that pattern in other parts of the province, whether it was first nations or community forests. I feel community forests are a good idea. It gives communities more say over their back yard.
G. Abbott: It's the minister's understanding that it embraces both. Fair enough.
I have a quick question on recommendation 5 as well. Recommendation 5 reads: "The government should work with industry and labour to: prepare a labour force development strategy; examine new approaches to expanding market opportunities; develop cooperative arrangements with industry and labour, including exploration of sectoral councils." I think I understand all that except for the last bullet, which is: "Develop cooperative arrangements with industry and labour including exploration of sectoral councils." What is the ministry's understanding of what's involved there?
Hon. J. Doyle: The government, at the present time, doesn't know if there is any interest in this recommendation that we were speaking about. We will be talking with industry and labour to find out if there is any or zero or much more interest in this.
G. Abbott: To put the question a little more pointedly, what is a sectoral council?
Hon. J. Doyle: It's when labour, community and industry sit down not just in a labour negotiations type form but to work out what they can do for that community as far as the economy and where they stand to better that community.
G. Abbott: Is the concept that's being embraced here something along the lines of
[ Page 15312 ]
his earlier drafts termed it a wood congress or something to that effect. It aroused the general animosity of the industry particularly, and he dropped the concept in later drafts. This isn't an attempt to sort of bring the wood congress concept back into play in a more innocuous form, is it?
Hon. J. Doyle: On this recommendation, we just don't know, but I have assumed there is a good reason why it's not in the final draft. The recommendation was in the earlier ones you referred to.
G. Abbott: Recommendation 7. I won't go through the whole thing because it's a long one, but I think we should discuss it for a moment. The recommendation revolves around current mill closure provisions in the Forest Act, section 71. Mr. Wouters is recommending that that section should be amended with a new provision that would do a whole bunch of stuff. I don't know what the minister's response to this is, but I think it's an example of creating a whole bunch more red tape around a process that everybody already acknowledges is a very difficult one.
There is nothing in the world more unpleasant to an employer than having to shut down a plant where he has employed people for a number of years. There's a whole range of social relationships around that, which have been built up. It's obviously really tough on the employees. They may have to relocate. They may have to retrain for a new job in a different part of the company -- who knows? Closing a mill is something I'm sure everyone does with the greatest reluctance.
[1050]
I think that certainly over the past several years, there has been a growing appreciation that if we want to avoid more and more mill closures, we have to be competitive. My sense of this recommendation is that it would in fact add to the regulatory burden in British Columbia rather than ease it. The fact of the matter is that if someone's going to close a mill for compelling economic reasons, they're going to do it. We can do lots of things to try to mitigate the impact of that, but it's going to happen if economic or fibre-supply reasons are compelling them to close the operation. It seems to me, really, that this is another example of just trying to wrap too much red tape around a process that's already difficult enough. I invite the minister's view on that.
Hon. J. Doyle: Recommendation 6 on pages 68 and 69 is taking the mill closure review process and putting it into legislation. I would agree with the member that the process in place at the present time is working quite well. I went through a mill closure in my constituency in the community of Donald in the last years and know how painful it is. So the view of government is that the current process we have is working fine.
G. Abbott: I want to move on to part 4, "Making it Work," which is, I guess, effectively the implementation provisions in this section.
Recommendation 1 reads: "The government should undertake a comprehensive redefinition of the statutes, regulations, ministries and agencies responsible for forest activities." When I read this, I thought to myself: who would be the lucky official that would inherit this small job of undertaking a comprehensive redefinition of all those things? As it turns out, I think it might be one -- or perhaps both -- of the officials next to you. It almost seems like it's a request to redesign the world, which is going to be pretty onerous. What's the government's view with respect to recommendation 1?
Hon. J. Doyle: Our government's consideration of recommendation 1, on page 72, will probably be in the context of a long time frame.
G. Abbott: That's diplomatically put. It will be developed in the context of a long time frame. I would suspect so.
I think the recommendation goes in the right direction, because there are a whole bunch of things we can do better in terms of the management of the forest policy framework in British Columbia. We'll be getting to some of those a little later on in the estimates when, for example, we talk about the way the regulatory structure over the Forest Practices Code works, where we sort of have a multi-agency overview of the Forest Practices Code. I think the recommendation was likely aimed in the right direction, which is trying to clarify roles, reduce overlap and that kind of thing. That's commendable. It is phrased in a way which, I am sure, makes the bureaucratic heart almost stop beating. But that's fair enough.
[1055]
The second recommendation is: "The government, in support of the new market model, should take immediate action to: revise regulations, policies and administrative procedures; reduce the size of government by eliminating overlap and duplication of services; redesign and restructure Forest Renewal B.C. as set out in appendix C." Again, I think that's aimed in the right direction. Does the government have a view with respect to that?
Hon. J. Doyle: The government and the FRBC board will review this recommendation.
G. Abbott: Does the government also concur with the second bullet: "Reduce the size of government by eliminating overlap and duplication of services"?
I guess I'll ask this in the context of the forest policy framework, particularly where in some cases we have three or four different ministries with overview and oversight of particular aspects of the forest policy framework -- i.e., the Forest Practices Code. I think that's where Mr. Wouters is going in the second bullet. The minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's where I think he's going. I'm curious as to whether the government shares that view.
Hon. J. Doyle: Major government restructuring is a long-term as opposed to a short-term issue. However, government is always willing to address overlap and duplication of services, if specific examples can be identified.
G. Abbott: Running through the final points among the recommendations, we've discussed most of these, I think. I refer the minister to page 78 of the forest policy review. Recommendation 3 says: "The government should appoint a task force to review and recommend structures for local community-based decision-making with respect to land use planning, forest management and community diversification." In this case, it puts the responsibility for that into the
[ Page 15313 ]
hands of the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers, in consultation with Forest Renewal B.C. I think this is an example of where rather than clarifying, streamlining and simplifying roles and objectives in the province, we in fact add further complications. We muddy rather than streamline processes.
I'm particularly concerned given that, again, when it comes to the regulatory side of administering forests in British Columbia, we have many agencies and many ministries already involved. Here, it seems to me, we are throwing one more into the mix, suggesting that the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers should step in and design something around community-based decision-making. Again, I'll invite the minister to share with us whether he shares that apprehension as well.
Hon. J. Doyle: It is the opinion of the ministry that this recommendation is because this ministry has been charged with developing a one-window approach to community development.
G. Abbott: Generally, one-window approaches are always welcome. Unfortunately, when it comes to the forest policy framework in British Columbia, we already have a bewildering array of windows. I sense that another one is being opened here, in which somehow this ministry will become another part of the dazzling array of ministries and agencies that will have some say in how the forest policy framework is administered in the province. It may be fine from the perspective of this ministry going in and having one window around community development, but it seems to me that we are going to be further watering down the ability of the Ministry of Forests to manage its own forest policy framework. Again, I invite the minister to comment on that.
[1100]
Hon. J. Doyle: This recommendation is a recommendation of Mr. Wouters. It's something that government may not necessarily agree with if it's working just fine the way it is -- if it should stay in the Ministry of Forests versus being farmed out to some other ministry as far as the one-window approach, if at all possible, to delivering products to companies and communities.
G. Abbott: On this particular recommendation, I'm assuming that at some point the Ministry of Forests will be making some recommendations to broader cabinet about some or all of the provisions in Mr. Wouters's report. Presumably the Minister of Forests will come and say: "I suggest we embrace recommendations X, Y, Z but leave the remainder aside." Or perhaps the minister will embrace the whole thing. Who knows? Presumably at some point the minister will report to cabinet, cabinet will give some consideration to the recommendations of the Minister of Forests, there'll be discussion around the table, and then cabinet will report out and advise the public that they are proceeding with certain initiatives that were contained in the Wouters report. Is that the probable evolution of the Wouters report from here on in?
Hon. J. Doyle: I agree pretty well with what the member said. The report was received by government. We've asked for further input from industry and people throughout the province. When that consultation is through, recommendations will be going from my ministry to cabinet, and we may decide to accept one recommendation or many of them. We may cherry-pick it and say that there are a few of them that should go ahead and that others should be put on the shelf for a short or a long time.
G. Abbott: The final point I want to elicit some ministerial comment on is recommendation 3: "The government should establish an implementation of the report." The responsibility for that is directed to the deputy minister to the Premier. I gather that has not been done -- correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is no.
G. Abbott: In that particular case, the completion date anticipated by Mr. Wouters was April 30, 2000. In terms of meeting all the projected deadlines or dates set out by Mr. Wouters, I suspect from our discussion that that will be the first of many that we will not be meeting.
Does the Ministry of Forests have a view with respect to the establishment of an implementation commissioner? Anticipating the minister's response here, is it something that would only be considered after cabinet has done its due diligence around the contents of this report?
Hon. J. Doyle: Any decision on an implementation commissioner would be after due diligence is done on the report.
G. Abbott: Can the minister provide some estimation, if not a precise date, of when we will see either the Ministry of Forests or government generally reporting out on its evaluation and its decisions around implementation of this report?
[1105]
Hon. J. Doyle: Government is going to receive input, as I've mentioned a couple of times and we've spoken about, till roughly the end of the summer -- so hopefully very soon after that.
G. Abbott: So the reporting out is likely to be perhaps late August or September. I'm assuming that, in line with the possibility of a fall session, if anything's going to occur on this legislatively, it might be in a fall session. In any event, we're certainly looking at probably August-September before we see further discussion from the government's end with respect to this report. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: That sounds reasonable. Those are roughly the time lines that government is looking at.
G. Abbott: Unless the minister has anything further that he wishes to add with respect to the Wouters report, I don't believe any of my colleagues are looking to ask questions. We can move on to the forest action plan.
Hon. J. Doyle: The Wouters report was something that industry and communities and other people in the province asked to be done, especially during the downturn in the forest economy over the last couple of years. Mr. Wouters was given a mandate to go out there. He consulted with many, many people in the province. As was referred to by the member and other people in this House, many drafts were done -- as to
[ Page 15314 ]
what he thought he heard in the time travelling throughout the province or correspondence he had with individuals he met with. I think he did his best to put those into this final report.
I've asked, as I said, for further input from stakeholders and people throughout the province, and I look forward to that input. It would have been wrong of me to receive the report and say okay, let's close the door, because there are people out there with legitimate questions. Some love the report; some don't love the report. Many other people are somewhere in between; they like certain recommendations. I look forward to getting the continued input from people and stakeholders throughout the province and, at the end of the day, moving ahead with some of the recommendations made by Mr. Wouters -- or modified recommendations, after the input from people across the province.
G. Abbott: Beyond the report itself, there are a couple of questions to be asked. Perhaps in line with what the minister said, I should just note that there was a good deal of concern around the design of the forest policy review. There were a lot of concerns, effectively, about whether a one-man commissioner would provide the kind of analysis necessary to address some of the concerns that had emerged in the latter part of the 1990s, particularly around the forest policy in British Columbia.
In many ways, I think the apprehension about the process itself has been borne out around the content of the report. Again, I haven't spent a lot of time here criticizing the Wouters report. Government is still studying it, and I don't think it's going to be particularly valuable for me as a Forests critic to lambaste it. There are some useful recommendations in it. But overall, in my estimation -- I said this at the outset -- Garry attempted to take the dominant interests or stakeholders in the province and tried to juggle those interests in a way that tried to satisfy everyone and in the end really satisfied no one.
Certainly some of the comments since the release of the report have been in that direction. The Association of B.C. Professional Foresters, for example, is very critical of the report and its content and, in their case particularly, is critical of much discussion on the association's call for increased reliance on professional judgment as a means to ensure sound forest management.
[1110]
The Coast Forest and Lumber Association is certainly critical of the report's failure to address fundamental principles of economics and growth and failure to address the need for secured working forest land base. They're not happy with it. A coalition of industry and community groups from COFI, UBCM, B.C. Business Council, Truck Loggers Association and all the area associations, and so on, are all very critical of it -- of the failure to provide a real vision for the future of the province, failure to maintain and enhance the existing working forest base and failure to look at increasing the timber supply over time in an environmentally responsible fashion.
Again, there's no point in spending a lot of time dwelling on that, but needless to say, there has been a lot of critical comment about the content of it since the release of the report. At the heart of that is an attempt to do everything for everyone and in the end satisfy no one.
Hon. J. Doyle: The member did read out comments from different groups. I've heard the same comments from UBCM, industry and other people in the province, and I appreciate the groups communicating with myself or other people with their agreement or disagreement on the Wouters report.
What I've said to people -- and hopefully they do it -- is that if they agree with the report, tell us so; if they don't agree, that's fine. We live in a democracy. But I hope that anyone who has problems with any particular part of the recommendation or many recommendations in there, when they send in their criticisms of a certain recommendation, would also try to send in how they would see the recommendation being rewritten, or taken right out of Mr. Wouters's report altogether.
G. Abbott: Apart from the report, I have a few questions around the budget for the report. The total cost of the Wouters report was $501,585.40 -- just over half a million dollars. Who funded this? Was it the Ministry of Forests or Forest Renewal B.C., or some combination of that?
Hon. J. Doyle: Mr. Wouters's report was a combination of FRBC and the Ministry of Forests. The approximate cost of the report was half a million dollars.
G. Abbott: Could the minister provide what the breakdown in the costs was? Was it a 50-50 funding arrangement or other?
Hon. J. Doyle: The costs were approximately 50-50, FRBC and ministry.
G. Abbott: Most of the budget stuff is reasonably straightforward. One of the things that does puzzle me, though -- a couple of things puzzle me -- is that there are polling costs of $31,030. Does the minister know why we would have had polling as a part of this process, and are those polls available for public release today?
Hon. J. Doyle: Mr. Wouters did conduct polling just to find where people were at -- as to where he felt people were at -- and what recommendations he could put in his report. Those polls are available.
G. Abbott: The polls are available now. Do we need to access them through freedom of information, or can they be tabled in the House? What would be the situation there?
Hon. J. Doyle: The polls were not conducted by the Ministry of Forests, and we didn't say they were. They were conducted by Mr. Wouters, and they would be available through FOI.
G. Abbott: The budget -- the budget accounting, at least -- also includes a $25,000 expenditure for focus groups. Again, I'm puzzled why Mr. Wouters held workshops in a variety of locations around the province and certainly heard a lot of professional opinion about how to change the forest policy framework to make it better and more efficient and more streamlined and so on. I don't understand why he would want to expend 25 grand on focus groups. Perhaps the minister can enlighten me.
[1115]
Hon. J. Doyle: The focus groups that the member mentions and the $25,000 that was invested in the focus groups
[ Page 15315 ]
were done very, very early on when Mr. Wouters started work on his report, just to get some idea of what he should be doing when he went out to communicate with people.
G. Abbott: I'm not sure I can embrace that notion. Again, it seems to me that what needs to be done
Hon. J. Doyle: Following up on the member's question and the previous one on this issue, the focus groups, as I said, were done very, very early on. It was to focus on just what the issue would be when Mr. Wouters went out on the road -- just what questions would the public be asking and where people were at on this issue. Just for the member's information, I would be happy to make available to him the information that Mr. Wouters got from the focus groups.
G. Abbott: I'm not going to dwell on the point, but it seems to me that in a process like this
Hon. J. Doyle: Mr. Wouters made this call. He felt that the focus groups and the investment of $25,000 into that before he went on the road
Chair, noting the time, I would ask that we report progress and ask leave to sit again, because I understand that they want us to finish earlier today.
The Chair: I think we'll continue, minister.
[1120]
G. Abbott: Okay, so our situation's fine. We just continue on until further advice. Excellent. I'm delighted by that.
[Interruption.]
The Chair: Thank you, members. This is an evacuation order; it is a rehearsal. We will recess to the call of the Chair signalled by three rings of the division bell. Members will now evacuate the premises.
The committee recessed from 11:21 a.m. to 11:36 a.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
G. Abbott: While the minister's staff arrive, may I personally thank you, Chair, on behalf of, I'm sure, all members of the House for your immediate and powerful intervention on our behalf to secure our safe departure from the chamber and indeed from the building. I know I felt complete confidence in your judgment as we departed from here by the most efficient route during the recent fire drill.
So moving on
The Chair: I just want to thank you for that acknowledgment, member. I'm glad we all were able to return in safety.
G. Abbott: I am as well -- and thank you for that.
We're on to the B.C. forest action plan. What I just want to do in this
The first commitment is around boosting B.C.'s value-added and independent wood-manufacturing sectors. Commitment 1 was: "About 20 million cubic metres of wood is expected to be offered to small business operators over the next two years." Has that objective been met, or are we on schedule to ensure that it happens?
Hon. J. Doyle: On this issue
I would like to say that I would also like to commend the Chair on the quick work he did in getting the members out, and I hope that the opposition critic got Shep out of here safely.
The Chair: Well, it's truly humbling to get all of this encouragement. If we do this again, I certainly know how to conduct it.
G. Abbott: Can the minister advise how the
Hon. J. Doyle: If we could ask the member to further define just what it is -- what part of the estimates. Is it the undercut in the small business, or is it the wood fibre transfer that he's alluding to in his question?
G. Abbott: Just so we're clear, I'm referring to this document entitled "B.C.'s Forest Action Plan," which is a publication of the Ministry of Forests. It enumerates the commitments they made in this report. I don't actually see the report being dated; I think it's likely around January '99, but that's not clear to me. Again, when I'm looking at this, I'm assuming that we're talking of the small business program being used to provide additional wood to value-added and independent wood-manufacturing enterprises.
I guess you need the document, perhaps, to be able to respond. Is that right?
[ Page 15316 ]
[1140]
Hon. J. Doyle: We're just checking with staff whether we have the document. If we don't have it for some reason, maybe we could get on to that in the afternoon. Just give us a minute, and we should know whether we have the document in the Cedar Room.
G. Abbott: I'll pose a question here which is on the second point in it. This may be possible to answer without the actual document. The second commitment that's made in the forest action plan under the bullet "Stabilizing B.C.'s Forest Industry" states: "New measures will reduce administrative requirements for companies and improve their cash flow. Specific action includes: changing utilization standards -- making sure that professional foresters and loggers, not just government regulations, determine whether lower-grade timber should be removed or left on logging sites
Now, I think this was an appropriate commitment around utilization and waste standards and so on. Has that been embodied in permanent regulation, or is it a year-to-year commitment on the part of the ministry?
Hon. J. Doyle: This was put in place on January 1, 1999, and the ministry reviews it every six months.
G. Abbott: Put in place in January of '99 and reviewed every six months
Hon. J. Doyle: The ministry is aware that this is a sensitive issue, so we want to review it on a regular basis. That's why it is every six months.
G. Abbott: Some of the other commitments that were made under this particular section include: "
Hon. J. Doyle: It was one time only, mostly because of the fire in the Salmon Arm area, which the member is very familiar with.
G. Abbott: That was a one-off commitment. I'm very familiar with the Salmon Arm fire, and certainly this commitment was useful in dealing with that. I would expect that in the course of events we will again, at some point, have another hot, dry summer and have another big forest fire somewhere -- hopefully not in my constituency. But we will have one somewhere. Again, the issues around water-bedding
Hon. J. Doyle: This was put in place for a one-time-only event. If there are fires or other unforeseen circumstances where we need to put this in place, we'll put it in place again.
[1145]
G. Abbott: So it can't be put in place by policy.
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, it could be put in place by policy. We decided to do it on a fire-by-fire or occasion-by-occasion basis.
G. Abbott: The next bullet is "
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, this has been implemented.
G. Abbott: The final bullet in that particular section says: "
On the same page under the third section, entitled "Supporting Communities and Workers," there's a commitment for $100 million over two years to support forest communities and workers, and it talks about new transition adjustment assistance and so on. Has that actually gone ahead, or did that founder on the failure to get a federal agreement with regard to that?
Hon. J. Doyle: This is money that FRBC has committed for forest worker training and community diversification.
G. Abbott: There is also, as part of the plan, an initiative to stimulate small-scale salvage. It involves reducing stumpage rates on smaller volumes, allowing for direct-award sales for smaller volumes, etc. I know we're going to be dealing with small-scale salvage a little later on anyway. But was that small-scale salvage initiative something that, again, was a six-month initiative with possible renewability? Or is it a permanent change to the policy framework?
Hon. J. Doyle: Permanent policy changes were made on this segment.
Chair, noting the time, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
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. G. Bowbrick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
[ Page 15317 ]
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:19 a.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 going through some of the goals and objectives in performance measures, and I had made a plea for including in that exercise -- which I think is a good one that the ministry has begun, and now it's a question, I think, of refining it and making it more meaningful and more useful as a measurement tool
[1020]
If we look at the objective the ministry has set for itself regarding public awareness, it has determined that one of its prime objectives through the coming year is to maintain public awareness and support for the treaty process. The ministry says we should gauge its success in achieving that objective through several indicators. Let me first ask about the objective itself. Is the ministry of the view that support for the treaty process is increasing or decreasing? I wonder what thoughts, what concerns gave rise to the inclusion of that objective in the first place.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think I'll start with the last part of the question: what gave rise to it? I think it's an absolutely fair conclusion to assert that we will only be able to negotiate treaties in this province if indeed we have significant support on the part of the public. We therefore see it as part of our mission to try to keep the public informed so that they will come to the conclusion that treaty negotiation will ultimately be in the interest of all of the people of the province.
In terms of measurements, I suppose polling data is what's going to tell what the support level is. My own sense for the other part of the member's question, in terms of gone up, gone down, about the same is that I think it's probably been reasonably constant. I think the overall opinion of the public, based on my analysis of past information we've had, is: "Yeah, we agree with the concept but show me, because I am still apprehensive, and I wonder at the end of the day what's it going to look like and all of that."
I think most people have indeed made the cultural leap, if you will, to recognize that the good old days were not so good and that we can't carry on that way. We have to do something about resolving land claims in this province. I think my colleagues on the other side have also articulated that conclusion more than once.
M. de Jong: The minister referred to employment of polling as a tool -- one tool that can be used to gauge success or lack of success. Has the ministry polled, in the past year, around the public support for the treaty process, and does it plan to do so in the coming year?
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no. Government certainly has done some polling, and there may well be questions that are germane and relevant to the issue of treaty settlement in the province, but the ministry itself has not done it.
M. de Jong: If those kinds of questions have been asked as part of a broader polling strategy to the extent that the minister and the ministry are aware of when those polls have occurred over the past 12 months, that would be useful information -- and whether or not those results have been made public. Similarly, would government in the future
[1025]
Hon. D. Lovick: The responsibility for polling falls under the aegis of the government policy and communications office. If that body undertakes polling with questions that are specifically pertaining to aboriginal affairs, then indeed there will be consultation with us.
M. de Jong: Dealing, then, with the past 12 months, has there been cause for that degree of coordination to take place? That is, have questions of those sorts been developed and polled around by the policy office? The ministry does, as part of its budget, have a communications function and spends money in that respect. Has it used, in the past, data that has been collected from that broader polling function in designing communications strategies and communications programs?
Hon. D. Lovick: To the first question regarding any specific questions, no, there haven't been. I think the question was actually based on: given the comments about whether the process is working, etc., had we thereafter commissioned particular questions or something? My information is no. I believe from memory -- and I can check with staff -- that the standard polling questions were two broadly generic ones -- namely, essentially public awareness of the treaty process: "Are you aware that the B.C. Treaty Commission exists and that they're doing this," that sort of thing. The other was: "Generally, do you support the idea of trying to negotiate treaties?" Those are the broad generic ones. I think those are probably questions that government would revisit on a regular basis. That's the standard polling approach.
M. de Jong: That might be useful information to have. Does the government ask those questions as part of a quarterly or biannual poll? Do those general questions get asked by government in a poll on a yearly basis? If it does, then that is a moderately interesting statistic as it relates to the objective that the government has set for itself in its business plan. Is that information available as a way of tracking over the past year or two and into the future?
Hon. D. Lovick: My information is that there isn't a regular quarterly polling on those questions. To the issue of availability of those results, that's the judgment, ultimately, of GPCO rather than this individual ministry.
M. de Jong: Is the minister in a position to verify whether or not, over the past 12 months, the questions we have been
[ Page 15318 ]
referring to? That is, the general questions around public awareness and around support for the treaty process have been polled anywhere in government. If he's able to obtain that information, is he aware of any argument that might support withholding that information? Is there something I'm missing with respect to why that wouldn't be made public as a matter of course?
[1030]
Hon. D. Lovick: First, I'm not aware of anything specifically in the last 12 months, and I stand to be corrected on that. I think staff is looking to see if that is indeed the case. Second, any answer I would give would be entirely speculative on my part. Given that I don't have that responsibility, I'm not in a position to say here is why or why not that information might or might not be released.
M. de Jong: Then maybe, more fairly, I should ask a question in a way that would bring it entirely within the minister's area of jurisdiction. It sounds like what happens is that another administrative arm of government conducts polling. Presumably in the area of aboriginal affairs, they would make that polling data available to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Is the minister prepared to undertake today that were polling data around the two general questions we've been discussing made available to him from other agencies within government, he would release that information to the public as a means of facilitating the measurement of the objectives the ministry has set for itself?
Hon. D. Lovick: I can't make that commitment on behalf of government. Obviously I would have to consult with my colleagues. That would ultimately be a cabinet decision, I suppose. Whatever my preferences might be, I simply am not empowered to make that decision or to give that confirmation to the member.
I also want -- if I might, while I'm on my feet -- to clarify ever so briefly. The deputy minister has just advised me that he recalls we did indeed review some polling results within the last 12 months. As I said, I wasn't sure we had, but apparently we did.
M. de Jong: That was polling data created internal to the ministry or received from other agencies in government.
Hon. D. Lovick: The latter.
M. de Jong: That would be from which branch of government?
Hon. D. Lovick: That would be GPCO, government policy and communications office.
M. de Jong: Just to confirm, is the minister saying that there is no provision within the ministerial budget for the coming year for any public funds, as part of this vote in the ministry budget, to be spent on public opinion surveying, and therefore the ministry will be conducting no public opinion surveying in the coming year?
Hon. D. Lovick: We do have some money budgeted for that purpose, but we haven't, at the moment, devised any plan to use it. It may be the case that we would conduct a small poll, perhaps an issues-specific one. It may be that we would purchase a question and contribute to a governmentwide poll, or something like that. But at the moment, no, there are no particular plans to do so.
M. de Jong: I think the staff have anticipated the next question, which is numerical in nature. What amount is that for the coming fiscal year?
[1035]
Hon. D. Lovick: We don't have a specific STOB item for polling per se. What we have, however, is a broader STOB for communication. That, of course, concerns mailings and, I guess, purchased advertising and things of that sort. We will get the figures as quickly as we can for the member.
M. de Jong: Okay, that's fine. It sounds like what the minister's telling me is that internal to the ministry there is a figure from within the communications STOB that has been allocated for use in public opinion surveying and that that figure will be disclosed at some point, maybe more quickly than we think -- or perhaps not.
Hon. D. Lovick: We're still trying to break out for the specific information, but I'm sure the member would be interested to note that under the "Corporate Services" subvote there is an item called communications branch supporting nine full-time-equivalent employees, and the total budget for that is $1.175 million. Within that would be embraced some amount suggestibly stipulated or allocated for public information-gathering.
M. de Jong: I don't want to rush the staff, so if they need some more time, this is one of those accountability figures that
If I can return to the general discussion we were having around polling
Hon. D. Lovick: First, let me just point out that I can get a little more refined than that aggregate figure. There is no such thing as a particular figure for polling -- right? Rather, it falls, as I say, within that larger budget -- the huge, preponderant amount of which, of course, is going to be salary and staff.
[1040]
It's worth noting, as well
[ Page 15319 ]
is $200,000 less than it was last year. The third point is that there is a category within that communications budget called professional services. Within that amount there may well be a decision made to purchase a polling question. The magnitude, if you like, of money that would be spent, in terms of polling, is really pretty small, but that doesn't mean insignificant.
Back to the point, though. That money is there, as I say, for what we call professional services under that communications umbrella. More particularly, to answer the member's question, no such decision has been made in terms of whether we will purchase polling questions, and so forth.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I just realized
M. de Jong: The second part of the question related to the criteria, the indicia that we should look to a year from now as a measure of achievement or lack of achievement.
Hon. D. Lovick: We think there are a number of measures that, perhaps imperfectly, give us an answer to the member's question, but I think cumulatively and collectively do provide us pretty good information.
First, the public sessions. Last year, for example, we had 316 regional advisory committee and treaty advisory committee meetings. Pretty obviously those will tell us something about public awareness as well as acceptance. We will gauge, on the basis of what we perceive happening at those meetings, answers to those two questions: (a) awareness and (b) support.
Second, we do of course monitor the media. That's part of the communication branch's mandate and duty. We also monitor public attendance at negotiating sessions and all of those meetings. We also gauge it to a degree simply on the basis of the kinds of questions, support or concerns expressed at the meetings of the TNAC -- the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee -- main table, which meets pretty regularly in Vancouver.
As well, we have the various regional advisory committees and the treaty advisory committees. Where do we see the support there? As the member knows, the history of that has been sort of an up-and-down one. I think we're probably at the point now -- having grown the culture of treaty settlement in this province, to some degree at least -- that it's probably a more or less solid state of support. How you quantify that without polling data, I'm not sure. But I think we feel that we are proceeding on the assumption, if you like, that we have sort of crossed the barrier, where most of those who are involved in the process recognize that it is legitimate and worth their while and necessary.
M. de Jong: The government, I think, devoted relatively significant resources to polling and gauging public opinion around, originally, the Nisga'a AIP and then later the final treaty. Is the minister prepared to say now whether or not he would expect public opinion surveys to take place around the next agreement-in-principle? I think we've talked about the possibility that one would arise at some point through the coming year.
[1045]
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, that will obviously be a judgment call depending on the circumstances. I can say this: it will be within budget. We won't do anything other than work within the normal allocations of money for that kind of polling process.
M. de Jong: Last question around this issue, on the money that the province contributes to the Treaty Commission. Does the Treaty Commission, to the minister's knowledge, engage in public opinion survey?
Hon. D. Lovick: We're talking to two assistant deputy ministers and the deputy in answering this question, and we are all saying that, to the best of our knowledge, BCTC doesn't undertake polling.
M. de Jong: Well, I guess that's something we can ascertain. If in fact that is the case, presumably there is an expectation that the government would receive the benefit of reviewing the results. Maybe that's something the minister can indicate that he's prepared to consult with the commission on.
Hon. D. Lovick: We have not been provided with any polling data from the B.C. Treaty Commission, but certainly we can check and see if indeed there's something there. The member is quite correct. If indeed they have done so, you would think that they would share it with us.
M. de Jong: The next objective listed is to facilitate agreements with first nations. I take it that it contemplates agreements different than comprehensive land claims agreements, which are referred to in the original, in the first bullet. Broadly speaking, the minister can explain how this differs from what types of agreements are envisioned here.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member's correct that these are not the same as the other category we were discussing, in terms of a more comprehensive agreement as part of a treaty process. These are broadly
In 1999 we signed four formal agreements. Three of those, I believe, were related to the Clayoquot extension of the interim measures agreement -- that big one. We hope to see three non-treaty agreements signed this coming year. Unlike the B.C. Treaty Commission process, it's worth noting, for the member's information, that these are negotiated without a clear process. Therefore the negotiations are often volatile. We're a little reluctant to state the names of the negotiations that we think will come to a successful conclusion, simply because the negotiations are, as I say, volatile. And it may have some kind of impact on our ability to conclude those agreements.
M. de Jong: The indicia referred to under the heading include a desire to see "increased first nations economic development." We'll get to that in a moment as part of something else in this document. However, if the minister is reluctant -- to prod him a little bit -- to specify the names of the bands involved in the three agreements that he has referred to, is he able to offer a description of the types of activities, the issues, that those anticipated agreements would deal with?
[1050]
[ Page 15320 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: I'll give you an example, if I might, of the kind of thing we're talking about by these formal agreements. Land exchanges are one example, and we're working on a couple of those. As I say, for the reason I gave a moment ago, I am reluctant to be too specific.
The other area is to settle some very contentious issues, some of the really difficult ones such as interim measures, more particularly forestry-related, like providing flow of fibre to a first nation. A good example of that one, where we at least set up the framework to do so, was the agreement we signed just recently with the Wet'suwet'en. That was essentially a political accord but says: "Here's how the two sides will work together to do something to ensure that there are interim measures -- benefits flowing into that territory." That's an example of a kind of agreement we made.
M. de Jong: Would all of those kinds of agreements, protocols, accords be made public as a matter of course, as at their signing? Or is there an example of such an agreement -- an interim agreement, an interim accord -- which the minister or his staff can think of that the government would take the position on -- either should not become public at all or should not become public immediately at the time it is signed off by the parties?
Hon. D. Lovick: I am happy to advise the member that the process is even more open and public than his question would indicate he anticipated. Before the agreement is signed, indeed, the stakeholders and the public would be informed that we are on the verge of or about to sign. We make it as open and as public as we can.
M. de Jong: Okay. As part of the exercise of trying to get government on the record, I guess what I'm driving at is that the minister then tells me that under no circumstance should the public or the Legislature find itself in a position where it discovers an agreement or protocol -- or the existence of an agreement or protocol -- between the province of B.C. and a first nation six months after the fact, whether it's a land exchange, whether it's an agreement for a purchase of land -- and that can be awfully contentious. Governments have certainly in the past suggested that there was an interest in not having that kind of an agreement in the public domain.
If the ministry -- a minister -- takes the position that there could be circumstances in which any agreement relating to immediate or future action between government and first nations shouldn't be made public, now is the time to say it. We will undoubtedly refer back to these words, if anyone discovers in the future that such a secret protocol agreement exists.
[1055]
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm given a little legal advice in answering this question. As far as we know, everything we have done or are contemplating doing would be subject to that openness principle of the kind that we spell out in the treaty process itself. I'm saying that that also obtains for these kinds of agreements we're talking about.
I'm cautioned, however, by the ADM that from the legal perspective, the Privacy Act
M. de Jong: That is an observation, a scenario, that I hadn't thought of. So that's helpful. The other thing that occurred to me as I was thinking about this is that the context within which this might come into play is probably less likely to be in a formal treaty table discussion. It is more likely to be in one of those crisis situations that might develop.
What I'm trying to preclude from happening is that, as a function of settling that very public dispute that might exist -- it might be a roadblock, and it might be alleged illegal logging activity or mineral extraction or fishing issues -- some manner of quiet protocol is established. Under the glare of the public eye, the parties decide: "Well, the blockade will come down, and we'll just say we've reached an understanding." Yet there will be something that goes beyond an understanding.
Maybe the test is anything that imposes a future obligation on government, of any sort. It might not be monetary; it might be an obligation to conduct future meetings and future consultation. That's what I'm really driving here. The minister and ministry, better than I, can contemplate circumstances in very contentious, crisis-driven negotiations where that kind of thing takes place. So I want to refer specifically to that and derive, to the extent I can, an undertaking from the minister that all of those sorts of agreements, to the extent that they might arise, would be made public as well.
Hon. D. Lovick: Our basic principle is that local government and stakeholders will be involved in decisions, even those that, as the member suggests, might be in response to crises. The example I would give of that -- it's not quite a crisis, but it could have been, I suppose -- is the Wet'suwet'en. It was a political accord that effectively talked about an obligation to work with the Wet'suwet'en people before decisions are made. It's precisely the kind of example the member was referring to.
So there's a good example of the openness of that. It was certainly known to the stakeholders in advance. Indeed, we had considerable buy-in from the surrounding communities, non-aboriginal communities. Needless to say, we quite proudly went there and told the world about what we'd accomplished.
M. de Jong: Hopefully, a last crack at this. Here's the situation that I would hope we could avoid. That is that as a result of a very public dispute -- let's take a roadblock; that's one that's sadly easy for all of us imagine -- the roadblock comes down. Six months or a year later we've got another roadblock, and the allegation is this: government didn't follow through on its promises -- right? In fact, I think there are examples where that gave rise to the original roadblock.
So if there is an exchange of letters. That's why I said that what I'm interested in is where government assumes obligations to do something in the future that is tied to, in this case, for example, the dismantling of a roadblock. That's an agreement, and it's certainly an agreement that's designed to facilitate better relations with first nations.
[1100]
[ Page 15321 ]
I think the government can make its life easier if it not only says but follows through on an undertaking that whatever obligations we assume with respect to that type of negotiations, it will be public. The group that comes along later and says, "You haven't upheld your end of the bargain, government," can say with some credibility: "Well, there was no bargain. We assume no obligations." That's perhaps the kind of situation I'm thinking about. It might just be an exchange of letters. It might simply be a letter from the ministry to another group. But it is an agreement, and it does imply future obligations.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think that what the member is asking us to do, or hoping that we do, we are in fact doing. Let me give the very particular and specific example of a roadblock or a blockade at the moment, namely the Cheam situation.
First of all, we have an exchange of letters with the Cheam people saying, "Here's what we are prepared to do, and here's what they have agreed to do with us" -- point 1. Point 2 on that situation is that all of the component parts of the deal -- of the arrangement, of the agreement -- have been made very clearly known to the non-aboriginal stakeholders -- i.e., local government and other interests within the community. So that tends to be in fact the standard model that we use. I think I can put it that way -- right? That is the model we use.
M. de Jong: Okay. I am going to move on after simply making this last submission that the minister doesn't necessarily need to respond to. That is, to whatever extent the government can formalize that process within the public domain so that as these at times very acrimonious and very public disputes resolve themselves, the lingering feeling that somehow government has made some quiet promises to get an issue out of the public limelight doesn't exist
But where there is this lingering suspicion that government has tried to end a crisis, and there's something we're not being told, the public has that feeling. So formalizing that process -- articulating in clear unambiguous terms what the arrangement is that gives rise to the dismantling of the roadblock, the ending of the logging arrangement, whatever it is -- is, I think, something that will serve everyone at the end of the day.
The ministry talks about its desire to reach an objective of working with both Canada and first nations to settle specific cut-off and adhesion claims. Just a quick question, and I don't know how simple it is: which ones are pending insofar as specific cut-off and adhesions?
Hon. D. Lovick: We have
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. One gets caught up in the rush of these things.
We have three targeted at the moment, in terms of agreements. The Squamish cut-off, Seaton Lake and Upper Similkameen are the three.
M. de Jong: No other pending adhesion claims at the moment?
Hon. D. Lovick: No.
[1105]
M. de Jong: I'm now on what is referred to as goal 2, and that is to facilitate aboriginal social and economic development -- my page 7 in the document that I have.
I thought we might just spend a little bit of time again trying to pin the government down on what it will regard as satisfactory progress in these areas. But the first objective is to create or expand aboriginal small business. Some indicia are listed here: number of aboriginal small businesses created or expanded. What kind of data do we have today? We want to expand the number of small businesses. How many have we got today? Who keeps those stats? Where is the benchmark that we are going to measure from?
Hon. D. Lovick: The body that we work with to achieve this particular objective is called NEDAB -- the Native Economic Development Advisory Board. They are the ones, of course, that keep the records, but certainly we have them. I believe we assisted 133 businesses in the past year, and we expect to either maintain that number or perhaps even increase that number. The number of jobs created from that
M. de Jong: The Native Economic Development Advisory Board -- is that a federally funded agency? Is it a federal agency, or is it a
Hon. D. Lovick: This one is entirely us; the feds aren't involved in this one. Perhaps if the member wishes, I can give him some more detail on it. I've met with these people a couple of times, and they are an interesting group indeed. The group is made up of representatives from the various regions in the province, those who have some track record of success in the business world. They're very energetic indeed. They meet at least four times each year. They provide advice to me, as well as to other provincial ministers and agencies, regarding what they perceive to be the needs and where we ought to be devoting our attention to encourage and promote the objectives. Yeah, as I say, the committee consists of aboriginal business leaders from each of the province's eight development regions.
M. de Jong: Is that board involved in
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm just checking my memory on that. I have signed off on appointments. What happens is that the recommendation comes to us, and then we do the formal appointment.
M. de Jong: Funding to that agency from the ministry totals what amount?
Hon. D. Lovick: The funding is done by the NEDAB organization receiving the interest on the First Citizens Fund capital amount. The capital is about $25 million, and that generated last year, I believe, $2.7 million. So that's what's available to NEDAB.
[ Page 15322 ]
M. de Jong: That's also helpful. So that body, then, in addition to covering whatever administrative costs are part and parcel of its existence, is actually involved in making recommendations and in the disbursal of funds to small business. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
M. de Jong: So the statistics that we would be using to rate success here
[1110]
Hon. D. Lovick: If I understand the member's question, he wants to know whether in fact NEDAB is aware and keeping track of all of those things. The answer is yes. I would point out, though, that there will be other economic development initiatives that first nations will undertake without reference to NEDAB, I am sure. So there may be other entrepreneurial kinds of activities that happen on the reserve sui generis.
M. de Jong: Would it be fair, then, to say that a year from now we should look at the figures provided by this board and if they have gone up from the numbers that the minister has referred to today, we can take that as a sign of positive progress? Conversely, if they have remained stagnant or gone down, that will be a sign that the strategies -- and we'll talk about that in a moment -- that both the board and the government have employed have been less successful and should be reviewed.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. I guess what we're talking about is a cumulative number. We are not looking at 133 businesses constant forever, but rather as the years go by, it expands the number of successful businesses. Presumably, what we're trying to do is maintain sustainable economic activity in the aboriginal communities. That is indeed one of the goals of NEDAB.
M. de Jong: Where does the minister think the greatest potential lies? This might change. It might be fair to distinguish between certain regions of the province. More urban-based first nations people obviously have different opportunities and, I think one could even say, a wider range of opportunities than more isolated bands and groups. Beyond simply doling out the proceeds of the First Citizens Fund, what strategy, if any, does the board apply towards achieving its objective? Does it have a strategy, or does it have an approach as to where and how it thinks those moneys are best applied to expand the range of involvement of first nations people in the small business realm?
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is yes, but I think I should expand beyond saying that. The board's goals -- its objectives -- are rather broad, but clearly they are in the business of choosing those individuals and entities that they think have the greatest chance of success and therefore offering support. I think it's safe to say that they're obviously making the assumption that this is indeed the best bang for the buck -- to use that awful phrase.
Broadly put, their goals are as follows: (l) to promote aboriginal business development throughout the province, (2) to increase training and skills upgrading opportunities for B.C.'s aboriginal populations, (3) to enhance employment opportunities for B.C.'s aboriginal population, (4) to promote the capacity development of aboriginal people throughout B.C., and (5) to promote the socioeconomic self-reliance of aboriginal people in B.C.
I agree that those are broad goals, but within them I think it's safe to say that NEDAB will also have its own set of criteria when it interviews and reviews applications that come before it for support.
[1115]
M. de Jong: I wonder if we can just talk about the relationship between that group and the First Citizens Fund. I think that is the fund being administered here. Does the Native Economic Development Advisory Board act as the advisory body or trustee for that entire fund, which I understand funds programs in four different areas: friendship centres, student bursaries, elders transportation and business loan program? Does it have responsibility in all four of those areas for the total fund? Or is it limited to one or two or three aspects of what that fund is responsible for doing?
Hon. D. Lovick: NEDAB's responsibility is restricted to the loan portion.
M. de Jong: Does the advisory board publish and provide the ministry with a budget of its operations? Is that available?
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes. The answer to the member's question is yes. They do provide us with that information. We understand that their budget for administration was $36,000.
M. de Jong: If I just try to come to terms with how the business loan program is administered, applications would come to the First Citizens Fund -- to the ministry, I take it -- and then be forwarded on to the Native Economic Development Advisory Board for review by that board. If I'm an aboriginal person trying to operate a small business and I want to access the First Citizens Fund business loan program, how do I do that?
Hon. D. Lovick: Let me give the member more detailed information than he probably wants. To talk about the administration of that loan fund, the advisory board is indeed the one that reviews how the money will be distributed. But the administration of that fund is, rather, given to or assigned to ANTCO, the All Nations Trust Co., under contract with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. ANTCO currently administers the business loan program. It's located in Kamloops and is the only registered aboriginal trust company in the province. It has several subcontracts in place with other aboriginal capital corporations. These subcontractors also provide First Citizens Fund loans and have helped diversify and strengthen the
[ Page 15323 ]
delivery mechanism of the loan program. The subcontractors have also assisted in developing the organizational capacity of other aboriginal organizations.
M. de Jong: In a moment I'll ask about the business loan program, and some of the questions will be about the amount that was loaned out in the past year -- success rate, failure rate, default rate, what that means and what the implications are for all that. Before we get into that, can I just ask: what safeguards are in place? Are the people making the decisions regarding the disbursal of the funds covered by something roughly equating with the conflict regulations that municipal officials or members of the Legislature or senior civil servants -- government -- might be
[1120]
Hon. D. Lovick: The statute that governs all of this operation is the Financial Administration Act, and indeed that is the act that provides
[Interruption.]
Hon. D. Lovick: Those policies regulate all provincial expenditures, including those to first nations.
The Chair: Members, we would entertain the motion to rise and report progress.
Interjection.
The Chair: The motion before you is to rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:22 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada