Periodical
[Information Newsletter – Forest Policy Advisory Committee Hearing & B.C. Forest Act (1977)]
- Title
- [Information Newsletter – Forest Policy Advisory Committee Hearing & B.C. Forest Act (1977)]
- Is Part Of
- 1.06-01.08 Union of BC Indian Chiefs Newsletter
- 1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series
- Date
- 1977-10-20
- Language
- english
- Identifier
- 1.06-01.08-14.02
- pages
- 12
- Type
- periodical
- Transcription (Hover to view)
-
...-WE ARE SENDING YOU THIS INFORMATION NEWSLETTER TO BRING YOU t!P TO
TF ON WHAT HAPPENED AT YOUR ORGANIZATIONS' HEARING WITH THE FOREST
LICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Wednesday, September 21st, 1977, Vancouver.
250 INCLUDED IS A NEWSPAPER CLIPPING WHICH CAME OUT AT A LATER DATE AND
JANFORMS US THAT WE GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE NEW B.C. FOREST
—qACT BEFORE IT GETS DEBATED IN THE HOUSE. WE URGE YOU TO SEND YOUR COM-
MENTS AND SUGGESTIONS IN ORDER TO DO FOLLOW-UP BEFORE JANUARY 1978.
mectober 20th, 1977
In March of this year it was brought to our attention by member
Chiefs of your Organization that the Pearse Commission Report
was to be reviewed with the plan in mind of recommending to
your government methods of managing forestry resources in Bek.
We naturally became very concerned about this because Indian
people have always been deprived the Opportunity of presenting
our views in terms of our forestry needs for housing,
community
facilities and business development.
We asked the Forest Policy
Advisory Committee to extend their deadline to permit our people
the fair chance of presenting our views and recommendations.
They extended their deadline and we immediatel
y started contacting
Bands,
especially those who we thought were still able to get into
the forestry resource if given the Opportunity. I learned from
phoning around to Bands that there are some places where there
are no more trees. This was very sad news for me but these Bands
Still contributed many good ideas suggesting how to Prevent this
from happening to other Bands.
There was one band, the McLeod Lake Band,
who presented the PiP.A.
Committee with three Submissions.
They sent us a copy and we
compiled many of their ideas with the information sent by other
Bands to put in an over-all brief,
We presented our report on Wednesday,
september 21st, 1977 in
Vancouver,
Although the Forest Policy Advisory Committee could
not make any commitments they told our representatives that
they will recommend that a new Clause be added enabling Indian
people a better opportunity to Participate in Forestry.
need to do some follow
consideration.
Now we
“up emphasizing the importance of such a
We are giving you the Opportunity to read the
brief we presented on your behalf and invite you to send
uS any
Criticisms and comments.
This is not a dead issue even though
where te Still a Tot or work to be done
Sitting down and Stating your ideas and views on
this could make all the difference in the world for our future
Indian children.
we've had our hearing.
by each of us.
Submission to the Forest Policy Advisory Committee
by
The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs
Timber Rights and Forest Policy in British Columbia--the Report
of the Royal Commission on Forest Resources--deals with a number of
matters of vital interest and importance to the native people of this
province. In this regard, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs
is pleased to have this opportunity to make known to the Forest Policy
Advisory Committee the views of its members regarding proposed changes
in forest policy.
The overall objective of our group is to protect the rights of
Indian people and to develop those rights that have been eroded. We
represent 180 of the 192 Indian Bands in British Columbia and approx-
imately 49,000 of the 56,000 status Indians in the province.
At one time the forest provided all of the basic requirements of
our existence--food, shelter, clothing, fuel and tools. Now, even
though most of this land is held in title by the Crown provincial, it.
continues to serve as the basis for activities such as fishing, eee
and trapping which provide employment and income opportunities, in
addition to supplementing our food supplies. In the past, changes in
the patterns of use of this land have threatened our way of life.
Changes now proposed for the regulations governing the use of this land
offer a prime opportunity to moderate the conflicts between resource
users and to enhance the opportunities for native participation in the
forest industry.
The lifestyle of British Columbia's native people is character-
ized by economic depravity: unemployment rates in most areas of the
province are above 50 percent and there is a severe and widespread
shortage of adequate housing. At the same time, a large percentage of
our population are young people. The result is that the need to create
employment opportunities and to provide housing is becoming even more
crucial i
BTS
We are not opposed to timber development pex se nor do we wish
to threaten the existence of the established timber companies. We
have found, however, that logging conflicts with traditional native use
of the forest without providing stable long-term employment opportunit—
ies in return. In this regard, one of the basic objectives of our
people is to establish an economic base in the forest industry. We
envisage native-controlled harvesting rights that are Managed on the
basis of sustained yield as providing the foundation for the economic
and social development so necessary in the Indian communities in British
Columbia while, at the same time, allowing our people to regain control
over their own destiny.
A number of our members made submissions to the Pearse Commission
and some have discussed their positions with your Committee. This brief
is designed to provide a general overview of the matters considered
important by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and to take a
position with respect to native xights and native needs in the re-
structuring of British Columbia's forest policy. A number of points
are of importance.
1. Native Land Claims
In the first place we are disappointed that the Commissioner did
not address himself to the issue of native land claims. The validity
of these claims has been recognized by both the federal and provincial
governments and commitments have been received from both to expedite
settlement. While the Commission's Terms of Reference could be inter-
preted to exclude this matter, it is clear that settlement is funda-
mental to the ability of the Crown provincial to continue to assign =
timber harvesting or other proprietary xights to third parties. In
this regard, we strongly urge that a moratorium be declared on the
renewal or granting of all forms of timber harvesting licence until
such time as agreement is reached between the Indians of British
Columbia and the federal and provincial governments in recognition of
native title. Again we reiterate that it is not our intention to stop
development. Rather it is our desire to ensure that the issue is not
further complicated by continued land alienations. Importantly, this
position is entirely consistent with the recommendations of “the
MacKenzie Valley and Alaska Highway Pipeline Inquiries and with the
recent Canada-U.S. pipeline agreement.
2. Timber Allocations
Without prejudice to the issue of native claims, it is the posi-
tion of our group that means must be found within the timber licensing
system to provide native people with the opportunity to participate
in Crown timber development. In this regard, comments on a number of
the Commissioner's recommendations are appropriate.
2.1. Tree-farm Licences and Farm Wood-lot Licences
Specific reference to Indian Bands was made in two instances:
first, in terms of the possibility of combining Indian reserve land
with Crown land to form Tree-farm Licences; and second, in terms of
Indian Bands being eligible to receive Farm Wood-lot Licences. While
we agree in principle with the recommendation pertaining to Tree-farm
Licences and feel that it would provide an excellent opportunity for
stable, long-term involvement in the industry, a number of factors and
conditions render the proposal virtually inapplicable to native people.
Most importantly, the size of Indian reserves and the volume and
quality of merchantable timber contained on them are such that
efficient-sized land parcels could not be arranged in most cases if the
proposed 50 percent ‘Schedule A' allowable annual cut contribution was
xigidly imposed. Only 12 percent of the more than 1600 reserves in
B.C. exceed one square mile in size and others cover as little as 5
ee Peet ct mace ttt aennte tn Panne its mien i,
Tae
acres. Even the largest reserve, located near Penticton, covers only
40,000 acres (60 percent productive forest land) which is substantially
smaller than most T.F.L.'s Also to be considered is the fact that
much of the better timber on Indian reserves has already been cut or is
covered by cutting licences issued by the Department of Indian Affairs.
We proposed, therefore, that consideration be given to relaxing the
"Schedule A' requirements in specific instances to facilitate the
allocation of Tree-farm Licences to native groups.
The revisions to the Farm Wood-lot Licences proposed by the
Commissioner would provide opportunities for native employment and
would supply timber for housing in the many instances where reserve
timber is inadequate. These licences would also provide the training
in timber harvesting and resource management that would be needed to
undertake larger responsibilities in the future. Licence sizes of
up to 1000 acres would provide areas larger than most reserves in the
province which, in turn would permit further opportunities for
undisturbed secondary land use. It is the opinion of our group that
the proposed revisions to these licences be adopted.
2.2. Availability of Timber Supply
The ability to establish these licences depends on the avail-
ability of timber supply. Importantly, we have found that most of the
Crown land within reasonable proximity to our reserves is already
allocated. That which is available is not of adequate quality or
existent in sufficient quantity to constitute viable harvesting opera-
tions. Other parcels that are available are located too far from our
reserves to provide opportunities without disrupting established settle-
ments. This comment applies to other forms of timber licensing
arrangements as well.
In this regard, we agree in principle with a number of the
iret erent rscontsscsi thitrenessntemannascinn cen sinrrie lalla la
Commissioner's recommendations that would have the effect of releasing
timber supplies and allowing new enterprises the opportunity to partic-—
ipate in the industry. These include:
i. the proposal that the terms of the so-called '"perpetual' Tree-
farm Licences be clarified and that ‘evergreen’ provisions,
including specified procedures for adjusting boundaries and with-
drawing cutting rights, be instituted.
ii. the proposal that T.F.L. holders not automatically receive
increases in allowable annual cut.
4ii. the proposal that the 'quota’ position be definitized and secured
but that, at the same time, provisions for competitive realloca-
tions of timber cutting rights be reinstated.
Notwithstanding our agreement with the above matters, we feel
that the Commissioner did not go far enough in some of his recommenda-
tions. For example:
i. the proposal to provide definite time limits to the ‘perpetual’
T.F.L.'s would result in the licences running to 2013 at least.
This not only conflicts with the question of native title but
extends the possibility of Indian participation in most areas of
coastal British Columbia into the next century.
ii. the recommendation that the often substantial increases in T.F.L.
allowable annual cut which has resulted from changes in utiliza-—
tion standards or from government financed (i.e., stumpage credit) |
investment be permitted to remain with the licensee confers a
windfall gain on the rights holder. We suggest that considera-
tion be given to reclaiming these A.A.C. increases and offering
them for reallocation to other enterprises.
iii. we suggest, also, that wherever an A.A.C. is committed but
unused, consideration be given to reallocating those cutting
rights to other groups.
sitar aii sii
nce te
2.3. Non-competitive Allocations
In addition to the difficulty faced by native people in gaining
access to timber within reasonable proximity, there remains a second
fundamental problem--the ability of native people to compete success—
fully for harvesting rights that are available. At the present time
only two native groups hold timber licences--an allocation of 45,000
cunits per~year in the Nootka P.S.¥.U. and an allocation of 10,000
cunits per year near Pemberton.” In this regard, a purely financial
approach to timber allocation may not best serve the public interest.
It is the position of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs
that provisions should be included in the revised Forest Act to empower
the Minister to allocate timber cutting rights to specific groups under
specified circumstances. While this proposal is contrary to the
Commissioner's recommendation of increased reliance on the competitive
bidding process, it is not inconsistent with his belief that forest
policy should be moulded to meet social objectives. As such, where
the socio-economic benefits of employment, income and increased self-
reliance would outweigh the losses in stumpage revenue, a non-competitive
allocation would be justified- To facilitate these allocations, pro-
visions should be established outlining the criteria under which they
would be accepted and providing a mechanism for application and public
examination of the costs and benefits involved.
Based on the same principle, consideration should be given to
applying standard royalty rates as opposed to calculated stumpage
charges on native operated harvesting licences. While this could be
viewed as an introductory measure, it would be useful in providing for
the transition to full participatory status.
li seid te
3. Forest Nurseries
Forest nurseries offer another excellent opportunity for native
people to increase their self-sufficiency while providing a useful
service to the industry. One advantage that Indians in B.C. would
have in establishing a nursery program is access to land which, in
turn, would reduce the costs of seedling production. Regional seed
collection and germination would also reduce the risk of reclimatiza-
tion failure.
Our group feels that the Commissioner's recommendation regarding
the elimination of the Forest Service's monopoly on seedling production
be adopted.
4. Resource Planning and Environmental Protection
Another matter of particular importance to the native people of
British Columbia pertains to the use of forest land for purposes other
than timber production. For many years, timber extraction has been
the source of conflict between Indian people and logging operators,
with concern based on the incompatibility of traditional native uses
of the land and logging. In most cases development has occurred
without consideration to existing land uses. And, even though the
jand is often covered by other forms of proprietary rights Gre.
registered traplines and guiding licences) compensation has never been
granted while employment’ benéfits are either non-existent or short-
tern. The result is the displacement of formerly self-sufficient
citizens. It is also important to recognize that these situations
continue to occur as logging moves into heretofore untouched areas.
It has been the experience of native people throughout British
aes ~
ne
Columbia that the greatest environmental disruption attributable to
timber production is associated with road building. Poorly located
or engineered roads increase erosion and adversely affect sensitive
migration patterns and breeding areas. In this regard, we agree with
the Commissioner's observation that certain measures designed for
protection purposes have increased road building requirements and, as
such, have been counterproductive. These measures (i.e., limits to
clearcut size) have also increased costs and spread development.
Insufficient attention to salmon spawning streams in road building
and harvesting also affect the important fish resource.
In recognition of these matters we heartily endorse a number of
the Commissioner's recommendations which are designed to improve
resource planning and environmental protection. These include:
i. the proposal that site-specific planning be advanced through an
expanded resource folio system and improved pre-development
planning. Additional inventory information regarding other
resource values should take into consideration the vital impor—
tance of certain resources to the native people.
the proposal that the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Branch
di.
be combined into one department to facilitate communication and
planning.
iii. the proposal that procedures for systematic and regular public
participation be devised. Only through this process can native
people expect to have the voice in resource planning and develop—
ment that is rightfully theirs.
In addition, we would like to propose that the revised Forest
Act provide explicit measures for compensation where other proprietary
rights are involved in areas of timber development.
KKRKKKKAKRE KKK
Pritt sail temetta siesta
FOREST ACT DELAYED
Debate on a new B.C. forest act
has been postponed for several
months to give the public a better
look at it, after it was introduced in
the legislature. Page 19
VANCOUVER PROVINCE
NSE ANCE
October 6th, 1977
Thursday
New forest act
to get public airing
before debate
By CATHIE GOURLEY
Legislative debate on a new B.C. forest
act will be delayed for up to three months so
the public will have a chance to kick it
around as well, Tom Waterland, B.C.
minister of forests, said Wednesday.
Waterland told the Canadian Institute of
Forestry’s annual meeting that the long-
awaited legislation — a new ministry of for-
ests act, a new forest act and a new range
act — will be introduced at the beginning of
the legislature’s next session which is ex-
pected to open sometime in January.
“You're probably wondering if you will
et a chance to see this legislation and com-
ment on it before it is approved by the legis-
lature,” the minister said. “The answer is
yes. Debate in the house will be withheld for
a period of two to three months.”
Although revealing nothing about the
legislation’s content, Waterland told the
foresters not to expect miracles. Extensive
Policy recommendations will accompany
the legislation, he said, that if accepted,
will take time and effort to implement.
There will be many changes but not a
wholesale destruction of the current sys-
tem, he added.
Work towards a new forest policy began
with the Pearse report on forest resources,
completed in Sept. 1976, and was prompted
by a need to replace the obsolete forest and
range acts that date back 60 years.
From now on, Waterland said, lip service
about intensive forestry and demonstration
forestry will be over. D
“Fertilization, juvenile spacing and
commmercial thinning can realize signifi-
cant gains. It is reasonable to expect dou-
bled yields when a!] intensive forest man-
agement practices are applied.”
Expansion of any forest management
program, though, demands the cooperation
of the federal government and awareness
that forest resources should be a national
concern.
“The provinces are spending a great deal
more on operational forestry than the
federal government while the federal gov-
ernment continues to take its huge tax bite.
It reminds me of a greedy friend of mine...
who likes to eat his cake and have yours,
too.”
Turning to those in the forestry industry,
he warned that if they don’t reform and
practice intensive forestry, they can’t ex-
pect to retain their rights in the forest.
Along this vein, T. Wyman Trineer, of the
International Woodworkers of America,
, Said IWA members want a say in any future
programs of forestry management, even
though up to now they haven't shown any
Particular interest in it. “It is our conclu-
sion that the whole matter and practice of
forestry is far too important to be left to
Just foresters alone.”
Trineer, secretary-treasurer of IVA
Western Canadian regional! council No.1,
said this is not meant as criticism “even
though it is not difficult to hold up examples
of past mistakes. What we must now do is
rectify past mistakes and ensure that fu-
ture errors will be held at a minimum.”
Moreover, IWA members don’t hold
themselves out as foresters that can be in-
volved in technical forestry problems.
“However, we do envision ourselves as
playing a role in the establishment of forest
management objectives for Canada and
individual provinces as a whole and also in
localities where forest practices are of
Breat importance to the economic and so-
cial well-being of our members.”
He didn’t elaborate on what the IWA
might press for. The ultimate goal of all
parties will probably be the same, he said,
but added that foresters should remember
their first responsibility is to People, not to
trees.
Trineer told the meeting that employ-
ment in the industry is restricted as much
by uncertainties — like weather and build-
ing delays — as by technology.
“When it is realized that long layoffs and
other disruptive forces that result in shut.
downs are common in the industry, it is
ae to understand positions taken by the
Part of [Information Newsletter – Forest Policy Advisory Committee Hearing & B.C. Forest Act (1977)]