VIEW FORM THE WEST

Last September, Mike Harcourt, leader of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, and now premier of British Columbia, responded to eight questions posed by the Mining Association of British Columbia. His comments on land-use issues reflect political environmentalists’ influence on the NDP.

“A New Democrat government would set a target of expanding protected parks and wilderness areas to 12% of British Columbia’s land area as recommended by the Brundtland Commission,” wrote Harcourt. Large, single-use designations such as parks and wilderness areas were not recommended by the commission, nor are they necessary to achieve the basic protection goals set out in the Brundtland report Our Common Future. The challenge presented by the Brundtland Report is to protect and develop in order to meet the economic and social needs of the people. In today’s internationally competitive world, we cannot afford to compromise tomorrow’s economic opportunities. “Once an area has been designated for park or wilderness use, it is our policy that no mining or exploration activities be allowed within its boundaries,” Harcourt added. This is a change from Socred policy which was going to allow exploration under restrictive conditions in the proposed wilderness areas.

Also a change from Socred policy, the NDP recognizes “that compensation should be paid for the loss of pre-existing mineral rights in new park or wilderness areas based on the costs incurred by the developer.” Although this policy recognized past and recent court decisions (Tener, Casamero and Cream Silver) regarding mineral tenures caught up in park developments, it lacks fairness. If the government of British Columbia chooses to break a contract with a mineral tenure holder and expropriate the asset, why should less than a fair price be paid? Compensation resulting from expropriation should never benefit the confiscator at the expense of the party that is obliged to suffer confiscation.

Outside of specifically designated parks and wilderness areas, the New Democrats plan on developing a new land-use strategy that would increase the role of British Columbia’s rural population including aboriginal people. The NDP government is giving priority “to developing interim agreements to protect the interests of both aboriginal peoples and other resource users while final land claims agreements are being negotiated.” With virtually all of British Columbia claimed by aboriginal people, interim agreements will be difficult to negotiate without significantly affecting resource developers. Of major concern is the pressure for moratoria by aboriginal groups supported by political environmentalists.

With declining revenues, British Columbia’s NDP government must encourage investment to generate the income it needs to fund its social policies. A British Columbia Roundtable study on “The Structure of the British Columbia Economy: A Land-Use Perspective” concluded that “when inter-industry linkages are taken into account, natural resource industries are found to be drivers of the provincial economy with significant employment effects on other sectors.”

Consequently, recent government investment incentives that exclude natural resource industries may create some employment opportunities but will not be of much help in meeting revenue requirements. The natural resource sector must be stimulated if government revenues are going to return to the required levels.

Probably the most interesting political challenge facing the new government regarding land use is the need to meet the differing aspirations of three traditional supporters — aboriginals, unionized wood workers and political environmentalists. The Socred’s past successes in stimulating the growth of the natural resource sector in the regions aided the rural growth of the NDP by producing well paying unionized jobs. It will be difficult to maintain this important political support if government land-use decisions discourage rural investment and lead to a decline in the economic health of local communities.