MacMillan Bloedel Parks Settlement Agreement Decision
Most of the debate during the public consultation process focused on the use of land. However, some discussion focused on the use of cash and the potential effects this would have on public policy. Those who opposed use of cash pointed first of all to the Province's fiscal situation. Because the Province is currently running a deficit, it was noted that any cash used to pay the settlement funds owing to MB would have to be borrowed. This would result in a worsening of the deficit situation of the Province, which, to those persons advocating a balanced budget, was strong justification for looking to alternative methods to compensate MB.
It was also noted that should MB be provided with cash, then the funds could be removed from the Province to be used for other corporate purposes. One speaker, noting the proposed takeover of MB by Weyerhauser, characterized the use of cash to settle with MB as a method of in effect giving money to Weyerhauser to finance the takeover.
On the other hand, it was noted by many speakers in smaller communities that there has already been a negative economic impact on their communities from the creation of parks in the first place. It was noted that because MB has lost Timber Licenses and allowable annual cut, and that there has been a reduction of economic activity and jobs in those areas which rely on the logging industry for a significant part of their economic activity. Because the parks that gave rise to the Settlement Agreement were created on behalf of all British Columbians, the argument is that any compensation payable to MB should be shared by the Province as a whole. Were land to be used, this would have a primarily local or regional economic impact. For example, should significant portions of Schedule A land be removed from the tree farm license in the Alberni region, this would result in a further reduction of the allowable annual cut of MB, could result in higher raw log exports and would require fewer prescriptions under the Forest Practices Code. The cumulative impact of these changes could result in further job losses for people in the Alberni region. Rather than force a region which has already absorbed job impacts to, in effect, pay again with further land removed from the public logging base, these persons supported the use of cash as a reasonable alternative to compensate MB.
It should be noted that MB's official position at the public hearings was that it was immaterial to them whether land or cash was used as compensation. MB noted that there would be significant advantages to the company in having an expanded land base. However, they noted that the structure of the Settlement Agreement is that cash or equivalent land was to be used and accordingly, the impact on the Company would be the same no matter what form of currency was paid to them.