[ Page 11657 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Job Protection Act (Bill 83). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 11657

Mrs. Boone –– 11660

Mr. Chalmers –– 11660

Mr. Miller –– 11661

Mr. Crandall –– 11663

Mr. Sihota –– 11664

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11666

Ms. Edwards –– 11667

Mr. Brummet –– 11668

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have the honour to present on behalf of the auditor-general of British Columbia the financial statements for the office of the auditor-general.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's my pleasure to call second reading of Bill 83.

JOB PROTECTION ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: In speaking to Bill 83 on second reading, I want to make a few points and then listen to other members of the House address this issue in principle. The purpose of the bill before you is pretty straightforward and relatively simple; it builds on the experience we have had with similar legislation in British Columbia that was previously debated in this House.

Bill 83 is designed to protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians. Especially, Bill 83 is designed to protect those British Columbians living and working in communities whose economic livelihood depends upon one or more key industries.

The bill is designed to prevent the closure of businesses that are commercially viable over the long term, but face obstacles to survival in the short term. The bill is based on the premise that plant closures may be prevented and jobs can be preserved if all concerned are prepared to participate in and practise the philosophy of equal sacrifice and flexibility. This includes employers, employees, creditors, suppliers customers, shareholders, utilities and all levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to have heading the commission, which will be authorized by this legislation, a commissioner who has broad experience in this area of endeavour throughout most of the regions of British Columbia. Heading the commission will be Mr. Douglas Kerley, who has over 40 years of experience in the banking and business community. Most recently he was the vice-president and regional general manager for British Columbia and the Yukon of the Federal Business Development Bank. Mr. Kerley has worked and lived in communities throughout the province, including Nanaimo, Kamloops, Creston, Chilliwack, Ucluelet, Port Alberni and Williams Lake. He is keenly aware of the challenges that face single-industry towns. Mr. Kerley is well known and well respected by the business community throughout the province. He is also known as a strong, impartial and respected decision-maker.

As all members-of this House are aware, factors such as the high Canadian dollar, declining commodity prices in some sectors, an interest rate policy that has been directed toward cooling out central Canada's overheated economy to the detriment of British Columbia and an overall slowdown in the global economy are causing short-term financial difficulties for an increasing number of British Columbia companies.

When we were faced with a similar situation in the mid-1980s, the government of the day brought forward the Critical Industries Act and established the critical industries commission. As members of this House know, the critical industries commission proved to be a very successful agency. During its two-year mandate, the critical industries commission assisted 13 companies directly with a specific laid-out plan — 13 companies which at the time were employing just under 3,000 people. Today ten of those 13 companies assisted under the critical industries legislation are still in operation. In addition, the critical industries commission assisted seven companies without any government help through informal mediation processes and assistance that were provided directly by the commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, by any measure one can use, the work of that commission was most successful. The record of success was a strong one indeed. Rather than wait until— with a historic view that we can see.... We were in the bottom of that recessionary period before we brought in the critical industries commission and extended the powers to the commissioner. Today we are building from that experience; we are able to bring in these measures more in advance than we did before, building on that particular record.

There is no question that in many of our single-industry towns there is a need and there is going to be an increasing need. And this need should be addressed in advance rather than retrospectively.

In addition, building on that previous experience and that important record, we are going to be able to extend the ambit of authority of this commission to include industries not included in the mid-eighties, when the ambit of the authority granted to the commissioner extended primarily to the mineral and forest sectors. But they had a very good record, and the bill now before this House builds on the success of that earlier legislation.

[10:15]

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, because it has been raised by opposition members who then, as now, accused us of playing politics with this type of legislation so that we don't include some of the many examples that I could from people still sitting in this House, I will refer only to a 1985 quote from Dave Stupich, who is no longer in this House. He said of that legislation that one would suspect that the program had been designed for political purposes rather than to try to maintain employment.

The proof will be found in our communities across the province. There is fact a need on behalf of employees and workers, of employers and creditors, and indeed of communities themselves to have this kind of authority — to draw people together, to work in common purpose to solve the problems that face

[ Page 11658 ]

them. I want to say that that was not a political need in 1985, and it is not a political need in 1991. It is a real need, and there are hundreds and hundreds of employees around this province who are proof positive of that need and will support this legislation.

We on this side of the House believe in preserving jobs and finding ways to do so that do not require negative political comments. We need to focus people's attention on trying to find ways to support, enhance, broaden and protect people's livelihoods.

Like the critical industries commission, the job protection commission will be an independent agency. It will operate at arm's length from the government. Indeed, the commissioner will report directly to this Legislature. Similarly, the job protection commission includes a two-year sunset clause. Like the critical industries commission, the job protection commission will be headed by a commissioner, supported by a very small group of professionals who are contracted specialized staff from the private sector and supported by seconded employees from various ministries of government. And like the Critical Industries Act, the Job Protection Act provides the commissioner with the power to authorize economic plans which include temporary extraordinary assistance from government.

This form of assistance will apply only to what the commissioner will determine are strategic industries. Strategic industries are those industries whose operations are deemed significant to the local, regional or, in some instances perhaps, provincial economy. There is no question that the area of discretion which will be exercised by the commissioner is an exceedingly broad category of discretion. The commissioner's judgment in that respect will determine the success of this program.

In negotiating an economic plan for a threatened business in a strategic industry, the commissioner, with the agreement of all affected parties, may include various voluntary concessions from government or from Crown utilities. The commissioner's proposals for those concessions, I would like to point out, will require as well the consent of the agencies involved, as they would require the consent of the employer's group, the employees themselves or, indeed, the creditors who are affected directly in the community.

In this regard, the Job Protection Act is patterned after the Critical Industries Act. However, I want to emphasize the fact that the Job Protection Act does include some significant new features which, when compared to the Critical Industries Act, strengthen the ability of the job protection commission to prevent business closures and to protect jobs for British Columbians.

First, the Job Protection Act, unlike the Critical Industries Act, is structured in such a manner that it makes formal provision for the fact that communities in the interior and the north of the province often rely on a single industry as a major employer.

Second, if the commissioner deems it necessary, he can encourage a business enterprise to seek management and consulting services by providing funding assistance for such services. Often it is the case that a small firm needs only a new market survey or perhaps exposure to venture capital or details of an employee share-ownership program to get back on its feet for the long term.

Third, the commissioner can become directly involved in mediating a plan between the principal affected parties to prevent the closure of a plant or to reduce the effects of a closure of any business that the commissioner deems to be of significant economic importance to a community, a region or the province as a whole. Such a plan may include debt restructuring, an employee share-ownership provision or some other form of share arrangements.

But let me emphasize to the House, Mr. Speaker, that direct mediation will be undertaken only if a reasonable solution is possible and, most importantly, if all of the affected parties support the commissioner's efforts. It is a fact that sometimes a neutral third party is better able to bring parties to the table, and based on the commissioner's considerable experience, he will be able to provide creative solutions to a lot of those kinds of issues.

While the critical industries commission did on several occasions provide assistance not requiring government involvement, the Job Protection Act formally recognizes, and indeed encourages, that solutions to prevent plant closure do not always require direct government involvement, or indeed government involvement at all.

Fourth, the job protection commissioner can also formulate an economic plan to assist businesses in strategic industries. If other significant affected parties contribute to an economic plan for a business In a strategic industry, then the job protection commissioner may, with the voluntary agreement of all parties, include concessions offered by the provincial government or by Crown utilities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize and re-emphasize that point: the commissioner has two fundamental areas of discretion.

The commissioner must first of all determine that there is long-term viability for the enterprise. That is fundamental to anything else taking place, and that is a judgment call made by the commissioner and the commissioner alone.

Second, the commissioner must determine that there is a strategic importance to the enterprise before there is any request to be made for government assistance to be directly involved, either from the Crown provincial or from any one of its agencies. And that is a judgment call which will rest solely in the discretion of the commissioner.

Third, the notion of equal sacrifice must come into play before government will be a participant. In other words, all of the parties who are involved in the enterprise must be prepared to contribute something to the success of the enterprise before government will become a party to making any contribution, either directly or indirectly. This, of course, is in keeping with the philosophy of equal sacrifice that I referred to earlier: all parties to an economic plan

[ Page 11659 ]

must agree and commit to the long-term viability of the business enterprise.

Fourth, the province can provide extraordinary assistance or tax credits for employees acquiring shares in the businesses which employ them. That, of course, is done in part through the employee shareownership program, which legislation we put through this House since the time of the critical industries commission. It is very broad, and frankly, it has been an important element in three recent arrangements we made: one with Evans Products in Golden, another with West Coast Plywood in Vancouver and a third with Western Star Trucks in Kelowna. It was very important to those industries and a very important part of the plan that was agreed to.

This is a significant change from the Critical Industries Act. It clearly makes available, on a flexible case-by-case basis, programs like employee shareownership and small business venture capital, as well as provisions we'll be looking at with respect to distress shares. Those provisions have all been introduced or will be introduced, and are different from the provisions available in 1985-86. Therefore the bill before the House will make assistance available to businesses that would normally not be eligible for this type of assistance, because it will be available to be used by the job protection commissioner as one of the things that he suggests may very well be appropriate to assist a business, even though the business or the employees may otherwise not qualify under the usual circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that before the provincial government would become involved — and, for that matter, even before the commissioner would become directly involved — the following should have taken place. The commission must have determined that the business enterprise is of significant economic importance to a community, a region or the province; that the enterprise is economically viable over the long term; of extreme importance; that any assistance provided would not be detrimental to the interests of direct competitors either in the community, the region or the province; and that all affected parties such as management, employees, creditors and, if necessary, Crown utilities and municipal governments are involved.

Fifth, the Job Protection Act also provides for consequential amendments to the Employment Standards Act. I would like the House to be alert to these in debate, because there may be some concern about them. The amendments to the Employment Standards Act are as follows: companies planning to terminate between 50 and 100 employees will now have to provide eight weeks' notice before the effective date of the termination, at least 12 weeks' notice will be required when the number of employees being terminated exceeds 100 but does not exceed 300 employees; and sixteen weeks' notice will be required if the number of employees terminated exceeds 300. This will allow for advance planning both by employers and employees, thereby ensuring that individual employees, their families and communities are better prepared to deal with that kind of situation.

[10:30]

Sixth — also with respect to consequential amendments — I want to alert the House that the Job Protection Act proposes amendments to the Forest Act. These amendments are significant. Most notably, upon the recommendation of the commissioner — and that must be underscored over and over again — the provincial government, with the full agreement of the Minister of Forests, will have the authority to take back timber-cutting rights equivalent to the amount of timber supplied to a specific mill which has shut down. Under the Job Protection Act and upon the recommendation of the job protection commissioner, those cutting rights can be awarded by the Minister of Forests without competition to a new operator of a specific mill, thereby preserving jobs in the community using that resource to be converted by that particular mill.

Mr. Speaker, that amendment is perhaps the most interventionist that one can be in the economy. But it is clearly the case, and it is sufficiently supported by the philosophy of this government, that in instances where a mill is going to be shut down and the wood that previously was being converted in that mill is going to be trucked or barged down the road, and where clearly it also is the case that a third party clothed with the authority from this Legislature — namely the job protection commissioner — will be able to ensure that that wood can be used to support that mill, and that mill will be able in turn to support that community.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: One of the members from across the way refers to Clearwater. I can only tell you, before he gets too far down that train of thought.... Even though he and his colleagues held a hearing in Clearwater, presumably to learn about Clearwater, presumably to understand about the forest industry in Clearwater, presumably to be able to bring knowledge about Clearwater to this community, one of the things they obviously did not learn when they were in Clearwater is that there isn't any longer a mill in Clearwater.

Mr. Speaker, the Job Protection Act is designed to deal with today's economic realities. It is balanced, proactive legislation that demonstrates this government's leadership and commitment to protecting the quality of life of British Columbians in all regions. It is legislation which will allow us to deal with issues around this province that deeply concern and affect citizens who have an interest in protecting their jobs and supporting their community.

People have already come forward from places like the Pemberton Valley, where there is a real need, where there is a need for people to look at different ways to try to abate the adverse impact of what has happened to their community. People from places like Port Alberni have come forward already to seek out assistance from the commissioner to ensure that

[ Page 11660 ]

the kinds of innovative things that they want to do will have a vehicle by which they can get done.

The commissioner will not go out and seek out problems. The commissioner will wait for people to come to the commission with suggestions about how the commissioner's authority, how the kinds of tools the commissioner has to deal with problems, can be directed to the issues and problems in their area. Following that, if it is the will of this House to pass this legislation, the commissioner will be able to use a whole range of tools that will be granted to him, to do it on a very cost-effective basis, to draw the parties together and to seek solutions that will result in the jobs being protected; perhaps most importantly, in many of the cases that I'm sure he will look at, to ensure that communities that are dependent upon those one-industry jobs have the benefit of the support of an agency of this Legislature which will be able to bring the resources of the province and of the community and of the groups themselves to bear on keeping the enterprise growing and ensuring that the community remains viable.

I look forward to all members of this House supporting this legislation, and with that I move second reading.

MRS. BOONE: Members on this side certainly recognize the need for the government to become involved in finding a way to help those industries that are in a difficult financial situation. I'm speaking on behalf particularly of those who have resource economies: Fort St. John, Cranbrook, Burns Lake, Prince George. Many of the communities outside the lower mainland are completely dependent upon resources, and over the years we've seen the economy go up and down on a cyclical basis. We've seen no stability in those communities. We've seen them go from highs where they have extremely high incomes and a lot of activity down to a point where they have literally none and are almost ghost towns — and in many cases they do become ghost towns.

This government has failed over the past years to inoculate those communities against these things. They have failed to diversify those economies so that they are not dependent upon the resources as they always were.

Over the past years we have constantly heard that one of the goals of the government is to inoculate, to diversify and to make it so that these communities are not dependent. Yet here we sit in 1991 with the critical industries commission set up again to do the very thing that this government has stated it wasn't going to do, which is to try to assist those communities that they haven't been able to assist. It has failed completely in the diversification process. We who live beyond Hope literally find that hope is not there. We must take control of our economies. We must have some say in resource management. We must have decisions made in our regions, not here in Victoria.

Unfortunately, as usual this government has taken a good idea and abused it. Not only will industries critical to communities be assisted or industries that employ a minimum number of Individuals, but virtually arty industry or company that can apply will receive assistance. The minister may say, "Trust me, " but I think it takes a quantum leap for the people of British Columbia to trust this minister.

While this bill addresses some of the items we have been calling for.... I'm pleased to see that the government is acting on some of our initiatives, such as notice of plant closure. We all know that our forest industry is in a sad state, and nobody knows it better than I. However, this bill does nothing and this government has done nothing to address the real problem of the industry, which is the memorandum of understanding brought about by the actions of this government, in particular the Premier when he spoke out of turn during the 1986 election. The Premier claimed that it was a great day for British Columbia when the memorandum of understanding was signed. Our industry has been brought to and is literally on its knees in this province as a result of the actions and mismanagement of this government, and this bill does nothing to address those things.

This bill states that the object of this act is to "preserve, restore and enhance the competitiveness of business enterprises in British Columbia and the global marketplace." Yet that same act allows the right to harvest timber to be granted to business enterprises without competition or public hearings. How does this promote competition? How do you promote competition by eliminating it in a bill? How does that protect jobs? It doesn't. It's truly unfortunate that this government could not resist an opportunity to slide in some means to help its friends and insiders. Is it possible that this legislation will simply become another tool to let this minister spread the good economic news where it will do the most political good? I tend to think that that might happen.

At a time when mills have already been closed, when the concentration of the forest industry has already taken place, when shifts have already been cut and workers are job-sharing, this bill has done absolutely nothing to protect those jobs. But it does a whole lot to try to save political careers.

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate, and I'm saddened to see that a bill with a philosophy behind it that should be a good premise, a bill that should be protecting jobs and doing the things that keep our industries in a reasonable state within our communities and saving the resource economies of our communities, has had some sections slid into it that allow for the types of activities that have become so common in this province. I'm saddened to see that happen at this time.

MR. CHALMERS: I am pleased to stand today and speak in favour of Bill 83, the Job Protection Act. When the minister introduced the bill and spoke to second reading today he talked about the importance of protecting jobs in one-industry towns, and that's certainly a major part of what this bill will do. But I'm here today to talk about what it will do for other communities with more diverse economies, commu-

[ Page 11661 ]

nities like my own, Kelowna, in the constituency of Okanagan South.

We recently had a situation in which one of our major employers — in fact, the flagship of the secondary manufacturing sector in Kelowna — was about to cease doing business and the shareholders had lost faith in the trucking industry. Western Star Trucks was established in 1967 to produce heavy-duty trucks for export as well as domestic sales. Some $50 million worth of exports have resulted per year from that plant. Many local employees have depended on the plant for their existence. More than 300 people are employed in that plant today, and it has gone as high as 500 when market conditions allowed it. But just as important as those employed directly at the plant are those employed in the jobs that are created as a result of the spinoff — the fabricating shops, chroming shops, upholstery shops and the other ones that service that industry.

It goes further than that. It goes to every small business in our community, to every travel agency, every bakery shop, every shoe store. It has created many jobs in the public sector, whether they be nurses, schoolteachers or others.

When this very important business was about to cease to exist it was important that the minister responsible was able to come in and help put together a strategic plan to save that industry. Working together with the union representatives, with the employees, the suppliers, the banks involved, and the shareholders and management, and coming together with a loan, or bringing a loan to the party, we were able to save that business. It was interesting to see that the Finance critic from the other side, the second member for Vancouver East, was prepared to go on television the night of the announcement and criticize that loan and criticize the involvement. He was trying to suggest that the minister was trooping around the province, disbursing funds to friends of Social Credit.

As a matter of fact, it did assist many friends of Social Credit. It assisted the workers on the shop floor at the Western Star plant, and if anybody in this House wonders whether this type of legislation is important to the people of British Columbia, I would invite you to go and talk to the workers on the floor in the Western Star plant. Because I've done that on a number of occasions, I know how concerned they were when it looked like that plant was going down. Because of assistance that came forward — assistance that was criticized by the members opposite — not only is that plant going to continue to produce heavy-duty trucks for sale in the world market, but it's going to expand.

[10:45]

We were able to deliver to the community of Kelowna the head office of that corporation and bring with it another 29 jobs. It came from Ontario. So it is not only very important to the one-industry towns throughout the community in the north and in the interior that want to have their opportunity to share in this great economy that we have in British Columbia, but it will also ensure that communities throughout the province have an opportunity to share in that, and to strengthen what is strong when it is important. So I would ask every one of you in this House to come forward and vote for this bill when the time comes.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MILLER: This has been a fascinating debate so far. For a government that is given to rhetorical excess on the question of free enterprise, we've now got a sterling defence of government involvement in the economy during tough times. It's nice to see that maybe some of the lessons are hitting home over there.

We certainly have to set the stage in dealing with this bill. Let's be clear. We're dealing with a desperate government that is going to try to use this legislative session to set up some election issues. They don't have any now, and they're trying desperately to do that.

It grieves me, as a rural MLA and as Forests critic, who has travelled the length and breadth of this province in those one-industry towns, to now listen to a government talk about — and I'll get to the substance of the particulars of the bill in a moment — coming in and assisting these communities to survive. Not that long ago we heard testimony before the Forest Resources Commission from senior people in the Ministry of Forests that they didn't do any strategic planning, that there was no industrial strategy within the Ministry of Forests. We can see the results of that lack of planning right across this province. We can see it in the disparity between the timber supply and the capacity, which sometimes reaches 40 percent. We can see communities desperate for timber supplies.

This government has a lot to be called on the carpet for in terms of its lack of planning and lack of care about those small communities in this province. I should also point out that there are about 10,000 people in the forestry industry who are currently out of work. And this government finally decides it's time to take some action.

I would also point out that there seems to be some difference of opinion between the Minister of Forests and the second member for Kamloops — or the Minister of International Business or Regional Development, or whatever it is — in terms of their comments about the situation in their constituency. The Minister of Regional Development yelled across to me that there is no mill in Clearwater. I don't know if you're bragging about Social Credit policy or not. There used to be a mill in Clearwater. Clearly, it has closed down under this government, and that minister is bragging about it.

Mr. Speaker, we need to have initiatives taken to protect those single-industry communities in this province. We think that on a broad basis it should be through a kind of comprehensive industrial and strategic planning that will ensure the long-term survivability and health of those communities, and

[ Page 11662 ]

we've been pushing for a long time to have that kind of action taken by government.

It's worth noting that last year in this House I asked the Minister of Forests five times why the government had secretly severed the link between timber allocations and the requirement to keep a mill operating. The minister refused to answer. He said he didn't know the answer, he couldn't answer, and to this day he has not answered the question of why this government, in secret in the back rooms, changed the contracts that we have with forest licences and tree-farm licences. They removed the clause that required a mill to keep operating, and they have yet to answer for that.

It's worth noting, as my colleague from Prince George pointed out — and she knows better than all of us the impact of that memorandum of understanding — that during that trade dispute in 1986, which was a very tough dispute and one that we had won in 1983.... We had a new Premier in 1986 who lacked the ability of forethought, and that new Premier stood up at a very tense time in those negotiations during that trade war with the United States and confessed that British Columbia was guilty of subsidizing its timber-harvesting. He threw all the cards on the table. The game was over, and the result was a very unsatisfactory memorandum of understanding with the United States.

As my colleague from Prince George pointed out, when that memorandum was signed the Premier said: "It's a great day for British Columbia." That's one of the reasons we are in the terrible position we are in some of those resource-dependent communities because the Premier didn't understand. He had no understanding of the forest industry. In fact, I talked to people today, and they think that's still the case.

We got into a very bad agreement with the United States. We essentially lost our sovereignty. We lost our sovereign right to establish the stumpage that we consider appropriate. Our stumpage is now made in the U.S.A., and I've made that speech a number of times in this House. They've entered into a bad agreement because they didn't understand the forest industry. They removed the ties that bind in terms of the licence allocations to the mills.

In addition to that — and it's something that causes us great fear — they have dearly demonstrated that they're prepared to play political games with the allocation of forest resources in this province. We're all aware of the games that were played in the awarding of the Takla-Sustut licence in northern British Columbia, where, despite the recommendations of the senior branches of the Ministry of Forests to award that licence to the western interests, a political decision — a cabinet decision — was made to award it to eastern interests. So this government has shown that it's prepared to play politics with the awarding of timber in British Columbia.

We now have a bill before us that opens the door for the pork-barrel politics that the previous critical industries commissioner talked about not so very long ago. We have a government which has demonstrated an ineptitude and inability to plan over the long term for the good health of those small communities, played political games with the awarding of timber licences and not understood the implications of our trading partners in terms of the MOU. Now we have a bill that opens the door for the worst kind of pork-barrel politics that you play so well on that side of the House.

The Forests minister can now award Crown timber on a variety of forms of licences, ranging from forest to woodlot and tree-farm licences — some of which are perpetual, or evergreen, licences. They can award them without competition and without public hearings. I suggest that that element of the bill, in the hands of this government, is extremely dangerous.

We had started to make some progress in terms of the whole question of the allocation of timber and the implications for the economics of the forest industry in this province. We're now waiving under this bill the reduction of 5 percent, which is in the Forest Act, that would take place on a transfer of title.

Worst of all — and it's hard to use that word in terms of some of these provisions — this bill allows the penalties for overharvesting to be waived. This bill allows overharvesting. There are penalties in the Forest Act currently; those penalties will be waived.

We are in a desperate situation in some parts of our province. I've talked about the imbalance between timber supply and mill capacity which came about as a result of this government's refusal to plan intelligently to protect those communities. This bill simply perpetuates the kind of administration in forestry we have seen from this government, which has led us to the position we are in today. We will be dealing more specifically with some sections of the bill in committee, and particularly the issues I outlined in terms of the Forest Act.

Mr. Speaker, any way you slice it, this government is using the taxpayers' money to keep industries alive at a critical time. We have long advocated that that needs to be done at these times, but to give this government the kind of blank cheque they're asking for in this bill is obviously going to require further debate.

The real solution over the long term is to undertake the kind of planning that removes the dependency these communities have. I was amazed to watch the previous Minister of Finance assemble a group of economists in Vancouver last year to get their advice on the economy. They all streamed out of the room and said: "Well, no, we're in pretty good shape." Mr. Speaker, they ignored rural British Columbia. That’s a lower mainland view; it doesn't recognize the disparity that two British Columbias exist. The wealth flows from the resource hinterland, where those people are so dependent on the cycles in that industry and where they need diversification and strategic planning.

I don't think this government really understands that part of British Columbia, and I don't think this bill — or elements of this bill — in the hands of this minister is going to assist anybody. It will simply, as I said, open the door for pork-barrel politics, and

[ Page 11663 ]

we've had enough of pork-barrel politics in this province.

MR. CRANDALL: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and participate in the second reading debate on Bill 83, the Job Protection Act, which is being proposed by this government because we understand the needs of British Columbians. We understand the needs of British Columbia industry and the needs of British Columbia homes and families.

I am pleased to see this act introduced, responding to the short-term peaks and valleys which occur in almost all industries everywhere in the world. There are few industries anywhere in the world that do not have some temporary peaks and valleys. We in our province similarly have some short-term peaks and valleys.

I am pleased to see it introduced because of the direct link between industry and the health of our homes and our families. I recognize — and our government recognizes — that when our industries are in difficulty; our homes and our families are in difficulty. When there is stress in our industries, there is stress in our families.

I am pleased to see it introduced because of the strong link between our industries and our communities. Our communities cannot sustain their services when we do not have a strong industrial base to support those services.

It is my belief that the business and mission of government and of those members who serve in government on either side of this House and in whatever party we might be in is to represent our constituencies and to protect to the best of our ability the homes, families and individuals whom we represent. Mr. Speaker, that's what this bill is about. It's about protecting our homes and families.

[11:00]

This act is based to some considerable degree on the successful act introduced earlier in the eighties, the Critical Industries Act, which was used successfully to protect many individual companies in this province. I am pleased to see that it will not only be based on that act, but it will provide some improvements to that act.

I rise to participate in this debate because the peaks and valleys that I have talked about have hit my constituency in the last couple of years. We had a closure of significance at the Cominco mine in Kimberley. We have avoided a possible closure at the Evans Products plywood mill and sawmill at Golden. Because of those two instances, I am well aware that the short-term difficulties that occur everywhere in the world can also occur in my constituency. Because I represent my constituency and the homes and families there, I am pleased to rise in debate and to support this bill.

While we can sometimes jump to oversimplifications and talk about how these peaks and valleys might arise because of government failure, I want this House and this province to know that the short-term problems that we have had in my constituency in the last 12 months have indeed been short-term.

Over the last 75 to 100 years those who wanted jobs could almost always find one in the Columbia Valley in the forest industry, in the sawmills, in the plywood mills and in the mines. So it has been a strong economy. But yes, we have had some short-term problems, and acts such as this one being proposed by a government who responds to the homes and families of our province will be a help as we adjust to the fluctuations in the markets.

This act will not mean that we will never have any problems, that we will never see any difficulties. What this act will do is help us adjust. It's a reflection that this government is able and willing to respond to these kinds of fluctuations in the markets.

This act will do the very thing that its sponsor, the minister, mentioned earlier this morning: it will protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians, especially in one-industry towns.

I want to talk just for a second about one-industry towns. We often use that phrase. It comes off sounding negative — that a one-industry town is something less than perfect. I want you to know that I appreciate our one-industry towns, especially when I think of a town like Kimberley. The city of Kimberley, with the great Sullivan mine, has provided a very substantial amount of revenue to this province. It has sustained a community for the better part of a century and has provided good-paying jobs and a livelihood for several generations of British Columbians.

Our forest industry, as well, especially in communities such as Golden.... Back at the turn of the century, people were earning their livelihood in what was then a one-industry town. They have raised successive generations of British Columbians in those one-industry towns. Golden and Kimberley are two good examples.

I also support in this bill the principle of equal sacrifice. I support it because it recognizes that we have equal responsibility. Perhaps there used to be a day when the employers could solve all of the problems an industry had. That day is gone. Now the employers, the employees, the suppliers, the customers and government must all work together. That's what this act will do. It will bring together all of those various parties, because, in many instances, any one of those parties can prevent an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, it's plain to see that in the objectives of this act we are trying to respond by minimizing job loss. Minimizing job loss is, especially in one-industry towns but certainly in all our communities throughout British Columbia as well.... We are recognizing we must act to preserve, restore and enhance the competitiveness of British Columbian business enterprises in the global marketplace.

It's interesting to notice that there is a link between our one-industry towns in B.C. and that global marketplace. We might think our small communities provide goods and services to a small part of the domestic Canadian market. Such is not the case. Our small communities very often participate in a very dynamic and global marketplace.

[ Page 11664 ]

I'm pleased to see that the temporary measures that will be introduced include funding assistance and mediation services. The debt-restructuring ability of the commissioner will be significant. His ability to introduce and encourage employee share-ownership programs will also be important. Indeed, that has been in existence for some time in this province. It will become a stronger enhancement to business in British Columbia.

I was also interested in the comments of the member for Prince George North, who mentioned that the forest industry is in trouble and that the real problem is the MOU. I can't help but believe that this is a gross oversimplification of the problem. One of the difficulties we've had over the years.... To simply throw up an oversimplification and suggest that's the only issue here....

MR. MILLER: You don't believe in change. You don't think we should change it.

MR. CRANDALL: The member for Prince Rupert, who right now has difficulty restraining himself, indicated a while ago that he's made his oversimplification speech many times. He said several times that the problem is only the MOU. I can't help but think that if we had had an NDP government in 1986, we might have had not a 15 percent duty at the border, but one of 25, 30 or 35 percent.

But the opposition always pretends that it's a very simple issue, that the MOU is the only problem. They pretend the mills in Washington and Oregon are all working at full capacity. They're not. Those mills there are not operating at full capacity.

I was also impressed by the member for Prince George North suggesting that we have incorporated some of the opposition's ideas in this bill. I'd like the opposition to know that our government understands the needs of British Columbia. We understand the needs of industry in one-industry towns. We understand the needs in communities such as Kimberley and Golden. I might say that we understood them long before the opposition.

The member for Prince Rupert speaks about being in those communities. I would invite you, Mr. Member, to visit Golden — where you have not visited. Understand the problems in the plywood industry and in the sawmill there. But I'm sure that if the member for Prince Rupert came to Golden and Kimberley, all he would do is give us his same old oversimplified speech suggesting that all our problems are with the MOU. He would not suggest that had they been in power in 1986....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Columbia River has the floor and should be the only person speaking at the moment. The member for Prince Rupert had his opportunity in this House.

MR. CRANDALL: The opposition often pretend that they understand industry. I am very confident in saying that the agreement that has been put in place in my community of Golden was put in place because the government understood the problems there. Indeed, I'm very pleased to tell you that I understood the problems there. I didn't ask for any help from the opposition, and I didn't get any help, because they've never been in that community.

I also find it interesting to notice that the NDP opposed the package for our community. The opposition opposed the agreement that was made for the Evans Products operations in Golden. But that's fine; the opposition can oppose that. I feel very confident that that community has been well served by this government, and we will continue to be well-served. I would just like to ask all the members of this House, when this bill comes to a vote, to support this very progressive legislation, a bill which has been put forward by a government that understands industry, understands British Columbia and is willing to respond to the needs of industry and to the needs of our families and our homes in British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA: Before I deal with the comments that I intended to make on this bill, I want to touch on a comment that the speaker from Columbia River just made. He talked about members of the opposition not being to his riding. I had the good opportunity to be in Golden a few months back and travelled from Kimberley to Golden in that riding with the mayor of Golden, Jimmy Doyle, an outstanding individual from that region. The one thing that Mr. Doyle kept on telling me and others as I travelled between Kimberley and Golden was that they had never seen the member for Columbia River around anywhere in his riding. I tell you, what this House needs is people like Jimmy Doyle representing those communities, not people like the individual from Columbia River.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with a number of issues as they relate to this bill. I want to start by saying this, and it's fairly put. I think an opposition has two obligations when it is in this House. It has an obvious obligation to criticize the government and point out the failures of the government's programs; and there will be some comment on that. But at the same time it seems to me that an opposition also has an equal obligation to lay out its alternatives, to talk about its agenda and to talk about what it would do to protect the paycheques of working families during this recession. That is important.

I'm pleased to state to this House that my good friend the hon. Leader of the Opposition some months ago outlined a very detailed and comprehensive program to protect jobs and paycheques of working families during this recession — in fact, before the Premier introduced his plan. In the positive plan that the Leader of the Opposition outlined to protect jobs and paycheques, he called for the establishment of a critical industries commissioner with the mandate to move in quickly and negotiate alternatives to plant closures and begin dealing immediately with critical resource industries. That was a positive step introduced and promoted by the New

[ Page 11665 ]

Democrats. It is sad to see that now this government, after 7, 000 jobs have been lost in forest operations around this province, has recognized the need to introduce this type of legislation.

On top of that, earlier in this session during the summer, my colleague and good friend the member for Kootenay, who is sensitive to Issues as they relate not only to the forest Industry but to the mining industry as well, took the time in this Legislature to introduce Bill M244, which I have in my hand, the Notice of Termination Act. It lays out plant closure provisions and states very clearly not only what our alternatives would be....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on Bill 83 and not on any other bill, so would you direct your comments to the principle of Bill 83.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, Bill 83 deals specifically in its provisions with notice of termination and seeks to amend the very provisions that my colleague from the Kootenays said ought to be amended when she introduced Bill M244 some six months ago. I'm glad to see that this government has finally caught up with the New Democrats, with the initiatives of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Kootenay, and has tried to introduce legislation that mirrors what we put forward in our program of protecting jobs and paycheques for working families during the recession.

It is clear that this legislation has all sorts of potential, but it is also clear that it has its pitfalls. I've talked a bit about the potential of what we've put forward, and I'm going to talk in a minute about the pitfalls. But I want to say at the outset that the reason we on this ride of the House forwarded these ideas some months ago about a critical industries commissioner and notice-of-termination provisions is that part of the philosophy that New Democrats adhere to is a thoughtful, rational approach to dealing with the economy. It is an idea and a philosophy that is alien to the Social Credit Party — which explains why the government has been hesitant to move in this regard. The thoughtful, rational approach to economics that we advocate is not the approach that the Social Credit government has advocated in the past. The introduction of these provisions which mirror what we've done and proposed in the past is in some ways a recognition by the government that its own economic philosophies, as it has tried to impose them on the province, have failed.

I mentioned at the outset that there are also some pitfalls to this type of legislation, and I want to talk a bit about those. The reason I want to do that is that this government has a record of favouring its friends and insiders.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think I have to recite all the examples for all the members — although I do hear a member who was intimately involved in the giveaway of GO B.C. grants to his friends now heckling me. It is a government that has consistently and continually favoured its own friends and insiders. The pitfall in this type of legislation is that it allows room for abuse, particularly for a government that favours its own friends and insiders.

I don't think members have to take my word about the potential for abuse. They should take a look at what the previous strategic industries commissioner, the predecessor to this legislation, had to say. He said: "This sort of legislation could be abused. If cabinet is making decisions, the potential is there for them to make decisions that are favourable to themselves."

Through its provisions, this legislation allows for all sorts of decisions to be made by cabinet, to be made in the political back rooms. I don't intend to recite every section that allows that to happen; one need only take a look at section 4, which allows cabinet to make decisions as to which industries may be declared to be exempt. It is cabinet that decides which of those industries are to be exempt, and it is cabinet, interestingly, that decides which pieces of legislation — including the Workers' Compensation Act — can be declared to be exempt under the provisions of this legislation. It allows cabinet to cut the deals under this legislation, and this is a cabinet, as I said earlier, that has consistently favoured its own friends and insiders.

Some would argue that there is no reason for that type of concern. Indeed, I heard the minister make reference to that argument when he introduced the legislation. However, one also has to take a look at what has happened in this province over the past few months under this administration. It has already gone around handing out somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 million in loans and assistance partially designed to be covered by provisions of this legislation.

Again, it's not me who has been keeping a record. But those who have kept a record have pointed out.... I just have to quote the headline from the Victoria Times-Colonist on March 2, 1991: "Socred Ridings Enjoy Lending Bonanza." Others have commented on the pork-barrelling potential of this legislation, and on the fact that this minister, in carrying out the mandate under this portfolio and under this legislation, has handed out some $15 million in total in loans to ridings held by Social Credit members.

It is not surprising to see the member from Golden and the member from the Okanagan speak on the legislation, because they have been beneficiaries of it. I am sure we will later see the member from Dawson Creek speak on it, and some of the members for Vancouver who have benefitted from the bonanza of pork-barrelling that has occurred under this legislation.

That's why I say the government ought to heed the comments of Art Phillips when he talked about the potential for abuse. When you wed that abuse to a government that has a traditional pattern of favouring its friends and insiders, there is reason for concern. One cannot, therefore, help but hope that

[ Page 11666 ]

when we get into more detailed debate around this legislation, there will be room for amendments which the government will honestly and favourably make and which will allow for appropriate cheeks and balances to be in place, to eliminate the potential for that type of favouritism to government friends and Insiders. In particular, there are provisions that deal with the filing of annual reports which require — if you read the legislation — that reports be filed two years after the fact.

Mr. Speaker, I think British Columbians want a government that can get its spending priorities right. British Columbians want a government that protects the jobs and paycheques of working families. British Columbians want a government which can safeguard their families' financial well-being. But at the same time they want a government that is open and fair. They want a government that doesn't favour its friends and insiders. It is hypocritical, I would suggest, for those on the opposite side who now applaud to suggest that somehow they have not favoured their own friends and insiders.

As I said at the outset, a thoughtful, rational, planned approach to our economy is vital. British Columbians above all want a government that brings to this province a thoughtful, rational approach to the economy during its entire term — not, as this government has done, just two weeks prior to an election by introducing legislation which is designed simply to assist incumbent Social Credit members who are facing, difficulty getting re-elected in their own ridings.

It's time for a change in British Columbia. It's time for open, fair government in this province. It's time for a government that is committed to protecting the paycheques of working families. It is time to put an end to a government like this that has favoured Its own friends and insiders and now introduces legislation that allows it to do that even more than it has in the past.

HON. MR. RABBITT: I rise this morning in support of Bill 83. Today we see troubled economic times throughout the world and throughout Canada, and we even see the ripple effect here in British Columbia. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Minister of Regional and Economic Development said it very well when he said the job protection commission has a single mission: to protect jobs and paycheques in British Columbia. The act itself, under 2 (a), specifically identifies that objective very clearly: to minimize job loss and the consequent destabilization of local economies, particularly those in one-industry communities. Coming from a very rural riding, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the intent of this bill is what we need in troubled times.

I've listened to my colleagues put forward some very good comments this morning in support of Bill 83. We could all ask ourselves why we need this legislation. I think it's evident to any rational, thinking person that in troubled times, you have to make special provisions. This is a time when this government is making a special provision.

I can use an example in my riding. We heard examples this morning from my colleagues of industries and jobs that were saved in their particular areas. In my riding in 1986, similar legislation saved a community, an industry and 300 jobs.

The opposition can, in their own way, try to belittle this type of legislation. But I can tell you that this legislation has a very significant role to play in British Columbia. In these troubled economic times we're going to see that certain industries may falter, and if they falter, then we are going to have to bring people to the table.

I mentioned the mine closure that was evident in Princeton. Newmont Mining was about to close down. Legislation of the day allowed the commissioner, Mr. Art Phillips, to come forward and bring everybody to the table, and here we are, over four years later, with 300 jobs still going on. I'm told that with the development and exploration that has gone on, we can possibly be looking at another ten to 15 years. Can you imagine, if a government hadn't had the intestinal fortitude to make a hard decision of the day.... They were told at that time that they were helping out friends and insiders. Sometimes my colleagues on the other side don't understand what it takes to create a job, what it takes to keep a job going.

One of the important areas of this bill, I think, is the voluntary participation. It is set up in a way that everybody has to come to the table and participate: the employer, the employees or their union, Crown utilities, Crown corporations and government if necessary. Yes, government will, if absolutely necessary in meeting the criteria, backstop this program.

The Minister of Regional and Economic Development mentioned equal participation and equal sacrifice. They go hand in hand, and it's a fair principle to build such legislation around.

The one piece of this legislation which is close to my ministry, of course, is the requirement for notice on termination, and many of you in this assembly who live in a small, rural, one-industry community will understand what the workers in that community feel. You will understand what small business in that community feels, because there is great dependency on that one industry.

[11:30]

With the backstop legislation that is coming forward, we will be able to identify, address and correct the problem. I can tell you that the derogatory comments that have been made about the minister in charge are certainly out of order, because if there is one man in this particular chamber who can make this program work it's the present Minister of Regional and Economic Development.

The necessity for the requirement for notice on termination is self-evident. We want to mitigate the effect of the closure of any plant on the employees and the community. I can assure British Columbians that my ministry will be pulling its weight along with the other ministries of this government to see that the program works. We will be assisting employees, employers and communities.

[ Page 11667 ]

The focus of this bill is people. This party's history is built on people policies, and this is a continuation. Both this government and previous governments have developed legislation that meets the day. This legislation is designed specifically to save jobs and paycheques, so that men and women throughout rural British Columbia will be able to make their mortgage payments, to make sure that their groceries are paid for, to send their children off to school and to make sure that the necessities of life are covered. Although we get smiles from some of the urban people across the way, let me tell you, to rural British Columbia that is very important.

I opened by mentioning that we are in troubled times. This legislation identifies the problems that we might encounter. It would be absolutely beautiful if we didn't have to use this legislation over the next two years. But if we do, it will be in place and the team will be in place. I can assure you that British Columbia — especially rural British Columbia — is going to get a fair shake from this government.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides first of all for the appointment of a job protection commissioner. That is a good idea, because in times of economic downturn there are industries and workers that need the support of government. We need to have government looking at what can be done, and assisting, and taking its share of the responsibility and the load. In fact, that kind of work can be done, and the government should be doing it — not in broad general terms, and not necessarily for the whole province — at certain times when particular industries go down. So on that point I would like to commend the minister for having established that there will be a job protection commissioner and that the commissioner will work within the guidelines, which now provide — and, I might say, somewhat belatedly — terms for layoff notification.

My colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew pointed out that this government promised that kind of legislation earlier, before the long recess we had. Since it didn't come, we brought in our own bill. Some of those provisions are reflected here in a very watered-down way. But to the extent that there are now requirements for the notification of employees when there are major layoffs, I would say that that is something the province has been waiting for as well.

What we see is that when an industry — or a broad number of industries, regions and localities across the province — is threatened by economic problems, a job protection commissioner can provide a broader view and perhaps more resources than an industry would have all on its own.

The challenge, of course, is to avoid the possibility of setting up a situation where there can be political preference for friends and insiders. I say that that is the major, observed and recognized challenge to this kind of legislation. The challenges to ensure there is absolute fairness and equity to all of the communities across British Columbia.

Not only has the problem been recognized by ordinary citizens who have made that point to many of us along the way, but it's been noticed by the former jobs commissioner, Mr. Art Phillips, whose comment upon hearing the proposal that this come forward was that abuse is the danger here; it's possible there will be abuse. That is something this legislation should have addressed.

Our experience with this government is that there has often been less than fairness and equity when decisions are being made. There has not been involvement by people other than those who work behind closed doors and who have the ear of government. The clear political motivation of the current minister makes that danger even more serious to those of us looking at it and criticizing it.

The act — as I'm leading up to — must be scrupulously able to require openness, fairness and objectivity. It should show clear guidelines and limits for the commissioner and the process, and it should show clear methods to involve the community in the decisions that are being made.

What does happen in this legislation? First of all, there are very few limits to what this commissioner can do and what the minister can do on the recommendation of the commissioner. For example, a minister — on the recommendation of the commissioner or, I believe, without — can award cutting rights without competition and without the public hearings that are currently required in the Forest Act.

It encourages corporate concentration. The people in this province have very clearly made the point that the concentration of corporations is not what they want. Their outcry against the proposal of this government to put more land, more clearly and totally, in the hands of large corporations under tree-farm licences.... It had to be stopped because of the public outcry. This legislation, in encouraging the possibility of corporate concentration being expanded, works against small business, small business enterprise and the small business enterprise legislation, as limited as it is for this province.

Under this legislation the minister can decide what the strategic industries are all by himself, without input. It's only the industries that the minister decides, not the regions or areas; he can decide the strategic industries.

The minister can now, I think, under this legislation do such things as will be very clear in my riding, where the timber resource has already been increased. The annual allowable cut to industry has been increased by 60 percent over a three-year period. That increase was made so-called temporarily because of forest fires and beetle threat. Now the act seems to say that the minister can again prevent the reduction of the annual allowable cut depending on what could happen in the riding. Those things can happen with no public process, Mr. Speaker. That is not adequate.

There is no term to agreements that would be reached under this act. It looks as though there is a term to when the commissioner can operate but no

[ Page 11668 ]

term to when the agreements reached under the legislation can go on.

As I said, we need clear ways laid out in the legislation to require public process. In particular, we have offences against this principle in this bill, where we have the minister able to make allocation of timber-cutting rights to some industries without public process. Public process is currently required in the Forest Act, and it says in this bill that the minister can do that without public hearings.

The communities are not necessarily involved in what goes on under this act, Mr. Speaker. For example, with the section that requires notice to employees who are going to be laid off and then sets up legislation to allow adjustment committees, communities are not involved in the adjustment committees. Why they're not — when the government proclaims to care about what the community says and proclaims to be listening to what the community wants — is beyond me. It's very clear that the centralist philosophy of this government again is, in effect, that decisions are going to be made at the top behind closed doors. Community involvement is not required, and instead of listening to the community, the decisions will be made in favour of the friends and insiders who have the ear of the government.

Mr. Speaker, it would be a very sad thing if one were to conclude from what has gone on that this government is using this act to cover some of its failures in the past.

My colleagues have already mentioned the memorandum of understanding. It was signed with the great, enthusiastic support of the Premier, and it is now creating severe problems in the interior of this province. In my own constituency Crestbrook Forest Industries has just had a 320-employee layoff for up to two months — blaming largely the memorandum of understanding which does not allow the government to respond to the situation.

More particularly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite an example of an industry that is currently under severe stress and in fact is threatening closure. Byron Creek Collieries survives mainly on contracts for selling thermal coal to Ontario. The problems that that mine faced were recognized years ago. One of the first things I did when I was elected to this House was to attempt to work with the federal government, the governments of Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan and this government to put together some measures to ensure that the sale of coal to Ontario would continue and increase. The provincial government, although it said it was involved with these measures and the recommendations and task force that is headed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Mazankowski, has done practically nothing to ensure that there is a market for British Columbia coal in Ontario. As a consequence, Byron Creek Collieries will have to close its doors. On March 29, 84 employees will be laid off in the first step of this closure.

Mr. Speaker, if the situation that has arisen and has not been addressed by this province is one that would be addressed by this legislation, I think it's a shame that this government, which saw this coming, has done nothing until now. Now it brings together a job protection commissioner to try to make good the mistakes it has already made to its exclusions of Byron Creek Collieries in the East Kootenay and its coal industry.

This government has not cared about coal. If this bill is here now to pretend that this government cares about coal, it's just too late. To the extent that this bill exists as a vehicle for pork-barrelling, to the extent that it represents the only answer that the government has to problems identified years ago and given no government action, and to the extent that it centralizes decisions and excludes community, I will pose it as a Johnny-come-lately bill. It's too late, and it is not going to foot anyone that it does the job that the government should have done years before.

[11:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. BRUMMET: I certainly want to rise in my place to support this legislation. The member for Kootenay talks about "just now" the government is doing something about it, "just now" the government is bringing forth legislation to bring into effect more of the same policies that it has had in place for some time in trying to help create jobs and to save jobs in this province.

I might point out that for all of the efforts to assist employers and companies and industries to stay in business, we have heard nothing but criticism from the opposition. They have attacked every one of those assistance programs designed not to help the companies, but to help the companies stay in business and therefore to keep the jobs in this province going.

The minister has already talked about the high credentials of the commissioner, and I don't think that needs to be reiterated. But the commissioner cannot by himself solve these problems. And there are problems. The lumber industry, perhaps, is a good indication of that at this time. It doesn't matter what any opposition member promises, you cannot keep sawmills operating indefinitely if you are not selling the lumber. And to sell the lumber we do have to be competitive. In that respect the opposition continually seeks to undermine the competitive ability of the industries.

They constantly talk about and attack the employers. I think it was Abraham Lincoln as far back as 1860 who said that you can't help the wage-earners by attacking the employers. You can't help the employees by attacking the employers, and that holds true today. Unless those companies are operating, there are no jobs. It is fine — and perhaps politically expedient — for the opposition to say: "Go with us and we will get you higher wages." Let me tell you that higher wages are of little use when your job has gone.

Probably the most graphic illustration of that was when the NDP actually had the opportunity to dictate the policy in this province. What happened to the oil industry? They went after the oil companies in this province, and they did not hurt the oil companies. The oil companies went to fairer fields. But I'll

[ Page 11669 ]

tell you that they hurt the people who were working for those oil companies and the service companies that were serving those oil companies.

To give you an illustration of how graphic it was, when the NDP was in power the lease sales — which always precede the seismic activity and the exploration activity — in this province went down to $12 million per year. Since this government has taken office they have come back up to over $100 million per year, and that is only direct revenue. The rest is jobs that all of that seismic activity and all of that generates. As I understand it, right now there are some 43 rigs drilling in my area. Each rig reportedly supports anywhere from 40 to 65 jobs. When the NDP was in power I think about 18 rigs drilled the whole year; yet they say they are the friends of the working people. They say: "Go with us and we'll get you a better deal." Well, I think their slogan should really be converted to: "Go down with us, because we will destroy the employers and we will destroy the industries in this province if we ever have the opportunity to do that.”

I repeat: unless there are employers....

MRS. BOONE: You've already done that. What about Taylor?

MR. BRUMMET: I would like to get to Taylor and show how socialism has been the potential destruction of the refinery there. I'm rather interested how all of a sudden that member from Prince George has taken an interest in what happens in the oil patch, when their party has habitually and regularly tried to destroy the oil industry in this province.

To get back to the legislation before us, I have no problem with giving wide, discretionary powers to the commissioners. After all, the commissioner is selected because of the ability the commissioner has shown in the past to make good judgments. I don't think legislation or policy should then, after appointing such a person, deny that person the right to make judgment calls.

I might point out that the legislation gives the commissioner the discretionary power as to whether or not all parties are coming to the table. It gives the commissioner a great deal of discretionary power about whether that industry is one that should be assisted, whether it has the potential to remain in place in the long term — not just to prop it up for a short time.

A great deal has been said from the other side. Each of the members in turn, on the other side, has talked about pork-barrelling and assisting friends. I know the opposition works on the theory that if you say it often enough it becomes believable. As Marshall McLuhan once said, enough mud sometimes gives the impression of depth. There is no depth on that side.

As little as the opposition is impressed with facts and as little use as they like to make of facts, let me give you some facts. Since 1986 until 1991, under the various financial assistance programs that have been provided by this government, $300 million went to Social Credit ridings and $283 million went to NDP ridings.

MR. MILLER: That isn’t fair.

MR. BRUMMET. The member for Prince Rupert says that isn't fair.

When you consider that there are almost twice as many Social Credit ridings in this province as there are NDP ridings, it very soon becomes evident that the amount per riding, on average, was much higher in the NDP ridings than in the Social Credit ridings.

They talk about our friends. I'll tell you, our friends are the working people in this province. The best friend that the working people in this province have is the free enterprise system, which will try to keep businesses and employers alive so that people have jobs.

Perhaps I should add that the present minister is being criticized and attacked for pork-barrelling, for giving money to his friends. Since that minister has taken office, the biggest single loan that has been put out there has been to the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew constituency. Yet that member had the audacity to accuse this minister of giving money on a partisan basis.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: That loan was to Versatile, which happens to be in the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew riding. As I indicated that many of the loans....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: That is not just a statement. It is a matter of public record that the loan has been given to Versatile, in an NDP riding. Not because of the partisanship, but because it creates....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: The member for Prince George North says it is because they have a good MLA. I don't know what that MLA has been doing other than snooping and sniping and smearing in this House. What has he done to represent the people in his riding?

The member for Prince George North has suddenly taken interest in the oil and gas industry in this province. Isn't it amazing, after all the time that they have tried to denigrate that industry, to try to get it to move elsewhere into friendlier fields. As a matter of fact, the people in the oil industry have no fear of drilling dry holes, because they know that's part of the game. They have no fear of the risks that they take in the winter and any other time. The one fear they have is that socialism could come into this province. That would virtually shut down their industry.

[ Page 11670 ]

That member for Prince George talks about resource towns and about the memorandum of understanding being a detriment. Well, I've been in this House long enough to have heard so many times.... Whenever the forest industry was operating, what did we hear from the members of the opposition? "You're giving away the timber. You should be collecting more from those people. The stumpage isn't paying its way; you should increase the stumpage." The memorandum of understanding tends to increase the stumpage because we were forced into by a federal situation. Yet here they are blaming the increase in stumpage when they have consistently insisted on increasing it.

Here we have a group that says: "You've go to go after them. You've got to hit them harder." At the same time, when it's to their political convenience, they turn around and say: "You're hitting them too hard."

I want to talk about PetroCan and a couple of other things, so I would like to continue my remarks this afternoon. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.