[ Page 11671 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Constitutional Amendment Approval Act (Bill 81). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Introduction and first reading –– 11671

Tabling Documents –– 11671

Oral Questions

Pension plan for doctors. Mr. Harcourt –– 11671

Forestry memorandum of understanding. Mr. Crandall –– 11672

Pension plan for doctors. Mr. Harcourt –– 11673

Women's services. Ms. Marzari –– 11673

Ministerial Statement

Versatile Pacific court decision. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 11673

Mr. Sihota

Job Protection Act (Bill 83). Second reading

Mr. Brummet –– 11675

Mr. Barlee –– 11677

Mr. Long –– 11678

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 11679

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 11680

Mr. Cashore –– 11681

Mr. Reynolds –– 11682

Mr. Lovick –– 11683

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 11684

Mr. G. Janssen –– 11685

Hon. Mr. Serwa –– 11686

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 11687

Mr. Clark –– 11690

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11691

Hon. J. Jansen –– 11693

Mr. Peterson –– 11694

Ms. Smallwood –– 11694

Mr. Reid –– 11695

Mr. D'Arcy –– 11695

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 11696

The House met at 2.04 p.m.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
APPROVAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Constitutional Amendment Approval Act.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to institute a requirement that the government conduct a referendum under the Referendum Act before introducing a motion to amend the constitution of Canada. This act will allow public participation to the extent we think necessary. It hopefully will deal with a situation such as we have heard of from Ottawa today, where, as I understand it, the suggestion was being made that Ottawa could somehow meet with Quebec and deal with constitutional issues unilaterally and that somehow we, British Columbia and the provinces, would agree. Not only will we not agree with that, not only is it our position and will it continue to be that we must always be involved in that constitutional process, but we wish to go beyond that and say that all the people of the province must be given the opportunity to be involved In the process.

This bill is a first in the country, and I'm sure it will be followed by other provinces as they see the value of such legislation. All people, regardless of where they live in this province, will be given ample opportunity to voice their views and to decide how we proceed when amending the constitution. Obviously, too, it will send a clear message to Ottawa, which we understand to be necessary now, that B.C. will insist on being involved in the process and that they can't make unilateral deals with Quebec; we the province, we the people will be involved. This legislation is one more move towards that involvement.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 81 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the year 1988-89.

Hon. Mr. Messmer tabled the annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the 12 months ending December 31, 1990.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the thirty-fifth annual report of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, part 2, and the fourteenth annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act.

Oral Questions

PENSION PLAN FOR DOCTORS

MR. HARCOURT: There isn't a single reason why the taxpayers of British Columbia should trust this government with their tax dollars. I'll give you an example. The Premier announced that he had negotiated a 100 percent taxpayer-funded pension deal for doctors. The Premier said that it war, a good deal for British Columbia. Does the Minister of Finance agree that the doctors' pension, negotiated by the Premier, is a good deal for taxpayers?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I believe I'll defer that question to the Premier of the province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think we're all aware that the negotiations with the doctors were protracted. They certainly involved many hours by many in attempting to find a resolution. Generally speaking, I think the populace throughout the province wanted to see this issue resolved in a non-confrontational way.

We sought a way to resolve this, but at the same time, as well, I think most members are aware that we were in the midst of discussing the possibility of a deferred income opportunity for doctors in the province. This deferred income opportunity had been made available by the government of Canada, but had to be, in fact, agreed to prior to some date this month. So the talks we were involved in involved not only increases to fees but also the opportunity for providing a deferred income in place of increasing fees. Frankly, there is a considerable advantage to having a deferred income as opposed to increasing fees, for a number of reasons. One, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, is that if you increase the fees, then that increase is compounded and grows year after year, and the cost to the taxpayers is considerably more than a flat sum of $25 million for a deferred income plan. These increases that were being sought were not only far in excess of the $25 million we're talking about here but would have been ongoing forever, and certainly, as the number of doctors in the system grew, so would the cost to the taxpayers. Similarly....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe the answer is getting beyond the scope of the question. The question was somewhat open-ended. No one is calling for order, but we do have standing orders which the Chair is bound to enforce. We have a limited time-frame. If the questions can be framed so that briefer answers can be given, then we'll have an opportunity for more members to ask questions. This is getting into the kind of debate we would expect either during estimates or in the committee period.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll be brief, Mr. Speaker. We found that the influx of people into the province — they're coming in very large numbers from other parts of Canada and elsewhere — was

[ Page 11672 ]

adding to the cost of health care. Therefore a flat sum is much cheaper than increasing the fees. I appreciate that everyone might not fully understand that. I'd be glad to explain it further in greater detail. I should mention, though, that the Health critic for the NDP went on radio the following day and was extremely supportive of the approach we have taken.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Premier, when I saw you negotiating the Expo land sale I never thought I could see you negotiate a worse business deal. You just did it. You just topped yourself on that.

I'd like to get back to the member who is supposed to be in charge of the province's finances. The Premier just said that it was a package deal, that the doctors took a retirement plan in lieu of higher fees. Does the Minister of Finance agree that the pension plan for doctors is part of a package deal?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'll defer that question to the Minister of Health.

HON. J. JANSEN: I guess if you want to sit on the fence, two things happen. One, you irritate parts of your body; but secondly, and perhaps most important for this House, you forget what you said.

When the deferred income plan first came into being, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey indicated in a radio broadcast that he supported it. But more important and more fundamental was that the Leader of the Opposition, in discussion with the president of the BCMA, indicated that in fact he supported this deferred income benefit plan. That was the understanding that he gave her.

The Premier has indicated that the deferred income benefit plan, because of its lump sum entitlement, is in fact a good deal for both the taxpayers of the province and the physicians and surgeons. I'm pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition also agrees with this deal.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to know how the Minister of Health was listening in on that conversation I was having with the head of the B.C. Medical Association.

I can see that the previous Minister of Finance thinks so much of this deal that he couldn't even stomach being here today. He has left his seat. The minister's predecessor said. "By virtue of this being a package deal, National Revenue will have to revisit its advance ruling. Therefore there is no deal." Does it remain the policy of your ministry that Revenue Canada should investigate this deal for compliance with Canadian tax law?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I appreciate the question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I believe it's important that the Leader of the Opposition and others realize that, due to the fact that we have had excellent fiscal management in the face of falling revenues in this province, we have been able to afford to maintain education, health and social services.

I was just looking over some of the quotes from my critic, your aspiring Minister of Finance — God forbid he should ever become it. He said: "It's my view that politicians can play around with taxes; that's what we're elected to do." We have no intention of playing around with taxes. And I will leave Revenue Canada's business up to Revenue Canada, where it rightly belongs.

MR. HARCOURT: With the former minister's resignation, is there nobody over there that's willing to stand up for the taxpayers? Has the Minister of Finance then transmitted this change in policy to Revenue Canada? Has he told them he likes the deal? Has he no concern for the tax implications? Has he no concern that the provincial government — the taxpayers — are paying 100 percent of this doctors' pension scheme?

HON. MR. VEITCH: First of all, the Leader of the Opposition is making many assumptions. He's wrong, as he was wrong before. He asked if we had no concern for the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. I can tell you, hon. Leader of the Opposition, it was on television the other evening that the House Leader of the Opposition — Rose — was saying that he supports the Ontario model. The model you purport to support, sir, has no thought whatsoever for the taxpayers of any jurisdiction. You think you know how to spend your way out of a recession, but you really have no comprehension whatsoever.

I can tell you, we have absolute concern for the taxpayers of this province. That's why we've brought in the 12-point taxpayer protection program. That's why we're bringing in the type of legislation we're bringing into this House now. That's why we are curbing public sector spending.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister knows very well it's inappropriate to discuss legislation that's before the House. I'll accept the next question.

FORESTRY MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Forests. My question has to do with the current combination of low market prices for lumber and higher stumpage prices. I know the memorandum of understanding that was signed between our country and the United States in 1986 was in response to serious mill closures in the forest industry in the United States. It was not a simplistic response, but rather an attempt to retain our share of the American market. Notwithstanding those facts, however, a return to pre-MOU days would be beneficial to our forest industry. I'd like to know if the minister would advise the House what he has decided to do to have the MOU removed.

[ Page 11673 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thank the member for his question. The memorandum of understanding that he refers to is an agreement between our two countries — between Canada and the United States. It is not simply an agreement between British Columbia and the United States. To that end, we have been urging Ottawa — specifically the minister, John Crosbie — to get down to Washington as quickly as possible to make our case regarding the MOU. Its not quite as simple as that, because first of all we have to have all the provinces in Canada — or the affected provinces — on side and agreeing to start down the negotiation path to rid ourselves of this offensive agreement.

It was never intended to be a permanent agreement, and 1 report to this House that conditions have changed dramatically since the agreement was put in place. We feel that we now have a good case to make. Mr. Crosbie has been out and has met with the Premier and me, as well as with the Premiers and ministers of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, and he is now ready to go to his cabinet to make the case for negotiating our way out of the memorandum of understanding with the Americans.

It will not be an easy negotiation. I caution everyone that it's in a delicate position at this time. I think that the less said about it publicly is probably better, because the Americans have every intention of keeping the agreement in place. So I just leave the House and the members with the caution that it will not be an easy negotiation.

PENSION PLAN FOR DOCTORS

MR. HARCOURT: The Minister of Health and the doctors' pension deal led us to believe that the deal would cost the taxpayers $25 million over three years. Can the Minister of Finance confirm that this deal will actually cost the taxpayers $25 million per year forever?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It appears to me that you are asking a question of the Minister of Health. I would defer the question to him.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, the question of compensation in the doctors' benefit plan was that $25 million was the cost over three years for this particular plan. That's correct. The contribution thereafter will be part of negotiations in future years with physicians and surgeons, but it is mandated that $25 million will come out of the negotiation package in future years. That's correct.

WOMEN'S SERVICES

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. Madam Minister, one in three women suffer physical violence in their lives, and the government's commitment to combating this violence is comprised of a task force and an advertising campaign. There's a problem here. It's called "rising expectations" and increasing women's expectations that there will be someone to answer the phone when that crucial call is made. Why is the minister advertising services that are not available in many communities throughout this province?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, it's not true that there are not services in place. In fact, there is currently $8 million being spent on transition houses in the Ministry of Social Services and on programs in the Ministry of the Attorney-General and the Ministry of the Solicitor-General. It's true that there are probably not these kinds of services in every community throughout this province. But it's important first of all for the public to understand and become aware of what violence means in the lives of women and children. I don't believe that the critic on the opposition side is saying that the violence campaign is not a good one. What you are saying has some merit, but surely you're not telling me to pull the ad campaign, which tells women that violence is not a family matter, that it is a crime and that there is help available.

It is our intention in every ministry affected to make certain that those services are available in those communities. We're now doing an analysis of what has gone on in the last few weeks, and we'll be acting accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this morning a number of you have sent notes to the Chair about housekeeping matters. Some of you may have noticed we have made some changes to the arrangements in the House. For those of you who have been adversely affected, you might let me know if the improvements made during the lunch hour by the staff have been adequate.

Ministerial Statement

VERSATILE PACIFIC COURT DECISION

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a brief ministerial statement respecting Versatile Pacific Shipyards. When I came in, I gave to the member for Prince George North a note that I would be doing this, but I wasn't able to give her the details of what I was going to be talking about because they have just come to me from Mr. justice Maczko's decision which was rendered today.

In September 1990, the government announced it would be awarding to Versatile the contract for construction of a superferry. In October 1990, a formal contract was entered into between the Ferry Corporation and Integrated Ferry Constructors, which was a newly formed affiliate of Versatile. That contract was entered into with the expectation that Versatile would be the major subcontractor for construction of the superferry.

In December of 1990 the Hongkong Bank of Canada provided Versatile with a loan of $7.5 million. That loan was guaranteed first by Versatile's parent corporation, Shieldings Inc., and secondly by the province of British Columbia. The principal security

[ Page 11674 ]

for the loan is what's called a Panamax drydock — a floating drydock in North Vancouver. At the time of the loan, Versatile stated that all overdue accounts payable in December 1991 would be paid, and that sufficient net revenue would be generated from then on to enable the company to continue its operations and prepare for superferry construction.

In February of 1991, the Industry, Science and Technology industry of Canada responded to Versatile's request to support the 1991 phase of their restructuring plan. However, Versatile is of the view that the federal offer of assistance is — and will continue to be — insufficient for it to continue its operations. Accordingly, the company has today obtained court protection under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act and is now seeking support from this ministry to persuade the Hongkong Bank not to call their $7.5 million loan. The company has requested 120 days to restructure its financing, during which time, under this provision of the law, creditors cannot take action against the company. The company hopes to refinance itself by selling some of its assets, by negotiating a greater contribution from Canada and by realizing some profits from the superferry.

When the loan guarantee war, authorized, Mr. Speaker, it was anticipated that this would enable Versatile, which is a British Columbia company, to participate in superferry construction, and that this would provide the company with a volume of work sufficient to sustain its transition to a more efficient long-term operation.

The company is not bankrupt, but it is seeking to reorganize its finances. This action that it has taken today and that has been granted by Mr. Justice Maczko was precipitated by an unforeseen cost overrun on the construction of two search-and-rescue vessels for the federal government and by a federal government assistance offer that turned out to be too little, too late.

Even with this development, the guarantee advanced by the province continues to be worthwhile for the following reasons: it bought time to prepare for superferry construction; the ferry contractors' group cart now step in and proceed with Versatile's share of the superferry work, using Versatile's workforce, particularly in Esquimalt; it is well brought up to current status — the employee pension fund contributions that were required to be brought up — and it supported trade creditors and brought them into a position where they could be available to advance their expertise for superferry construction.

As well, the possibility of a full-service ship repair capacity for the port of Vancouver was also preserved by the action that was taken in January.

I want to confirm that at this point in time the province does not expect to have to pay out any money under the guarantee. The maximum amount of the guarantee is, as I said, $7.5 million. In the event that the province's guarantee is exercised, which would require the bank to call its loan, as well as Shieldings to default on their own guarantee, full recovery of our guarantee would be expected because it is secured against the Panamax drydock in Vancouver, which has a value, conservatively, of $15 million.

I've been asked what would happen to the superferry work that is to be done by Versatile in Esquimalt. The answer is this. The ferry contractor's group is positioned to assume Versatile's share of the superferry contract, using Versatile's current labour force. The schedule and cost of the superferry project will not be affected in any significant way by these events.

With respect to the North Vancouver operation, the yard will be closed and the Panamax drydock will remain in place for the time being until further work for it can be obtained through the restructuring of the shipyard industry in British Columbia that is going on or through other measures that are being contemplated right now.

[2:30]

With respect to the position of the government of Canada, the federal government has indicated that it is willing to consider a contribution to finance preparations required in Esquimalt to proceed with the superferry construction, and I had a conversation with Mr. Benoit Bouchard with respect to that just a few days ago.

Versatile and the federal government will have to resolve their financing funding dispute with respect to possible federal assistance, and this will not directly involve the province at this time.

In conclusion, the province's guarantee remains in place. It is well secured. Its fundamental purpose continues, and the superferry for B.C. Ferries will be built at the Esquimalt drydock, whichever company ultimately manages the project.

Our loan guarantee still will lever $50 million worth of work for the people who need jobs in Esquimalt. We will continue between now and July 15 of this year to support the workers in Esquimalt by working with all the partners who are involved in constructing this ship to see that it takes place on time, on budget and under the conditions that were originally agreed to.

MR. SIHOTA: This morning there was a rumour throughout Esquimalt that led people to believe that Versatile was going bankrupt. I can tell members of this House that that rumour sent a chill through the community of Esquimalt. However, I think a number of points have to be made at this time.

First, people have to understand that the company is not declaring bankruptcy. Rather, this is an application under the provisions of the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act to forestall action by creditors until July 15 to allow Versatile to rearrange its affairs.

The second thing that I think people within the community of Esquimalt and the greater Victoria area have to understand is that the work on the superferry will proceed and that the contract to build the superferry is predominantly with the company known as IFC, not with Versatile. Albeit Versatile may be threatened in terms of its own financial underpinnings, that is not the case in the case of IFC, the company contracted to perform the work on the construction of the superferry. Therefore the work

[ Page 11675 ]

force should be reassured that that work will be proceeding.

Third, I would have hoped that the minister would have said — and I am sure that he intended to say this — that all of us in this House are committed to seeing a viable shipyard remain here on the west coast. That is absolutely essential to this country.

Fourth, it seems to me that the message has to be made loud and clear to the federal government that we are not prepared to see the abandonment of our shipyard on the west coast. In particular, this government and this House should be calling upon the federal government to live up to its obligations in some of the decisions and contracts entered into with Versatile. Specifically, there was an understanding between Versatile Pacific and the federal government that for every dollar Versatile put into the shipyard the federal government would match that money. That obligation should be maintained, and this government and this House should resolve to make sure that the federal government fulfils that obligation.

Secondly, and with respect to the federal government, there should be a strong message sent by this House and by the government that the money set aside under an agreement which predated the loss of the Polar 8 ought to be forwarded to Versatile to allow it to rearrange its affairs quickly. By taking these actions and by making the assurance to the workforce of Esquimalt that there is no bankruptcy and that the superferry will proceed, we'll be laying the foundation toward maintaining a viable shipyard in British Columbia and going a long way toward protecting jobs and paycheques of working families in the Esquimalt area.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND. I call second reading of Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

JOB PROTECTION ACT
(continued)

MR. BRUMMET: This legislation provides a commissioner and a vehicle and a real opportunity to keep in operation some of the industries that can be kept operating — those that can be kept operating rationally, logically and for the long-term benefit of the people of this province. That means saving jobs — not all jobs — based on successful experience in the mid-eighties. So it's a tried-and-true approach. It cannot save all jobs, but it certainly can save many jobs. Previous legislation saved hundreds of jobs in this province that are still ongoing, and this bill has the opportunity to do that as well.

So I would challenge the opposition to set aside their partisan inclination to automatically reject anything that this government tries to put into legislation and to support this bill. If in fact they are interested, as they say, in protecting the jobs of workers in this province, then they should support this bill before us. I would challenge them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, in larger communities or areas the obfuscation tactics and rhetoric of the socialists can perhaps be accepted, because they're lost in the morass of other industrial activity and other things that are going on. In smaller communities the effects of socialism and socialistic policies become very evident, very readily apparent and very much detested, because they mean the destruction of jobs.

You see, socialist philosophy in itself may not be that harmful, and it has a certain appeal to it. But we had the experience once in this province when that philosophy was translated into policy and action. It had a very damaging effect. As a matter of fact, you could say that it is hazardous to the health of economic activity. That is why the people in my area are not supportive of socialism. As a matter of fact, I know they are even in favour of Site C, because they see the benefits of it. It is reusing water that is already stored, and so it is a more efficient use.

1 know that during the '79 campaign, the '83 campaign, the '86 campaign and even recently the NDP members from down south have come to my riding to speak against Site C. My majority went up, because I was in favour of Site C and still am, because Site C generates electricity. Electricity in this province generates economic activity, and economic activity in this province generates jobs. That's why I'm in favour of Site C. As a matter of fact, I know that the member for Kootenay, as Environment critic, came up to my constituency earlier this year for a meeting to speak very much against Site C. I am happy to report that she was able to draw to that meeting all 23 socialists who still exist in the North Peace River.

Speaking of socialism and this bill, Mr. Speaker, let me use the example of Petro-Canada that was raised this morning. I'm certainly happy to hear the political platitudes being expressed by some members on the socialist side, but I would like to ask what they have actually done to try to keep the refinery in British Columbia. They still attack the oil companies. They still attack all of these people, and they say: "Vote for us." Its no wonder that one of the people on an open-line radio show in my riding last Friday phoned in when the Premier was on the open-line and said: "Mr. Premier, I'm not a Social Crediter. I don't support you personally. But, Mr. Premier, voting for the NDP is voting for unemployment."

Petro-Canada was a socialist creation, albeit by the Liberal government in Ottawa. Taxpayers' dollars were generously used to buy a refinery at Taylor that had been developed by private enterprise and had been operating successfully and serving the area well for many years. They also spent a lot of money buying up service stations, and that was with taxpayers' dollars.

Since then Petro-Canada has taken a lot of tax write-offs in order to do some fixing of the refinery at Taylor. Despite that fixing — and it would appear that it was only an illusion that they were trying to create — for some time now Petro-Canada has been setting the stage for saying that the refinery is not economical, that it can't handle it, etc. I do know that recently there was a report that Petro-Canada made more

[ Page 11676 ]

money from refineries last year than they ever have in the past. It was in the paper just the other day. I'm sorry I don't have the figures with me. But PetroCanada has been trying to phase out the refinery in Taylor for some time.

[2:45]

I think it goes to show you that when you have a government-run conglomerate, such as the socialists are for, it disregards the wishes of the people in the area. They have seen fit to use all those tax dollars over the years and now turn around and say: "We're going to pull that refinery operation into our bigger centres — Port Moody and Alberta. We can refine the oil there cheaper and ship it back."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let me talk about the environmental effects of shipping that oil from the region to Port Moody. Right now the petroleum products are trucked up the Alaska Highway, some three tanker trucks every day to Whitehorse alone, plus the tankers on B.C. Rail going to Fort Nelson and all of the highways operation. Also, the gasoline is trucked from some parts of Alberta to Prince George, to Tumbler Ridge and that whole area. If that oil is refined at Port Moody, the trucking industry will not be hauling it to Whitehorse; it will go by barge up the coast. So that is an environmental concern. It will also increase the size of the operation of the Port Moody refinery. So some of the opposition members might give some thought to objecting to taking the oil from the Peace River country and refining it in Port Moody and creating all those environmental concerns, They seem to object to so many things, except when it would help.

The other oil may go to Alberta; I very much object and I am working with the minister to say that the oil in British Columbia should be processed in British Columbia. So we are working hard.

I just got a note today at noon hour.... We have been working through the National Energy Board, which does not have jurisdiction over whether or not refineries close, but they do have jurisdiction over whether or not the plant is transferred to Westcoast Transmission. I have no problem with Westcoast Transmission. Natural gas sales and the processing plant are expanding and growing, but Petro-Canada — this federal conglomerate that used our taxpayers' dollars to buy that refinery — is now going to give it, in effect, to Westcoast Transmission. They say they're charging $13 million on paper for it, but before they charge the $13 million, they are going to be putting $7 million into fix-up of the parts that Westcoast gets. Now you really can't blame Westcoast for taking that deal. They're expanding anyway, and it's a wonderful deal. I don't know how many people in this province know that Petro-Canada owns a controlling interest in Westcoast.

I have tried to say to the National Energy Board that since that refinery was not put on the market, and since no effort was made to ask anyone else to operate that refinery, it has to be an insider deal, and the National Energy Board should at least give the people in the area an opportunity to be heard.

Today I heard their answer. They say they don't intend to have any meetings here. They're going to decide it down east, probably on Thursday.

It's a good example of when socialism gets into taking over Industries that were operating successfully. So you have a federal conglomerate that is serving its own interests despite the fact that it used taxpayers' dollars in order to do that.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to continue to fight for that refinery and for the value added to the products in British Columbia instead of, as 1 said, the political rhetoric and me-too....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I care too. Maybe some of the socialists could get in touch with some of their socialist friends in Petro-Canada and privately try to assist us.

Mr. Speaker, this morning some of the opposition members were saying that this bill is in order to benefit our Social Credit friends and Social Credit ridings. I note the second member for Victoria applauds that statement. Obviously he was either not here or again not listening this morning when I pointed out the facts. The allegation is that we favour Social Credit ridings and our friends, I noticed that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who this morning talked about pork-barrelling and about all of this, did not mention anything about pork-barrelling this afternoon when he found out that this government assistance had made possible the shipbuilding industry in his riding. This government puts financial assistance where it makes sense — not on a partisan basis.

Now contrast that with the socialist position, where they have already promised special favours to practically all of the special interest friends of theirs in this province. What chance do they have to deliver? Obviously the socialists in Ontario made a lot of promises, and their leader now has to retract many of those promises and even then go into $6 billion and $8 billion debt a year. So that's really going to help the people in Ontario. One of the reasons we do not have enough jobs in British Columbia is that these people from Ontario are moving here to get better opportunities in British Columbia. So let's put to rest some of these allegations.

The socialists have made an allegation that we favour our friends and our Social Credit ridings. It is a fact, despite the fact that there are only half as many socialist ridings in this province as Social Credit ridings, that $300 million went to the Social Credit ridings over the last four and a half years and $283 million went to the NDP ridings. So on a proportional basis the NDP ridings have received a lot more.

Interjection.

[ Page 11677 ]

MR. BRUMMET: That second member for Victoria keeps saying: "Call an election." That member would very much like to have an election before the people find out the facts.

This Social Credit government provides help on the basis of merit and where the benefits will accrue to the workers and to the people in British Columbia. As I say, contrast that to the socialist position of promising each one of their friends: go with us and we will get you more; go with us and we'll get you more wages, more benefits and more government spending.

I suggested this morning and I repeat that I think their philosophy should be "go down with us, ” rather than "go with us, ” because that's exactly what's going to happen to many of the people in this province and the workers if we ever have the misfortune to again elect a socialist government. I think it's probably indicative that in any province or country which has experienced the socialist system for any period of time, they are working their butts off to get out of it.

So the NDP philosophy — go after the companies despite the fact that if you take down the companies you take the jobs away with them.... They don't seem to understand that. They said they were very interested in keeping the forest jobs in this province. They're against the MOU, but they did speak for higher stumpage we've — got to get more, get those companies that are logging and that are creating those jobs to pay a great deal more.

I've mentioned that they are against Site C, against generating electricity from a renewable resource. Yet they say that they're in favour of jobs. They're against any land development, even in my constituency where a few hundred acres wouldn't even be noticed out of the millions of acres for farming activity. Yet they support keeping all of that land tied up-don't do any development, don't provide power, don't provide land and don't provide trees.

Any movement in this province that says "save the trees" immediately gets the support of the socialists. The Carmanah example is probably a good one, where this government said half and half — the key parts for preservation, the other parts for logging. What did they do? They were against that. Save them all, everywhere. 1 would think that it is far better to compromise in the interests of jobs as well as the environment, than to simply say: "Forget about the jobs. We're going to get onto that bandwagon at this particular time."

I think that the members on this side of the House will have absolutely no trouble supporting this legislation. I challenge the socialists to, for a change, set aside their natural inclination to attack this government and to vote in favour of this Job Protection Act in British Columbia.

MR. BARLEE: I see that the usually rational member for North Peace River has departed somewhat from his usual style. I think we concur in principle, but there are some fatal flaws, some weaknesses in the provisions of the bill.

The minister in introducing Bill 83 emphasized the impact of the economic downturn on one-industry towns. That's all very well, but he forgot about some other towns, too. I think there are some general flaws in this overview.

Firstly, the bill does not really address the problems of most of the towns of the interior of British Columbia, because most of those towns are not one-industry towns. Most of them have a more diverse economic base. Some of these towns, members will be interested to know, never really recovered from the downturn of the 1980s, which was introduced by this government. The unemployment rates are still unusually high, almost Draconian.

So these towns are not one-industry towns; they are multifaceted towns. Many depend upon various parts of the economy for their well-being. There are many small businesses, and they have been hit very hard in my particular area by the free trade agreement, which this government has endorsed. I think they should go around and ask some of their former supporters in places like Oliver and Osoyoos and Grand Forks what they think of the free trade agreement now, a few years after it was inaugurated by this government.

The cross-border traffic figures will indicate something there. In Grand Forks, the cross-border traffic figures are up 820 percent in one year. Those are one-way dollars. Those dollars leave B.C., and essentially they leave forever.

So they haven't done a very good job on them. Some of the small businesses in my area are also closing down the secondary industries because of the impact of the free trade agreement, which was endorsed by this government.

There are a couple of other areas I'm interested in.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mining.

MR. BARLEE: We'll get around to mining, Mr. Member for Yale-Lillooet.

The agricultural business is still in disarray. Five thousand jobs depend upon it, and this government really hasn't done much yet. Nor do I expect them to.

With tourism, which I think is the great wave of the future, there has been no strategic economic policy from this government for the last decade. There really has not been any strategic policy at all. What's the result of this? In our area, 16½ percent unemployed — an army of unemployed in the Okanagan. There are 20,000 people out of work, and 20,000 people is quite a bit. It's been historically that way, probably only exceeded by the number out of work in Kamloops, which is the minister's own constituency.

The member for Yale-Lillooet was talking about myths, and I find these myths very interesting. He said that this government has been very kind to mining. We both have a little background in mining. I've a background in lode mining and in placer mining. When you study the record, it is rather interesting. For instance, free miners have been in this province since 1858. As the member may or may

[ Page 11678 ]

not know, you used to pay $5 a year. This government jacked that up to $25. That's only a 500 percent increase. That's not too bad. There are other increases which are rather interesting, too.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: Yes, 1858.

That's not too bad; it was all in the last ten years, Some of the other increases.... We have a small mining company that used to pay $50 a year. Now it's $500. That's 1,000 percent. So you guys have done very well.

Talking about myths, the member for North Peace River talked about unemployment. I would suggest to the members on the opposite side that they take a look at page 41 of the budget of last year. Take a look at the real unemployment figures over the last 20 years.

The lowest unemployment figure in the last 20 years was a 7.4 percent average between 1972 and 1975. That's the lowest in 20 years, and the highest in 20 years was about 16 percent in the early eighties. Some of our towns are still experiencing 16 percent.

[3:00]

You really don't handle the economy too well. You have perpetuated the myths brilliantly, but your handling of the economy.... And you can go right down the line from the overrun on Coquihalla: $500 million there. Over $700 million on SkyTrain. A billion on northeast coal. And that wonderful deal on Expo. Oh, man! It's astonishing — Li Ka-shing will probably walk away with a billion dollars net on that. Absolutely amazing!

The member for Yale-Lillooet also mentioned wining — how they've come to the aid of all these small mining companies. I was thinking about it, and I listened to him and said: "You know something? He's missed a few." I've got a little mining company in my area — it's called Highland Bell; it was in Beaverdell. It was the oldest continuously operating silver mine in Canada for almost 100 years. It produced 40 million ounces of silver — that's a lot. That company has operated continuously, but as all mines will eventually do, it closed down. Who owned that mine? Teck Corp.

Well, let's examine Teck Corp. It probably had more capital than arty other mining corporation in Canada. Some of those miners — and I'm sure the member for Yale-Lillooet will be interested — worked for this mining company for 20 years. And do you know what their severance package included? It was really very generous of Teck — one week for every year. So some of those guys worked a lifetime for Highland Bell producing their share of 40 million ounces. They got one week for a year — 2 percent. You've really taken care of the mining fraternity — a marvellous job.

The member for North Peace River waxed rather eloquent about a number of things, and he came to the defence of the oil companies. Man, did he defend the oil companies! And you know, they really need it too. I'll tell you why. They need it because in Washington State the average price of their low-grade gas is 32 cents — we've researched it — and in other parts of the state it's much less than that. Here it's about 60 cents. How does that come about? You guys haven't done the job for the consumers of British Columbia. You simply haven't done the job — as usual.

Let's talk about taxation. I just looked at the taxation on fuel the other day. We have the second highest taxes on fuel in the country, after Quebec. British Columbia and Quebec are hand in hand on that. We're even higher than Newfoundland. It's astonishing. The average tax increase is 12½ percent per year. In fact, in a couple of weeks we're putting the tax up again - another blow to the consumers of British Columbia.

And what else happens to these oil companies you're defending all the time? Well, if you watched CBC about a week ago you will find that they have downgraded their gas. The octane rating isn't what it was, and his government doesn't protect the consumer again.

In any other civilized jurisdiction — and I say, "civilized" jurisdiction — they protect the consumers. They make these oil companies put the octane rating right on the tanks that they get the gas from. Oh no, not in British Columbia — not a chance.

This particular bill is flawed. And by the way, I don't mind a company making a profit; it doesn't offend me at all. But I hate a company making a profit that I consider gouging, and some of these companies made 760 percent last year over the year before. That is not protection of the consumer, for heaven's sake.

So this particular bill is flawed. It should go back to the drawing-board again. We really don't need a czar to tell the small towns in British Columbia what to do — who deserves to get a grant and who doesn't. That should be placed back in the hands of the communities concerned.

It could lead to a good deal of pork-barrelling, and it is basically a bill that needs many revisions and a very hard look.

MR. LONG: I rise today to speak on Bill 83, the Job Protection Act, and how it affects small towns throughout British Columbia.

I guess we have to ask ourselves: what does the act do? Well, it protects jobs throughout British Columbia to start with, especially those in the small one-industry towns. Secondly, it protects the companies that provide these jobs, and each of them work together, hand in hand, to make our country work and our province survive.

I guess we ask: where are these jobs? They are throughout the province, but most of these jobs are out in the hinterlands, so to speak, and in a lot of the NDP ridings: Alberni, Nanaimo, pulp-mill towns, North Island, and on the Sunshine Coast-Powell River and down in Port Mellon.

A good example of our government working with industry, is Port Mellon and Howe Sound Pulp — a pulp mill that was beyond repair at one point and

[ Page 11679 ]

was going to be shut down, with 450 jobs lost. With the cooperation of this government and a Japanese company, Howe Sound Pulp put in the cleanest mill in Canada for our environment and secured 450 jobs for the people of the Sunshine Coast. That's right in my riding; that's what I know about. This is something that I haven't heard the opposition bring up — securing those 450 pulp-mill jobs right here in British Columbia.

At this time we have a major problem in Powell River with jobs. We have MacMillan Bloedel, a big company, shutting down for a week; 1,800 employees will be out of work for a week. With the multiplier, with their families, it turns into 7,200, and in a town of 12,000, the remaining 4,800 people depend on the other 7,200. This is disastrous for a small-industry town.

So what's causing this? Markets? Yes, markets are causing it in the United States and across the world, but these people understand that and are willing to take that downtime to make it work. I can see where this act can help them and other industries that are affected in the future.

At times the NDP raises issues of pork-barrelling — that the Social Credit government just protects insiders. I'd like to draw something to the attention of the NDP. I have in my hand right now a grant that has been given to a Mr. Howard White, president of Harbour Publishing in Madeira Park. I have to ask who is Mr. Howard White? Well, he is a book publisher of.... Well, anyway, it's for $39,740. Mr. Speaker, I've got to tell you now: this person is the NDP candidate for the Sunshine Coast. It's ironic. I imagine that's what the NDP are clapping about. This pork-barrel they talk about must be big enough, because they're all in it.

Mr. Speaker, I back this bill. It's good for our small-industry towns. It makes all the people on the Sunshine Coast feel a lot better that our government is willing to put up for the people who work in these pulp mills. I, for one, say that it's about time we got job protection in British Columbia for the people and the industries that are the driving system that make this country work.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of the principle behind this bill. As the previous speaker on this side of the House mentioned, there are some flaws. However, it is our role to criticize — ultimately to improve — legislation and to be supportive of our communities and of initiatives that would benefit all of us back home.

One thing that is noticeably missing in this act is community vitality. This bill does not establish in its principle that community vitality is essential. Saving individual industries does not result in complete community vitality. When we reflect on the loss of some 1,500 jobs in the Cariboo over the last ten years.... It doesn't help people who are already laid off. It doesn't help all the people who will lose their jobs in the future because of adjustments in the industry. I think that an act like this ought to go a bit further in developing an economic plan for these one-industry, or predominantly one-industry, towns.

Really, what this act does is provide for a financial plan, a business plan, for a particular industry. I think what is needed is a land use strategy that provides some security of supply of the raw resources that go into creating the vitality in the industry it is trying to save. In fact, what we've seen recently are destabilizing effects on the forest industry — in particular in the Cariboo — as a result of there not being secure resource management plans. For example, the Minister of Native Affairs said as recently as yesterday that we need to establish arrangements so that the province can exercise its responsibility to protect native interests, and so that when we plan for resources, we have accounted for all the interests that could displace those that are vital to the lifeblood of the forest industry.

I must say that mill closures are something we're very concerned about in Quesnel, Williams Lake, Clinton and 100 Mile House. They've all suffered somewhat from lines going down and from some mills being threatened. My colleague from the north coast has alluded to the problem of the link that's necessary between the access to the resources, the tenures, and some responsibility to the local communities to provide ongoing employment and make adjustments to replace those jobs that have been lost over time through technical change and modernization of industry.

The threats that we have seen recently and that have been fulfilled in the loss of 1,500 jobs have been replaced in part by value-added jobs, but we have not seen sufficient attempts made to withstand the potential effects of return to the pre-beetle-kill cut in the Cariboo. When that happens there will be some need to retrain people.

The planning for that retraining has to happen now, and it isn't happening. I think that part and parcel with job protection is future job protection, which will involve training, incentives and continued moral suasion and, if necessary, legislation that will insist that jobs need to be replaced if jobs are planned out of existence. I see nothing in here that will do that.

May I summarize that point by saying that we need to plan for the orderly transition through manpower planning so that the locally based economy has some time to adjust rather than just wait until the effects are there, the layoffs are there, when you end the overcutting or when a mill closes down. As we saw in the case of Quesnel, the value-added jobs didn't add up to more than about 25 percent of the jobs lost. We saw 300 people recently being thrown out of jobs, and they have nowhere to turn. They don't have the skills. All of that could have been prevented.

We see a similar situation a year down the road where there is the possibility of ending the 50 percent lift in the cut due to the beetle-kill cut. We could see a downturn there. We have a couple of industries — the fibreboard plant and the co-generation and possibly others — that could take up some of the slack. Only

[ Page 11680 ]

one of those is certain. The others look promising but not enough to be the only eggs in the basket. We really have to provide other alternatives.

Instead of the top-down solution on a firm-by-firm basis, we need more bottom-up planning and more coordination of the efforts at community-based planning, which will help people to be part of the decision-making about their own future.

We know that the public understands that the New Democrats are the ones who can deal effectively with the native issues, who can integrate planning and deal with their needs in the context of all other needs. I believe it. We will protect jobs and paycheques. We will protect the environment, and we will ensure that large companies, small companies and government will be responsive to the needs of local employment.

We would ensure this by instituting a procedure where there could be public hearings to establish accountability when we examine measures that will alter the allocation of resources. Rather than just throwing the money to larger and larger companies, we need to ensure that the timber goes to produce a diversity in the companies, from the very smallest business right up to the larger integrated ones. We are the political party that will correct the past failures of this government with respect to what has happened to community stability.

[3:15]

It seems to me that when we are dealing with this bill, we are really dealing with what has been called a motherhood idea. We're all in favour of it. But I think we should be reminded that it's a bit like the father on his deathbed when he asks forgiveness from his sons for the abuse during their lifetime. It's a little too late. A lot of damage has been done, and that is what's going to hang this government. You mark my words.

Should I remind you of the statement of one of your former premiers when he said that the forest industry is a sunset industry? What a cynical comment. I think it is and will remain a sunrise industry when we start with the communities and fully involve all sectors of those communities before the closures take place, not when they're imminent.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Before I get into the details of Bill 83, I would like to make a couple of comments about a statement of the second member for Boundary-Similkameen. He mentioned in his address that this government had no strategy regarding tourism.

I think that the citizens of British Columbia would do well to reflect on the actions of the leader of the NDP when he was the mayor of Vancouver and sent that famous telegram to the Expo selection committee that said that Expo 86 was not wanted in the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The member opposite has said that we're still paying for it. The people of the province of British Columbia have gained immensely from Expo 86. Tourism increased. Between 1985 and 1986 it increased in excess of one billion dollars, and the member opposite says that the people of British Columbia are still paying for Expo. As a result of Expo 86, tourism has continued to grow. It is not $3.5 billion anymore, Mr. Member. Tourism today is a $5 billion-a-year industry in British Columbia.

Perhaps we should remind the members of the opposition about some of the things that have happened in this province as a result of government actions and government partnership with the private sector. We can look to the length and breadth of this province and see tremendous strides, tremendous improvements, in the development of ski resorts. We can see some of the world's best golf courses and destination resorts in all regions of the province. Saltwater fishing, heliskiing, the Theatre in the Sky at the top of Grouse Mountain, the Three Valley Gap resort, the Enchanted Forest, Beardale Castle, the hotsprings developments throughout the Kootenays, the freshwater fishing opportunities — second to none anywhere in this country.

Along with the infrastructure, look at the facts, members. Look at the facts of the infrastructure that has been built by this government. Look at the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Look at the modern fleet that has been developed as a result of the actions taken by this government. Look at the Coquihalla Highway, opening up the avenues of opportunity to the interior regions of this province. Look at the airport infrastructure; look at the tremendous job that this government has done over the years in developing airports in small communities throughout the length and breadth of this province. Look at the development of the hospitality industry through the SuperHost program led by the Ministry of Tourism, the information networks and the information centres. Look at the development of Accommodations B.C. Tremendous strides in developing an infrastructure for tourism.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite will hear, as will all of the citizens, much more about Music '91, indeed one of the greatest musical extravaganzas ever held anywhere in North America. We will see entertainers coming to this province, entertainers like Ray Charles, Rita MacNeil, Tom Jones, Harry Belafonte — the list goes on and on. Infrastructure — tourism development to bring tourists into this province from all over the world. We'll see tremendous success, tremendous growth, as a result of the initiatives of this government.

The second member for Boundary-Similkameen dares make a statement in this House about tourism growth, tourism strategy and tourism development. The only province in this country to show any growth in tourism in 1990 was British Columbia — 5 percentage points in real growth. The only other province in the entire country which had any growth whatsoever was Alberta, at 1 percent. All other provinces in the country had flat growth or negative growth, and we in this province had a growth of 5 percentage points.

[ Page 11681 ]

I compare that with the NDP performance in tourism in 1972-75. 1 can only recall one statement by the then Minister of Highways, Graham Lea, when he said: "The tourists are clogging the highways of this province. Will they please go home." That was the NDP approach to tourism. That was their strategy.

Perhaps we would all do well to look at the province of Manitoba during the NDP rule there. Let's look at Manitoba and look at tourism growth and what they did for that province. Indeed, the NDP were not only defeated in Manitoba; they were kicked right down to third position at the bottom of the heap in the last election held in that province.

Perhaps we should now look at the projections of tourism in the great province of Ontario under NDP rule. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you talk to anybody from Ontario in the tourist industry, they will tell you what their projections are for 1991. 1 can tell you, It's gloom and doom and devastation. It's bad news.

Look at the results, folks. Compare the performance of this government. Compare it with Manitoba. Compare it with what's going to happen in Ontario in 1991. I think that the facts and the record speak for themselves. We have done a very good job in this province, and I'm very proud indeed to be a part of this government and the success that we have had.

Just in closing, I want to congratulate the Minister of Regional and Economic Development. I think Bill 83 is indeed very timely. We know we've had success on previous occasions under Art Phillips, the industrial inquiry commissioner. We know how well Bill 83 fits in with the Premier's 12-point program. I am convinced that we will see every bit as much success with this bill and with this program as we had back in '85-86. 1 know that this is just another spoke in the wheel of the overall development, the initiative of creating jobs in which this government has been very successful. Indeed, I don't know how many people in the province are aware that we have created 50 percent of all the new jobs in Canada right here in British Columbia. I think that speaks well for government programs.

I know that many programs that have been brought forward.... I think of the programs of the Minister of Forests, the small business program. Plants have been developed and expanded in such communities as Armstrong, Notch Hill, Chase, Tappen, Grindrod — the list goes on and on. Hundreds of employees are working in my constituency as a result of the initiatives of the Minister of Forests. I think that Bill 83 is just one more spoke in the wheel of good government, good management and good initiatives for creating jobs in this province.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome today 110 grade 11 students from Howe Sound Secondary School in Squamish, and also Mr. Alger, their leader.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make an introduction with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. JONES: I'd like to introduce a member of the political science faculty from Simon Fraser University, Mr. Paddy Smith. Would members of both sides of the House make him feel very welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, there's no question that there's a need to protect jobs in this province; nobody is debating that fact. The question is: where has this government been in the intervening years since the last time in 1983 when you applied a band-aid approach to deal with this situation?

The fact is that this government thrives on a boom-and-bust style of economy. This is what fuels this government, and this is what fails to serve the people of this province.

This government's incompetence has resulted in more pain for our resource communities, So here we are; again your band-aid measures were not followed up with measures to strengthen local economies. So here we are again, boom and bust.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Do you know what you're doing? You're taking an initiative that should protect single-industry towns, and you're using it for the politics of desperation because you desperately need an issue. This bill, which has potential were it drafted as our leader and my colleague from Prince George North have advised, would be worthwhile were you to take their advice.

But what we have here is a Social Credit Trojan horse. Now what's inside that Trojan horse? Well, we have a regional and economic development minister; he's in there with his barrel of pork. It's not an arm's-length process; it's hands-on for that minister. We have someone who has a free rein to reward Social Credit friends and insiders. Inside that Trojan horse we have a Forests minister who can also reward friends and insiders by waiving penalties for overharvesting, by allowing carte blanche for the overcutting of our forests and by being a handmaid to expanded corporate control.

Also there's a Minister of Environment who sits in. that Trojan horse. He sits there in silence. His eyes, his ears and his mouth are covered — hearing nothing, seeing nothing and saying nothing. He's not standing up for the environment, and he's not concerned with overcutting. That minister is powerless in this cabinet. Why is he not here today standing up to protect the forests from overcutting?

Mr. Speaker, why does he not stand up for the environment when the Minister of Forests has been given carte blanche in this legislation? This bill is a deathbed attempt by the Minister of Regional and Economic Development to allow him to wield even more power to hand out pork than he already has in that pathetic, demoralized cabinet.

We know what to expect, Mr. Speaker. Cabinet will not stand up to him. Perhaps others will follow the former Minister of Finance to a safer haven. There's

[ Page 11682 ]

no question that the fox is among the chickens in this cabinet, and you know who the fox is and who the chickens are. British Columbians don't want to pay for pork for Socred friends and insiders. They are not comforted by the use of the term "arm’s length"; that's simply rhetoric. The simple fact is that the legislation gives the Minister of Regional and Economic Development too much power to hand out favours to the friends of this government. The bill is not about jobs, and it's not about paycheques. It's about their special interest in trying desperately to achieve an election issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have recently visited communities in this province beyond Hope. I've travelled throughout the area of Highway 16, and last week I was in Terrace, Telkwa, Houston, Kitwanga and Burns Lake. We've found out there that the people of this province want to have a say in the decision-making on resource extraction that affects their lives.

[3:30]

They want to have a say in developing greater value-added for their areas. They want to be in a position where they're not subject to the kind of process that leaves them at the whims of a boom-and-bust approach.

So while I stand before you today to say that I’ll be voting in favour of this legislation, I do so in the very sincere hope that the commissioner will be empowered to fulfil his mandate in an appropriate manner, and that the political interference which we fear is contained in this bill will not be seen.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hadn't planned to get up and speak on this bill, because it's such a good bill I didn't think anybody would want to delay it. But listening to that man of the cloth over there - my former critic on the environment - get up and say everything he said, then that he's going to vote for it, made me want to jump to my feet and make a few comments.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP say: "Where have you been?" I'll tell you where we've been. We've been creating more jobs in British Columbia than all the rest of Canada put together. That's where this party has been; that's where this government has been. The NDP over there, after a speech like that.... I'm so glad it's on television, with everybody listening, because they'll see what the difference is between the Social Credit Party and the socialists across the hall.

They talk about a boom-and-bust economy. Why don't they look at provinces like Ontario, which now has a socialist government? It has a $3 billion deficit this year and a projection for an $8 billion deficit next year. That's the boom and bust of the socialists, not the good government of Social Credit.

The member talked about the Minister of Forests. I want to quote him, so I'll read my notes. He said: "Hearing nothing, saying nothing and doing nothing." I thought he was starting to lead into a speech about the Leader of the Opposition, because there's the man and the party that are hearing nothing, saying nothing and doing nothing, sitting back and Saying: "When are we going to get a chance to form a government?"

As I've said many times before, Mr. Speaker, they get right up to the crest.... They always think they're going to win, and then after the election, I enjoy sitting on this side of the House and seeing the people of British Columbia voting Social Credit, voting for good government.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member who's their critic for finance says: "Way back on the back bench." I'll tell you, second member for Vancouver East, I'd rather be on the back bench in this party than in any part of that party over there, because this party has good government. There are also people in this party who have a little principle, something those members know nothing about. There are members who have a little bit of parliamentary tradition, something those members know nothing about; nor do they have any respect for it.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the B.C. job protection commission and what it's doing for British Columbia. The member over there talks about the environment. Where was he when this party was creating jobs in a de-inking plant? Sitting in a press conference with one of their candidates in the next election, telling the people of British Columbia it shouldn't go ahead. A real crazy, by the way — a man who doesn't want anything to happen.

MR. CLARK: Order!

MR. REYNOLDS: I didn't call the member crazy. His colleague who is running with him is crazy.

Mr. Speaker, where were they when this project was going to create 200 jobs and recycle all the newspapers in this province? On television, saying: "Don't let it happen." By God, if the next day I didn't read in the paper that Greenpeace supported me on the issue. I thought I must be wrong, but even they couldn't support the NDP environment critic on that issue. That was creating jobs in the province. Where was that member? Not congratulating us, but knocking us again.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to say that the commissioner is up in Pemberton trying to solve a very serious problem there with jobs. I respect the job that the commissioner has done, and I know that he's going to make sure that people in this province — people in Pemberton — get their city and community working in a better way.

MR. CASHORE: Are you going to appear before that commission in Ottawa?

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, I would love to talk about that, but it isn't in the bill. When we get on the issue of going to Ottawa, I'll be very happy....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are doing second reading of the bill. We've allowed a little le-

[ Page 11683 ]

niency — in fact, a lot of leniency — this afternoon, but I must remind members.... I shouldn't think it would be difficult to remind the member who once held this chair about the rules in second reading of debate. Perhaps, since others have strayed, you might stray to the same parameters as they have. But if we widen the parameters, this debate might last longer than it might otherwise normally last.

MR. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for those comments. I'm sure you appreciate more than anyone that it's very difficult to stick to your speech when they're interjecting from the other side. I hope they won't interject, and I'll stick to my speech.

The reason we have the B.C. job protection commission is that we want to make sure that we have the lowest debt in Canada and that we continue to have the lowest debt in Canada. The reason we want this bill is that we want to make sure that tourism keeps on continuing to rise in this province more than in any other province. The reason we want this bill is to make sure that our exports, which are up 10 percent over than any other province in Canada, continue to go up. That's the reason this side proposed this excellent legislation; that's why I'm going to support it. That's why the members on that side will spend and waste the taxpayers' money by speaking against the bill; but when it comes to voting, they'll vote for it.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I take some delight in participating in this debate. It's interesting that all members on both sides of the chamber are going to support this measure. We on this side, however, feel the need to express some reservations about it.

I can't help but note with some interest that when the minister introduced the measure, he had to make the point that some people would be, sadly, as he suggested, political. Indeed, he suggested that we on this side would use this as a political opportunity. How interesting that we have just listened to the most partisan, arm-waving, rambunctious, passionate speech yet in this chamber from the former Minister of Environment being slightly political. I'm not going to be political; I'm going to be rather whimsical.

I'm intrigued especially by the fact that this blatant effort to intervene in the workings of the economy, this particular measure that looks like macroeconomics 200 revisited, this particular good and desirable measure, comes to us from a government that nevertheless continues to prate and to prattle and to pontificate about the workings of the free market left entirely to its own devices.

We on this side find that passing strange. On the one hand, we hear all these utterances about free enterprise that must be allowed to exist unfettered and unhindered, yet this particular measure demonstrably is an admission that the market isn't working all the time, doesn't function perfectly well left to its own devices and that there is a need for government to take that kind of interventionist position.

I'm pleased to see that the government in its actions is prepared to accept that simple economic truth, even if for ideological purposes they like to say all that other stuff about the marketplace and the primacy of the marketplace. I'm intrigued, too, by the title of this measure. It's called Job Protection Act. To be sure, it takes steps to protect jobs and that is good and desirable. But I think it's worth noting that this measure doesn't have the impact and influence of preserving only jobs. It also — and this I think is its ever-principal claim to be defended — does something about preserving the integrity of communities.

I'm not just talking about protecting jobs and paycheques, however necessary and desirable that may be. We're also talking about maintaining a community infrastructure. We're talking about maintaining a tax base in given communities, and that too is certainly good and desirable. Indeed, that's precisely what we on this side of the House, traditionally as social democrats, have argued is a role and a responsibility of government.

I would challenge this government, by the way, to reconcile this measure and what is said in defence of this measure with various statements they have made about the marketplace and about what we on this side advocate by way of intervention.

The objects of the measure are quite laudable. I think everybody on both sides of the House has indeed acknowledged that. We recognize that we have a crisis in various single-industry towns — a crisis that is going to get larger. There's no doubt then that we ought to be doing something about that.

We have some difficulty, and I think we can be forgiven for being a little, dare I say, partisan political, when we listen to that particular minister telling us about the principle of equal sacrifice defining and animating the entire bill. It is that particular minister, let us not forget, who was quite happy to grant his former executive assistant a salary increase of some 19 percent and, at the same time, zealously defend legislation now on the order paper that's going to limit the salary increases of people like nurses, teachers and other public servants.

The point I am making is that that particular minister by his conduct, it seems to me, is contradicting the main defence of this particular measure. I stand by that.

We also have a concern because this measure, like so many other measures introduced by this government, has a wonderful idea and concept. But it is a concept and idea that seems to be perverted; perverted only insofar as they haven't had the courage to stick with the principles enunciated in the measure. You'll recall that the minister, in introducing and defending the bill, talked about the arm’s-length relationship between government and the commissioner. Well and good. We all accept that premise and we indeed defend that particular contention, that case.

The problem, however, is that there is a piece of this bill that effectively gives the lie to that entire concept of arm’s-length relationship. I'm referring to section 4.1 — strategic industries — where we dis-

[ Page 11684 ]

cover, in effect, that strategic industries no longer have to be defined or explained in any serious way. As long as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council deems something will be a strategic industry, it will be. In short, it's unanswerable. There is no longer any definition, no longer any due process involved in determining what industry ought to be supported; rather, it's purely a cabinet decision.

That, Mr. Speaker — I think you would agree with me, and I'm sure most of those people who are watching there proceedings on television would agree — is investing too much power in the hands of a single cabinet minister and in the hands of cabinet. Our experience tells us again and again that this government has to carry with it the appearance in the eyes of many people in the public of being less concerned with the public good than with protecting the interest of its own friends and those who have the inside track.

If the government wants to show that our fears are unfounded in that regard, I would suggest there is an easy way to do so. All they have to do is take out the particular section of the bill I referred to. Don't give the cabinet minister that kind of unlimited power if you don't want to be accused of using it for your own selfish political purposes.

I would also point out that we have a couple of other concerns. The power this commissioner has — and indirectly then the ministry has — is also one that sends out rather bad or at least negative signals to industry, most notably to the forest industry. What will happen here with the bill....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: The Minister of Finance, I'm glad to see, is awake and paying attention. The Minister of Finance says that I don't support the bill. As I made very clear, I do support the bill. We on this side do support the bill, but we have drawn to your attention some ways in which this bill could be improved. I hope you are listening and will take some of those suggestions.

Part of the predicament, as I was about to say, is just that. With this measure, what we effectively do is call upon the Ministry of Forests to ignore much of its own legislation. It is built into this that we will have to ignore the existing Ministry of Forests Act.

I suggest to you that this sends out bad signals. I would suggest to you that this is the kind of thing that Mike Apsey, who recently gave a talk to the Vancouver Board of Trade on behalf of the Council of Forest Industries, was referring to when he made the following statement. He talked about "the reality of a policy environment characterized by ad hockery." That's the predicament outlined by the most senior representative of the forest industry in this province. I submit to you that this measure, given its impact, will do nothing to dispel that air of ad hockery which seems to define this government's approach.

[3:45]

Again, my colleagues on this side have made the point that we accept the premise of the bill. We're happy to see that this government does indeed believe in recycling. We know that this is a recycled 1983. We wonder, however, where it was in 1986 when communities were literally falling like ten pins around the province for want of the kind of attention that is enunciated in this particular measure. We also wonder where the government had been when it talked about B.C.'s economy having diversified and having become a mature economy so that it was no longer so susceptible to boom-and-bust and the problem of single-industry commodities. We wonder where all that went, given now this admission that things are not quite as they ought to be and that therefore we must take this kind of interventionist measure.

With those comments I would again emphasize that we support the bill, but I sincerely hope this government will recognize there is a fundamental flaw in this legislation-at least one. I would suggest that for its own political survival, if nothing else — and I offer this free, gratis, for nothing — it might want to consider taking the error out of the bill of doing favours for friends and insiders.

HON. MR. MESSMER: In response to the last member who started off his speech by saying this is a whimsy bill, I guess on this side of the House we refer to it as being a very serious bill. However, I'm pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 83, the Job Protection Act.

The Critical Industries Act in the early eighties worked, and saved some-not all-commercial businesses. The main thing that it did was to save 13 companies and roughly 2,900 employees within British Columbia. They are still with us today, and I'm sure if they are listening to this debate after that many years, they will be pleased that we had an act in those days that helped us to put people back to work and save those jobs. Art Phillips said:

"We start with a hard-nosed assessment of the company. If it is potentially viable, we attempt to get as many parties as possible to contribute to the solution. Government contributions have been modest. In fact, every case has immediately been profitable to the provincial government in terms of direct income versus direct expenditure."

And that, Mr. Speaker, says it all. It says that if you put a little effort into it, the rewards you get will be worthwhile to the people of British Columbia.

I'm pleased that the minister has introduced a new act which takes the proven parts of the Critical Industries Act and adds them to the provisions of this new act to protect the jobs and the paycheques of people in British Columbia.

We in British Columbia have not felt the same economic downside that has occurred in the balance of Canada. However, we have people working in industries that are the main employers within that area; communities that have small businesses always dependent upon the larger industry, industries that may have, because of external events like high interest rates and markets, the ability to be competitive in the world market but find themselves no longer viable; businesses that have been good corporate

[ Page 11685 ]

citizens, that have been supporters of events over the years, that have helped social and recreational needs within those communities, that have employed fathers and sons, daughters and mothers within the community and that have played a major role in everything that went on in that area — and, I might add, were probably major taxpayers when it came to education in the province of British Columbia. However, things have turned the other way. At this particular time, they have had to make a choice — whether or not they are a viable company, whether or not they can support their creditors and whether or not they can exist in a climate that is not in their favour during this particular time. That's why the commission will work with all of the parties involved — the employers, the employees and the creditors — to make sure that the industry can afford to operate in that community, not on a short-term basis but on a long-term basis.

The Minister of Regional and Economic Development has outlined that the job protection commission will be an independent agency. It will be at arm's length from government, yet it provides the commissioner with the power to authorize economic plans which will include extraordinary assistance from the province. This applies to an industry which hopefully will be one of those industries from the early eighties that we've just talked about that is still in operation in British Columbia today.

It's very easy for us to sit back and turn our backs on those industries that have been viable within those communities. I have heard great remarks today about how we should have public hearings in all our communities to discuss what's going to happen with economics. Public hearings are a good thing, but unfortunately we need people to invest their dollars in order to hire the people who are going to work within our small communities. In doing so, these people must have some long-term investment needs.

In most of the communities in British Columbia today the chambers of commerce are going out and trying to entice businesses to come to their communities We had a plan that was put on by the provincial government a few years ago. I forget what it was called. It was the provincial partnership-in-enterprise plan, and it worked extremely well during that time.

MR. BLENCOE: You can't even remember the name of it, can you?

HON. MR. MESSMER: We have so many good programs. I'm not too sure, but I think the second member for Victoria was the opposition critic of that program during that period of time and disapproved of it. But I can tell you that a lot of industries located in small towns in British Columbia took advantage of that particular program.

In the early days we also had DREE, which encouraged industry to settle in certain parts of British Columbia to help in the areas we talked about that have a high interest rate.

Mr. Speaker, our government strongly supports the belief that industry must be within our communities. It is those industries that employ the people, and it's those people who make the communities of British Columbia. If you have never been in business, it's easy to sit and condemn those who are in trouble today. But I think most of us know — certainly on this side of the House — that if you're in business, there are good times and there are bad times. The most important part of the whole thing is that you have to write a cheque, and those cheques are the payrolls for the women and men who live in our communities. Without those we have nothing.

To say that we would turn our backs on those industries that are trying to survive is completely wrong. Therefore I support this bill, and I would hope that both sides of the House support it also.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The member from Penticton just mentioned that they have businessmen over there who know how to write cheques. Well, I happen to know a little something about that myself — having been in business all my life, having taken over a family business and knowing what it's like to struggle during hard economic times.

HON. MR. VEITCH: How's it doing now?

MR. G. JANSSEN: It's doing fine, Mr. Finance Minister — without the help of the provincial government and their devastating policies of taking paycheques out of people's pockets by devastating the economy by having over 750 tax and fee increases since this government took office in 1986, by increasing the cost of doing business to every business in British Columbia, by increasing the paper burden to every business in British Columbia, by increasing taxes to those very people who would go in and spend their dollars in those businesses and by reaching into those wallets and those paycheques before they have a chance to make those businesses viable, to create that economic activity and to create those spinoff dollars that are so vital to staying in business.

The cost of doing business in British Columbia, particularly small business, has gotten higher and higher — thanks to this government — while at the same time their friends in big business have been given tax breaks time and time again. The taxation burden has been taken off the backs of large corporations and shifted to taxpayers and small businesses. Yet they call this a job protection plan.

This is recycled legislation, Mr. Speaker. It's legislation that was enacted during the last recession. We proposed a paycheque protection plan. After reading our legislation and our proposals, this government woke up and said: "Yes, this is what we must do because we can see that the New Democratic Party — the party of new ideas, not recycled ideas — is moving up in the polls." The government party said: "We're in trouble. We're going to lose the next election, so therefore we have to adopt some of the policies of the New Democratic Party in order to appeal to the voters." But it's a little late, because we've already, as I said earlier, had 750 tax and fee

[ Page 11686 ]

increases on the backs of working people and small business in this province.

Let's talk about Ontario. I've heard the deficit there mentioned by members opposite. I will remind the members opposite that the reason a New Democratic Party was elected in Ontario by an overwhelming margin was because a massive deficit was run up by a so-called free enterprise party. They turned to the New Democrats in Ontario and said: "Please help us." Those paycheques and those jobs are now being protected because New Democrats care for people. They work on a bottom-up not a top-down level.

This bill is a last gasp by the government to say: "Where can we win some votes? How can we appeal to the public that's turned off by a tired government with tired, recycled ideas?" The minister says: "It's the global slowdown that's to blame. Ottawa is to blame. The recession is coming from the east coast."

The former Finance minister said: "We have a budget stabilization fund. We have a rainy-day account. When these bad times come along, we'll draw on that. We'll bring that out."

Where is it? Where's the rainy-day account? It's pouring outside. This government offers the taxpayers a rowboat when what we need is an ark.

Bankruptcies are up, both personal and business, in the province of British Columbia, and they've been increasing steadily for the last four or five or six months. New business starts and investments are down in this province, and this minister runs around in what he calls a free enterprise government, handing out paycheques right, left and centre to industry.

Right after he made the announcement of this job protection plan he ran off to Golden and handed out $5.8 million to Evans Products. Then he ran to a plywood plant in Vancouver and handed out some more money. Recently, Milestone Wood Products got even more money.

He's handing out dollars right, left and centre, trying to buy votes in this province, trying to ensure people that we're here to protect them. Where's the rainy-day account? The Minister of Finance was asked in question period just yesterday what the state of finances was in this province. They don't know. He didn't answer the question.

[4:00]

Free enterprise government says: "We're going to have some timber transfers with no competition." Have you ever heard of such a thing? We know the devastating position in the forest industry. We know the MOU's going to be re-discussed — after this province gave away British Columbia rights to a foreign government. Now they're going down to try to negotiate their way out of it. Is that free enterprise — to give away public lands, public forests, without competition? I think not. It's another way of buying votes from their friends and insiders.

The former Finance minister of this province left the post because he didn't want to face opposition questions about how he could be imposing restraint in this province while the Minister of Regional and Economic Development — I think he is known as "the mechanic" in politics — goes around handing out millions of dollars on the one hand and preaching restraint on the other. Whether it's Western Star Trucks in Kelowna or Conair in Abbotsford, deals are made right, left and centre at the whim of the minister.

These are not sound business practices; these are political gifts. The minister runs around the province offering money. Is it done on sound business practices? Over 7,000 people in the forestry industry have lost their jobs since the spring of 1990. Where were the ministers? Where was the job protection plan, and where was help for small business and the taxpayers of this province who were losing their jobs? They weren't there.

What is happening now? This government opposite sits there and says: "We have to do something. We have to call an election this year." Were they worried a year ago? No, they weren't. They're worried now because they know that they can't get re-elected.

Is government going to give control to the communities, or is it going to continue to have a top-down approach? "We will make the decisions at the top as to where the paycheques go. We will make the decision" — the minister will make the decision, they say — "about who gets the benefits of the job protection plan.” Communities should be given that opportunity. Communities should be involved, Mr. Speaker, in the decisions of how to rescue this province from the inadequacies of Social Credit fiscal management.

The BS fund is empty. The government is empty of ideas. The sooner we have an election, the sooner the voters can cast a decision — the same decision given in Ontario. They're tired of old ideas; they're tired of recycled plans. They want fresh new ideas from a fresh new government, a New Democratic Party government.

HON. MR. SERWA: It's certainly a pleasure to take part in this very interesting debate on Bill 83, the job protection commission and its single mission to protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians.

I come from a government that may be measured by its deeds, not by its words, and I'm very proud of that. I heard the second member from Okanagan Boundary make a statement on the unemployment level during the years 1972 to 1975, and I remember the slogan in the province at that time and have a full appreciation of why there was probably a low unemployment level. "Would the last one to leave British Columbia please shut off the lights." That was the slogan then, and that's the slogan today with the NDP.

I'm very proud of the record of jobs that have been created in the province of British Columbia since 1986 with this particular government. It's always interesting to listen to opposition members who have very little background in the area of creating jobs. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if any of the members on the opposite side have created businesses employing 20 or more people. One mem-

[ Page 11687 ]

ber. How many have created businesses employing 10 or more people? Anyone there? Five or more?

Interjection.

HON. MR. SERWA: No, I think there's a difference in perspective. There are some who say that those of the socialist persuasion have been described as parasites of society, and there are many who would agree with that statement. Centralist planning and socialism are falling down all over the world. It's not because of good stuff; it's not because of the standard of living. The people in the developed countries, in the eastern bloc nations, are going hungry because of your type of centralist planning and your concept. It's because of individuals like yourselves who laugh and make fun, who can speak very well but have no fundamental knowledge and understanding about what it takes to create an economy, the responsibility of creating jobs and keeping the economy moving. So when I listen to you it's with a great deal of humour. You really wax eloquent on the role of your party. You can speak on many subjects, and you speak well indeed, but you don't fool anyone, because you're not coming from any foundation of actually doing it, of actually creating jobs and caring about people. You pay lip-service to it. What you want are people to be dependent on a socialist system. You're not helping people help themselves. You cater to a tendency of some people to rely heavily on the system. That's where your strong support is: special interest groups and single interest groups, not caring about the general health and welfare of the economy. You're a party of takers, not of contributors.

You know, my friends, there's a great deal of sensitivity over there, and the member for Alberni just stated it, with his tendency to create a perception among the people of British Columbia. Did this government only care for constituents in their ridings? The member for Alberni just said that. What a bunch of absolute hogwash. Since 1986, over $283 million has been advanced through the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development to constituencies held by New Democratic Party members. Since 1986, with an overwhelming majority in this House, only $300 million has been advanced to constituencies represented by a Socred member. Remember those figures. Each time you come up with a statement that is basically untrue, you are going to have to be responsible for supporting it. You continue to make misstatement after misstatement.

The second member for Cariboo made a quote and alluded to the previous Premier of British Columbia. That quote was not made by the Premier of the province, and the member should apologize for the misrepresentation and the misleading of this House and the people of British Columbia. You're on call. You're accountable for the first time. You're on television, and the people are going to get the story the way it really is. You folks have got to stand up now and be accountable to the people of the province who really care. You know, you don't understand....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could come back to second reading of the bill.

HON. MR. SERWA: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was coming to that.

The unemployed are not simply statistics; they're real people. The members on the side opposite keep talking about big business getting all the breaks. Big business creates a lot of employment for all of the people of the province of British Columbia. We care a great deal about the business activity that takes place.

The member for Alberni spoke about Western Star Trucks in Kelowna — a very special deal, he indicated and intimated. Well, I'll tell you how special that deal is. Western Star Trucks generates about $62 million worth of purchases in the province of British Columbia annually. They generate a tremendous amount of activity in western Canada, and in all of Canada, and annually they sell some 2,000 trucks all over the world, my friend. They have produced over 30,000 trucks since they started up. Virtually every community that has any industry, be it large — a Vancouver — or a small community like Enderby, has an opportunity to produce widgets for Western Star, and so they do. They're mom-and-pop shops that depend on this manufacturing facility that assembles the widgets from all over the province of British Columbia — be they tires, rims, fuel tanks or electronics — in the assembly plant in Kelowna and provides jobs and employment for British Columbians. That is a solid initiative. It's a good company, and the employers and the employees who work have every right to be proud of their commitment to the province of British Columbia.

One thing that the first member for Nanaimo said was absolutely right. He said the Social Credit government protects its friends. I have to agree with him; we do protect our friends. Who are our friends? Our friends are the people of British Columbia — everyone, my friend. Everyone in British Columbia: the rich and the poor, the young and the old, the employers and the employees, the native people and the people from every nation of the world who have freely chosen to make British Columbia their home. All those working people are our friends, our Social Credit friends. We care, and we show that we continue to care. That is why I support Bill 83. It's an outstanding piece of legislation and very timely.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've heard it said a number of times by members opposite, members of the NDP. "We like the legislation, but...." They don't really say what the "but" is, and I've attempted to determine what these alternatives might be. I've waited till the very end because I was hoping perhaps the Leader of the Opposition — who's mostly away from the House, but I was hoping perhaps he might be back into the House — would tell us what the NDP could propose as an alternative, or how they might propose to improve on the legislative package. I've listened; I've heard nothing.

I tried to do a little research and dig up some material, but there's very little available. I realize

[ Page 11688 ]

there's all sorts of material about what it is the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP have been opposed to. They've been opposed to SkyTrain. They've been opposed to the convention centre, stadium, Expo, B.C. Place, Alex Fraser Bridge, the Coquihalla, the Island gas pipeline — all these things that they've been opposed to we know about. I'm trying to find out just exactly how what they're proposing might be somehow an improvement on what we're proposing as a part of this legislation and the whole of the economic package which will continue to keep this province in the number one place in Canada. If you don't believe that we're number one, let me tell you: take the time, if you can; go visit your NDP colleagues in Ontario and see the disaster there.

[4:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

As a matter of fact, I think there's something the NDP opposite ought to know. I think this would be good information for you. Did you know that hitchhikers in Ontario are now offering to go either way? Hitchhikers in Ontario will go whichever way. That's the situation in Ontario, where the NDP has only been the government for not too many months, it's total disaster. Business is leaving. They've not introduced anything as progressive as this.

I want to really concentrate on this legislation, and have you supporting the legislation in all of our attempts, not with a whole lot of buts and no alternatives, but in fact as another positive move by this government in order to keep this province where we brought it, to the number one spot in Canada.

I also tried in my research.... As I said, I found lots of negative stuff, but I found one that I thought might be of some benefit. There's a quote from the Leader of the Opposition. It was made February 15, 1989. He gave us a good insight as to the NDPs ability to measure the economy and what is happening in our province and country. The Leader of the Opposition said on February 18, 1989: "We have a prosperous economy, but it has nothing to do with Social Credit." Then on April 25, 1989, two months later, the same Leader of the Opposition is again quoted — this time in a Victoria newspaper — and he says: "We're still in a depression in the vast majority of British Columbia."

This is what we've become accustomed to with the NDP. They're here today, there tomorrow. You can't pin them down. They're all over the place. "We'll do this, " or "we'll support that." But there's no real substance to anything that they propose or that they in fact might be considering. They have no proposals, no suggestions. They're completely blank.

In my research I was reminded again about another NDP candidate you mentioned, Mr. Member for Port Alberni. Let me quote you one of those NDP candidates. His name is Leonard Krog, a rather famous name in this part of the world now because he was the NDP candidate who — to his credit — for the first time really spoke the truth. Leonard Krog was attending a big meeting of about 50 or 60 New Democrats in Port Alberni, and Leonard Krog said for the whole of B.C. to hear: "If we're going to be truthful with the electorate in this province, we have to tell them that in order to meet the promises made by the NDP, everybody's taxes are going to have to be increased." Everybody's going to be paying more, they're all going to be paying more. Then, as I went through this research a little further, I found something else.

MR. CLARK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we're all entertained by an election speech. I can feel one coming on myself, but clearly this is beyond even the lax rules in this House in terms of second reading debate. The Premier keeps referring to election material and the like, and I don't think the NDP election material, the promises we're making and the good news that we're putting forward are contained in this government bill before the House that we're supposed to be debating.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate why it is they don't want to hear about these things, and how it is that they would want to get me onto something else. But these are the facts. The one good thing about live television in the House is that it does give us an opportunity to really show how bankrupt some of these NDP proposals are, and that they really don't have a plan. Here we come forth with excellent legislation as a part of a great economic package that will keep this province in number one place — and they don't want to hear about it. No, they don't want to talk about this at all. They keep referring to all sorts of side issues, hoping that perhaps there will be those in the media looking from on top, picking up on some of their negative comments, and this will become the news story then, you see. We've become a little accustomed to that.

But then again, as I was going through this material in order to see what the alternatives were when it comes to the legislation here in this economic package, I was reminded of a statement made by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. He said we had to double the welfare rates. Suddenly, it struck me what the economic plan of the NDP is. You double welfare rates, and you double everybody's taxes, and suddenly you've got people somehow receiving an income and everybody else paying through the nose. They don't like to hear that, but it's this government dependency instead of good progressive legislation — legislation that will maintain this province as number one, legislation that really provides an opportunity for people in all parts of this province to have their jobs protected through the facilities of government working with the private sector, through the facilities of government working with all the stakeholders in the private sector to try and protect jobs, to keep people employed.

Do not think for a moment, members of the NDP particularly, that some of this somehow goes unnoticed. I was very pleased the other day. I sat in a restaurant on Commercial Drive and next to me at another table there were three IWA workers. These three IWA workers were complimenting the Premier

[ Page 11689 ]

and the government for the tremendous job we had done, and they said: "Don't you dare let the NDP get in."

It's like the caller in Fort St. John, Mr. Speaker, who openly admitted — and I don't mind — that he didn't particularly like or always agree with me, but he said: "Mr. Premier, I have to vote for you and Social Credit, because if I vote otherwise I vote for unemployment." It's not going without notice.

I went to the Vancouver shipyard, and I wanted to talk to some of the people there about some of this progressive legislation we're debating today. I saw what they were doing. They were working on these ferries which we're building because tourism in the province has been great, number one and on the increase, year after year. I met with these shipyard workers who were very grateful for what this government has done. They know legislation like this will again help to further protect the jobs that are available to them and that hopefully will continue to be available to them.

This legislation, such as we've seen in the whole of the package we've presented for the people of this province, shows that the workingman's best friend is the Social Credit party and this government.

MRS. BOONE: What about the women?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's great...

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Listen.

...to spout a whole lot of philosophy and to be very philosophical, such as we hear from the NDP all of the time, but you can't pack all of this philosophical stuff in your lunch bucket and hope to have a good lunch. You can't pack all of this philosophical stuff in your bank account in order to meet the mortgage payments. It's jobs that count. It's jobs that this government provides, has provided during the last four years and will continue to provide better than any other government in Canada.

In the last four years, we've seen more activity, prosperity and growth in this province than we've seen for a long time. But we know that Canada is suffering economically — there's no doubt about that — and we're seeing it elsewhere in the world and certainly on this continent.

We know that when investors from abroad look to this country, they look at all the legislation and what it does for their security as well as the security of the people who will be involved with their businesses — the women and the men working in those businesses. They look at how they might be kept reasonably secure and how the policies of government and the legislation with respect to the workplace are dealt with, or how they relate. They look at this. It's important.

They look at Canada and particularly — and unfortunately for us today — at a province like Ontario, because it is the most populous and most powerful province, and it certainly is the largest and most central. As far as people looking to invest is concerned, that is a measure. If they look at Ontario today — I've already said it — the hitchhikers are preparing to go and offering to go both ways.

But the fact remains, they have that NDP philosophy. It's only been there for a little while now, and people are expected to have philosophy as opposed to full lunch buckets, philosophy as opposed to being able to meet the mortgage payments or the car payments. The NDP was a disaster for Ontario, and it will be a disaster here.

If you look at this legislation, you will find that it's not only a first in this country, but it's progressive. It's progressive in that it recognizes that government does not take the place of the private sector and that welfare is not the answer. You can't somehow say: "I'll vote for the NDP or whatever and get the welfare and the payments increased." That's not the answer. They'll look at this legislation, and they'll realize this is something we could apply in various provinces very effectively and help the women and men throughout the whole of this country. That's the key.

I support this legislation. I'm very proud of what we've accomplished as a government. I'm very proud of the fact that this province still has the number one record and will continue to have the number one record in this country. I'm very proud of the fact that we're getting very good comments from people in the investment field abroad when they are considering all of the provinces and how they figure and see us to be the number one province.

I'm very proud of the fact that we take the steps and introduce the new initiatives before any other province, and that we are continuing to lead this country. This legislation, Mr. Speaker and members, is again leading the country.

I know the opposition will probably want to vote for this. You'll want to vote for this and for all the rest of the legislative package that makes up those initiatives which will provide protection for all the people in our province, regardless of where they live.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I get very concerned when I keep hearing those members ignoring — or perhaps forgetting, or not making reference to — the needs of the other regions of the province. They continue to have the mentality of downtown Vancouver — that whatever it is, downtown Vancouver or downtown Victoria are somehow applicable to the whole of this province.

[4:30]

They forget those IWA workers throughout this province and their particular needs, and they forget those miners out there in the East Kootenay and elsewhere, and their particular needs. They don't really care about those people as much as we've expressed and shown in this legislation. They don't care about the miners; they don't care about the IWA workers. They care little about anything beyond downtown Vancouver. They're a party with a downtown Vancouver mentality. I would urge you to consider this legislation and support it wholeheartedly.

[ Page 11690 ]

MR. CLARK: I love it when the Premier makes an election speech. It just makes my adrenaline pump; I can't wait. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the courage to call an election, to put it to the people to have that debate. He wants to see his mandate kind of dribble away in the fifth year.

Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: don't let those pretenders to the throne box you in. I have some advice: don't wait for the Hughes commission. Don't wait for it; don’t let them. They're boxing you in; you can feel it. When you make that speech, I can tell you want to stay, so call an election, Mr. Premier. Don't listen to them. Take it to the people, and we can debate it.

Back to the bill. On balance, this is a good bill. I'm certainly prepared to support this legislation. The bill proposes, essentially....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: I'm going to talk about the bill, Mr. Speaker. I know it would be much more fun to engage in electoral debate, but we'll wait for an election for that.

The bill proposes a job protection commissioner who has the power to intervene and to keep alive industries that would otherwise close. That's a good thing. The Premier asked us what options we put forward before the government decided to move in this direction. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the critical industries commissioner be brought back. We support that. This bill does that; we're prepared to support it.

There is a danger, however. Government assistance should only be given to companies that have long-run viability. Companies shouldn't just be given money; they have to have long-term viability. There will be honest mistakes in any kind of legislation like this. Judgments have to be made, Companies may look like they're viable with a little government help, and they may subsequently fail. I think we have to accept some of that risk. I support that honest mistakes will be made, regardless of the legislation.

The commissioner must act prudently. I have faith in this commissioner; he has the credentials. I believe that he will act with that kind of judgment. There will be honest mistakes, but the danger is that this legislation will be abused. The Minister of Regional and Economic Development has another piece of legislation that allows him to give money away in loans, loan guarantees and grants, as we heard in the Conair deal. The minister shakes his head, but we'll see. He's busy trying to rewrite that agreement now that it's been made public, in the cold light of day. In each one where loan guarantees and loans are given, we have to act prudently.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't trust this Minister of Regional and Economic Development — the most partisan minister in the government — to act with the prudence that we expect for the public purse. I trust the commissioner we're dealing with in this bill, and I'm prepared to support it, but I don't trust the minister. Art Phillips, the former critical industries commissioner, made the case that the bill is open to abuse. We have to be very careful about it.

I appreciate and support that it has a sunset clause. I think that is also something that's worthwhile.

I am concerned about certain aspects of this legislation that deal with the Forest Act. Frankly, reallocating timber licences without public hearings, without public debate, without competition, is something I don't support. I think that moving tenure could be done on certain occasions. If there's non-performance and other companies would use that timber to create more jobs, it should be done. But I'm very concerned about the discretion in this bill to allow the minister to make that decision without public hearings, without public debate and without competition. The members on this side of the House, my colleagues, have made the government aware of that concern. We recognize, however, that on balance we're prepared to support the bill even though we're concerned about aspects of it which will make it open to abuse.

I want to deal with something else the Premier said. This is a temporary bill; it has a sunset clause, which I support, and it deals with short-term help for problems which hopefully are short-term, or should be short-term — otherwise they wouldn't get the help. These companies have to be viable in the long run. But we also need medium- and long-term solutions, which we haven't seen from this administration. There hasn't been any planning in terms of the province as to where our strengths and weaknesses are or what we should and shouldn't support. There hasn't been any process to try and do that. There have been no funds for community economic development, to try to diversify small towns in British Columbia. We have single-industry towns which have not been given the attention they should have had over the years under Social Credit.

Kamloops is a good example, where double-digit unemployment continues to this day. They never really recovered from the recession in 1983 in terms of unemployment. The Premier should know that we have two British Columbians: we have the lower mainland, and southern Vancouver Island to some extent, and we have the rest of British Columbia. The lower mainland has an economy that is still doing reasonably well....

The Premier is clapping, Mr. Speaker, but we've been making this case for some time. Why do we have two British Columbians? Because of short-sighted policies on the part of successive Social Credit governments. We need to redirect growth outside the lower mainland into the regions of British Columbia. That hasn't been done under successive Social Credit administrations. We need to put resources into communities like Kamloops, to help them diversify and build on their strengths. That hasn't been done. Double-digit inflation continues to this day.

While this bill deals with short-term problems which we clearly have, while we support and applaud the effort of the commissioner to intervene and use the power of government to assist industries over

[ Page 11691 ]

this difficult time, particularly in small towns, it's simply not enough. We need medium-term strategies, looking at value-added and diversification of our forest resource. We still import most of our forestry equipment. We still import most of our sawmill equipment. We have a natural resource strength in this province, and we should build on it for what economists call backward and forward linkages. Instead we are still, by and large, producing dimensional lumber for export. There are some positive developments in terms of value-added, but that is the direction we should be moving in, in terms of government policy over the medium and long term. That is the future of the forest industry of British Columbia, to maintain good, well-paid union jobs in our forest sector and to get more value out of our limited forest resource.

This bill doesn't deal with that. This bill is a short-term solution — one we applaud and support — but it's not enough. We on this side of the House, through private members' bills, the Leader of the Opposition's tours, our forestry critic, our member from Prince George and others, have talked at length time and time again. We will talk, hopefully in an election coming very shortly, about our proposals to diversify the economy and create jobs in the region, not just in the short term but over the medium and longer term so we have one healthy province, not just with most of the growth in the lower mainland, but with growth and jobs throughout British Columbia, so we can end the horrendous dependence on one raw material and the high unemployment rate we see outside the lower mainland.

This bill is a small step. We support and applaud it. It's not enough. We hope, during this session of the Legislature, to see more legislation that we can support, to look at the kind of diversification we on this side of the House have been talking about for several years and hope to take into an election campaign very shortly.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I want to make a few remarks in support of the bill, if for no other reason than to clarify the sections dealing with forestry.

First of all, let me say that since I've been listening to the debate from the other side I've heard almost every tired old cliché that I've been listening to for ten years in this House. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is pretty good at it; the member for Nanaimo; the person who just finished speaking, the member for Vancouver East. In fact, I have to admire the member for Vancouver East, because since we last sat in this House he has become an expert on everything. He truly has. Every time I've turned on my radio in the last few months I've heard the second member for Vancouver East expounding on every subject imaginable. I think Angelo Iacobucci has found a new source. Every time he phones the member he's on the radio. I don't know how he has become so expert in everything, but it's interesting to watch.

I also notice another phenomenon in the House since we've installed the television cameras. When someone on that side gets up to speak, a migration takes place — north, south, back and forth. It's quite interesting to watch.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Always moving to the left, though.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's usually to the left. It's very interesting to see what's happened since we've had TV.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite find it very difficult to speak against this bill. I'll tell you why they find it difficult: because they love this legislation. They loved it back in '85-86; they wished they had invented it. Now they're trying to claim it as their own. Yet they find it hard to get up and speak against it, because they're going to vote for it. Everyone on that side is going to get up and vote for this legislation, yet they try to find reasons to speak against it.

It's also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the second member for Vancouver East has finally discovered rural B.C. It took a long, long time, but now they talk of rural B.C. as though they had discovered it. When we spoke in this House two or three years ago about regional economic development and the regional policies that this government was pursuing, they were totally against it. They called it all kinds of gimmickry and everything else. Now that it's working, now that it's starting to work throughout the province — and I'm pleased that he mentioned my riding of Kamloops, where it indeed is starting to work — they want to adopt it as though it's their own idea. It's suddenly their idea that regional development is working.

Kamloops is a fine example, and I'm pleased that he mentioned it. Through the policies of this government over the last several years, we have been able to case the downturns in the lumber industry and the mining industry in towns like Kamloops — and especially Kamloops. We have some payrolls there now that are steady, that are there whether the primary resource industries are in a downturn or not. I could recite for you millions of dollars in payroll that are there because of the policies of this government.

Also, Mr. Speaker, several speakers on the other side mentioned value-added in the forest industry as if it's something else that they have just discovered. Let me tell the members of this House and the people who may happen to be watching on television that this government has been pursuing and pushing value-added programs for years, and it's paying off. We have created 1,800 or more jobs in the value-added sector in the last three years alone in this province, as well as protected other jobs in the forest industry, so the value-added part — our 16.1 program in the small business forest enterprise program — is working very well. But I hasten to add too that even the value-added sector in the forest industry is falling on tough times. There is no magic solution to always having a market at very high prices because you're making a value-added commodity. The value-added commodities fall on tough times as well. Who knows,

[ Page 11692 ]

this legislation may very well come to the rescue of some people who are into the value-added side of the business. Indeed, this government has had to come to the rescue of some people who are in the value-added side of the business.

I believe it was the member for Prince Rupert who mentioned a community involvement in forestry, and I can tell you that the communities in this province have never been more involved in forest policies than they have been since this government came along, and we've only begun the process. The people in rural and urban British Columbia have had more opportunities to express their opinions about the forest resource than at any time in history. We're listening to what people say about forestry. The Forest Resources Commission will probably be bringing in their first report within the next two or three weeks. We have committees travelling the province to hear what people think of parks. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, our leader doesn't stand up and say: "We should double the size of parks, " and that's it — just to appease a certain audience at a certain time.

I wonder sometimes if the Leader of the Opposition has ever stopped to think what that statement might cost the province of British Columbia, by just flippantly saying: "If we're elected, we'll double the size of parks in British Columbia." I wonder if he's ever stopped to think how many jobs in the forest sector that could cost. Simon Fraser University said 2,400 direct jobs, and COFI says 8,000 direct jobs. But the figure could go much higher, and the spinoff jobs are on a ratio of about 2.8 to 1 on top of that.

Beyond that, these are not numbers on a piece of paper. Maybe they are when you're sitting in Vancouver East or in Point Grey or in some other comfortable bungalow in urban British Columbia. Maybe they're just numbers on a piece of paper, but when you get to towns like Prince George, Madam Member, and Port McNeill, Kamloops and Vanderhoof, these are very real people. These are real people with dreams and aspirations and mortgages to pay and children to send to university. They're not numbers on a piece of paper.

So I think our process of going out and listening to the people of B.C. is much better than making some flippant remark like, "We will double the size of parks if we're elected in British Columbia, " or saying at a leadership convention: "Watch my lips. There will be no logging in the Carmanah Valley." That's a wonderful statement to make. I wonder how it plays in Port Alberni. I wonder how the member for Alberni feels about it when he has to defend a statement like that.

[4:45]

Forgetting the tired old cliches that come from the other side about favours for friends and insiders, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if they've talked to the employees at Evans Products in Golden. I wonder if they've actually talked to them and asked them if they think it was a favour to insiders that we went and rescued that company. I wonder if they've talked to the employees at West Coast Plywood and asked how they feel about it, or if they even want to go back in history to when we introduced this legislation under a different name back in about '85. There's a mill up the North Thompson I'm thinking of — in Barriere — where several hundred people earn their living. That company was kept in operation by the policies of this government, and companies in the future will be kept in operation by this bill before us today.

So rather than throw out the flippant comments that we're helping our friends.... As my colleague from the Okanagan said, these people in these mills are our friends, the people whose jobs we have saved — 700 of them in the town of Golden alone. Those are our friends. If that's helping friends of Social Credit, then I'm all for it.

I want just for a moment to talk about the section in the bill that deals with the Forest Act. It's section 24. "Reduction of Cut for Mill Closure." This amendment to the Forest Act will provide the Minister of Forests with the discretionary authority, only after the recommendation of the commissioner, to recover rights to Crown timber from a forest company that closes a mill or significantly curtails its production for an extended period of time. Mill closures or curtailments cause socioeconomic problems for employees and communities. Recovering allowable annual cut from a tenure-holder that closes a mill will permit alternatives that could enable a dependent community to maintain part or all of the timber for its economic base. A most appropriate vehicle to provide provincewide authority to recover allowable annual cut following mill closure is an amendment to the Forest Act. This legislative proposal is consistent with the intent of the proposed job protection legislation.

I say again for clarification — because we've heard several times that it gives too much power to the Minister of Forests — that when the legislation was being drafted, I specifically insisted that it be narrowed down so that the Minister of Forests could only act on a specific recommendation from the commissioner. An example of what could happen in a single-industry town like Golden or Lillooet or anywhere where a company could decide to close a facility.... The commissioner may move in and make a recommendation that perhaps the annual allowable cut that the mill is dependent on could be transferred to the employees.

For an example, the employees may want to buy the company — as happened in Golden and in other places — and the commissioner may make a recommendation to the minister and say: "I believe that in the beat interest of the community and the workers in that facility, this licence should be transferred to the new owners, who happen to be the employees." That would be a specific case where the commissioner might make a recommendation, and the minister and cabinet might agree, and we might transfer that licence without readvertising it. I don't think anyone can stretch that to say the minister would then be serving special interest groups or friends in the industry if we are protecting several hundred jobs in a small community and protecting that community.

[ Page 11693 ]

But it would have to be under very stringent circumstances.

I want to elaborate for a moment on the state of the forest industry, because it was mentioned several times today. Nobody realizes the difficult times that this industry is going through more than I do. I've travelled to dozens of communities and spoken to many people in the forest industry, and I understand what they are going through. The markets right now are extremely tough. In terms of 1991 dollars, if you take the situation in '82 when we went into the last serious slump in the lumber markets, the markets are lower today than they were in '82. Exacerbating all the other problems is that the U.S. housing market is in extremely low ebb. Add to this a Canadian dollar that is probably artificially high and that is truly hurting anyone exporting merchandise from this country, interest rates that are probably artificially propped up, and then the dreaded MOU that everyone speaks of.

I suppose if 1 do get an opportunity in this House — and I won't take it today — I could go into a history of the MOU and how we got to where we are today. It's a very complex situation. Suffice it to say that we are doing our utmost to urge the federal government to get to Washington to start negotiating our way out of this MOU. The negotiations will probably be at their most delicate stage within the next two or three weeks. So I urge everyone to bear that in mind.

I do want to clear up one myth out there that there is somehow a revenue target from the forest industry in this province. Let me say unequivocally right here and now that there is not. There never has been, and as long as I'm the Minister of Forests, there never will be. There is no revenue target. However. because of the details and the agreement in the MOU, there are stumpage target rates. We agreed to try to hit certain target rates on the MOU, and we are doing our best to do that so as not to be in breach of the agreement. In the interior the rate is something over $8 a cubic metre, and on the coast it's something over $10. I sincerely hope that clears it up once and for all.

The other point I would like to make — and I've stated it publicly many times — is that this government and this minister will endeavour wherever possible to tie the resource to the community affected. We will do our very best to always tie the resource to the community. In some cases, it is not possible. It gets very complex. You can take the case of a mill in Delta. The wood for that mill comes from various sources within the company that owns it. They trade wood with other companies, and they buy logs on the open market. In some cases, it's very difficult to tie a resource to the community. But wherever possible, we are committed to keeping jobs on a local or regional basis.

I close my remarks by saying that I'm very pleased with this bill. It's an improvement on the forerunner of the bill that came along about six years ago. That was a good bill; this one is even better. It has been improved. I would say to all of the members in this House and to the people in the province that the people working in the forest industry like this bill. The people opposite like this bill, although they are hard-pressed to say so. They will be voting for it.

The IWA is very pleased with the forest policies of this government. They find it very easy to support our policies. They like the new program we introduced two or three weeks ago where we have committed $1.4 billion to silviculture in this province over the next five years. I find it curious that the party opposite, which tends to criticize everything we do, didn't criticize that program. Although they tried to say we fudged the figures, which is not true, I didn't hear anybody criticizing our $1.4 billion silviculture program.

Mr. Speaker, just let me close by saying that I'm totally in support of this legislation. The amendments in it that pertain to the Forest Act put sufficient controls in the act so that the commissioner must recommend anything before the Forests minister or the government can act. It will go a long way toward securing employment, especially in the smaller communities of British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. J. JANSEN: Listening to the debate today and some of the comments that have come from the other side, it is distressing and sad to listen to the tenor of those comments. You know, Mr. Speaker, the opposite side of this House is relying on incorrect information to advance their arguments. But more fundamentally incorrect and more fundamentally unfair to the people of the province, they are allowing their politics and ideology to interfere with common sense and with the creation and the protection of what is most fundamental to many people today: their jobs. That, to me, is a shame.

Time after time, we hear comments about this or that happening totally outside the scope of this legislation. They want to advance an argument that is unrelated, unnecessary and, again, a disservice to the people who depend on their jobs, because the basic tenet of this legislation, the basic foundation of the taxpayer protection plan, is jobs.

Most of us on this side of the House — a little different from those on that side of the House — have been involved in business or in working with business to deal with some of the problems they rim across. I know the smirks and the shaking of heads on that side of the House strengthen the argument that they have been insulated from mainstream British Columbia.

[5:00]

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: There's the member for Alberni talking. My goodness, there's an example of being insulated from mainstream British Columbia.

We have been involved when businesses had difficult times and when we had to ask agencies to come to the table to try to resolve difficulties, because the bottom line is, again, jobs. The bottom line in doing this and in bringing the parties together

[ Page 11694 ]

is to create jobs. We don't care about ideology; we don't care about politics. The bottom line is jobs.

The highlight of this thing was the comment from the first member for Nanaimo. He called it "whimsical." Could you believe that? I can't believe that someone would introduce that element into the debate — talking about jobs as being whimsical. Does he know what he's talking about? Does he understand how he's misrepresenting the people that have put him into office? Does he understand what he's saying? If he did, I don't think that he would advance those kinds of comments. This legislation is whimsical? Unbelievable. Tell that to the IWA workers. Tell that to people who are unemployed. Tell that to the communities of Chilliwack, Boston Bar, Port Alberni, Clearwater and Abbotsford.

We believe in one fundamental aspect of this legislation, and that is to ensure that all of us assist business, not replace it, as those on the other side of the House would tend to do in their socialist ideology. Instead of assisting business, they take it over and try to run it, because government must have a better idea. Those who have been insulated from the business environment must have a better idea for how to run businesses. They replace business. They buy businesses with the taxpayers' dollars because they have a better idea. They're like Ford; there's a better idea.

Our approach to this whole bill is to ensure that we assist business in dealing with downturns, in dealing with the problems and with some of the aspects that can help them put their feet back on the ground and ensure continuity in terms of jobs for the people of the province.

That is what we believe in, and that is why we support this legislation.

MR. PETERSON: I, too, would like to rise in my place and support Bill 83.

I would like to relate a recent experience to the House that gives an example of why I so strongly favour this legislation. A week ago yesterday, acting for the Minister of Regional and Economic Development, I had the opportunity of visiting some communities in the East Kootenays-Elkford, Sparwood, Fernie and Cranbrook.

It was interesting. In Elkford I met with the local council and asked them what their concerns were. I have to say they were very happy to see me come up and ask what their concerns were. Their concerns are for the jobs of the women and men who reside there. They asked me for more details on the Premier's announcement of the taxpayer protection plan and particularly on one of the components — job protection.

They were very interested in it, and I was able to relate to them that we would be sitting very shortly, that legislation would be forthcoming and that our minister would be tabling it. I am sure in their community they are listening today and applauding the work of the Social Credit government with respect to that legislation.

It was also interesting to hear some other comments that I got in Sparwood, Fernie and Elkford. I talked about the regionalization process, and I said; "Are you involved in it? Is your MLA helping you?" It's funny; they looked at me and said: "Well, no, we understand they're boycotting the process." For political expediency, they chose to boycott that process which provides MLAs with the ability to get things done for their constituents. They chose to ignore that, I'm not sure that if I lived in that constituency, and was raising a family and worked there, I would be very happy with my MLA if he or she chose to ignore a process set up by the government to maintain jobs and develop a strong economic fibre within these communities....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I trust that at some point you will relate this to second reading, the principle of this bill. We're straying a bit again.

MR. PETERSON: Most certainly, Mr. Speaker. The key, fundamental word is jobs — jobs for the women and the men in this province. It is a pleasure for me to rise and support this bill. This is just the start. This government is concerned about all British Columbians and will continue to work on their behalf, as it always has in the past.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's obvious that most of the members on this side, while we felt that the points have been made very clearly on this bill, were prepared to expedite the government's business, although the government members can't resist making their election speeches on television. With that, because this is a pre-election time, it's about time we did a little accountability of this government and its record. That's one of the reasons why three members from our side were on their feet a moment ago.

The government pretends that this bill is about jobs and about protecting jobs in the resource industry. In reality, it is an admission that this government's economic strategies have failed those communities, have failed the men and women in those communities and have failed the families of British Columbia. The reality of the election that will be upon us will be whom the people of this province can trust to protect their jobs and their families' interests.

I want to talk about this government's record. The reality is that this bill puts in the hands of the member for Kamloops, the ex-Attorney-General, the trust of the people of this province for protecting their jobs. I believe we will see very clearly that British Columbians do not feel confident that their jobs and those decisions can be best represented by this government.

In reality, this bill is about this government's failure: the fact that only 50 percent of the jobs in British Columbia are full-time year-round. The economic record, the failure of this government, for men and women, for British Columbians, has meant that 63 percent of all the people living below the poverty line in this province are working. The failure of this government to assure the people of this province that

[ Page 11695 ]

they can support their families and their children, the very fact that there are twice as many people on welfare now in 1991 than there were in 1975, is again an indication that this government has failed to look after the interests of people like you and me — the average British Columbian, the families, the children of the province.

Yes, this bill is about trust. Unfortunately, because of the economic failure of this government, we are having to put programs in place that will bail out companies and jobs. The reality is that this bill is a tremendous conderruiation of a number of Socred governments. We have looked forward to the opportunity to work on behalf of families, to do something about these statistics: less than 50 percent of the jobs in British Columbia are full-time year-round. Shame on you. Why?

I challenge this government, as late as it is, to bring in initiatives that will strengthen the economy, rather than looking at bailing out and double standards, where it bails out companies and represses the wages of working people in this province.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in taking my place to debate the Job Protection Act. I take exception to the previous speaker's comments about the service industry in the province, which is doing extremely well in tourism and hospitality, which are made up of a large component of those so-called 50 percent workers in British Columbia.

The difficulty we have today in British Columbia is that we're already inheriting some of the failures of that NDP government in Ontario, where 67,000 brand-new employees have come to British Columbia, and we're looking after them and providing jobs for them within the province. But this bill was designed to build upon protection for paycheques for the lunchboxes out there and for funds to pay mortgages. The fact that the small communities in the rural areas of the province, which unfortunately aren't looked after by the Vancouver East mentality of the socialists across the way.... There are communities out there which, by virtue of the economy today, need assistance, and that's what this bill is designed to do.

[5:15]

The brand-new commissioner, Mr. Doug Kerley, who has been appointed to this role, certainly has high credentials and without a doubt is a very commendable appointment to that role. But, you know, this authorizes the commissioner to provide protection for those particular jobs, and especially for industries of five to 100 employees. They will need eight weeks' notice before they will be able to close down a plant. Any employee ratio over 100 will require 12 weeks, and any over 300 will require 16 weeks' notice before they're going to be allowed to close.

The process by which the commissioner entering this role will be able to keep these plants viable and in operation and help these small communities such as Kimberley, Golden, Clearwater and Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — those areas with industries and plants which are bona fide within the community, the small towns and small communities in the province whose economic livelihoods depend upon one or more key industries.... This bill is designed to protect those small communities that have no outside source in order to survive. We've got some pretty good examples in the province. Golden has been mentioned earlier; Nelson is another one. Kimberley is another one; Port Alberni; Chilliwack; those that have IWA workers and forest workers out there who currently are under siege. This is designed to protect them and to give the commissioner an opportunity to look at equal preservation and equal sacrifice and flexibility by the employees, the employers, the creditors and the community itself. All these shareholders and utilities have to level their responsibility for keeping these jobs available in the community.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in standing in my place today. I take exception, of course, to the member on the other side who called the jobs that we're about to protect and trying to encourage to remain "whimsical" jobs. But that's certainly the attitude of the socialists jobs to them are whimsical in any event, because very few of them have been involved with the real job force in the province of British Columbia. So we have the member for Nanaimo making those flippant comments about the whimsical jobs of the IWA workers.

Mr. Speaker, this bill requires long-term viability. It has a sunset clause which allows for the commissioner to deal with the question of equal sacrifice by all. I am totally supportive of the Job Protection Act. I know from the speeches that we've heard this afternoon from the members on the other side that without a doubt they've finally come to realize that it's good legislation. I'm convinced they're going to vote for this bill.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, we're going to support the bill on this side. But Mr. Speaker, the public of British Columbia, when reading about this debate — or watching it, as the case may be — will think we're all extremely absurd in this chamber to have to be debating this bill or to even need a bill like this. If the government had the capability in the early or mid-eighties to bring in a Critical Industries Act and once again in the early 1990s, the public will say: "Why do they have to wait until an increasing number of businesses, industries and even entire towns are in trouble? Why didn't they listen when times were good and do something about some of these things?"

I'm not going to extend the debate, Mr. Speaker, but let's deal with the two major industries in the West Kootenay in my riding.

First of all, for over ten years now the people in the West Kootenay have been saying to the provincial government: why don't you do something about that crazy, punitive, insidious, invidious water tax — the tax on gravity that militates so heavily against the maintenance and expansion of smelting, refining, metal manufacturing and all related industries in this province? They don't listen, but I know that if that

[ Page 11696 ]

industry ran into trouble, Mr. Kerley — I'm sure he's a very nice chap — would be there the next day. We'd love to meet Mr. Kerley, but we don't want to have to meet him under the circumstances of 4,000 jobs going down the tube, and that's how we get the government's attention. No community in British Columbia wants to have to run face-to-face with economic disaster before it can get the government's attention.

We have heard specious statements on occasion from people on the other side: "Well, if we made special deals like that, we'd run the fear of a countervailing tariff." There is no competing industry in the smelting, refining or mining business in the United States that faces any kind of taxation resembling a tax on gravity on its electricity. Competitors in Latin America don't pay it; competitors in the Far East don't pay it; industries in the highly protected European Common Market don't pay it. So how on earth would you have a countervailing tariff under GATT or any other arrangement?

I'm going to move to the forest industry in the West Kootenay. In the West Kootenay the forest industry and the major family-owned independents in my riding have been saying.... Atco Lumber in Fruitvale and Park Siding, owned by the Nelson family, and Kalesnikoff Lumbering of Thrums, owned by a family of the same name, have been saying to the Ministry of Forests — and I'm glad the minister is in his place: "For 15 years now our costs in the interior wet belt of bringing wood from the forests down to the mills are excessively high, because of road construction costs, drainage problems, unstable slopes, poor soils." Mr. Speaker, these problems have been getting even worse as far as expenses to those companies over the last ten years are concerned — quite correctly, because of the higher requirements that the Ministry of Forests has placed on loggers not to damage the environment either while they're logging or after the logging has finished. They have been supported by the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, based in Kelowna, in this argument.

They were making these comparisons and these clearly documented cases for special consideration long before the memorandum of understanding. This is not something which has followed that; it preceded it. They have clearly made that case. Westar Timber has made the same case. Yet the government has consistently paid no attention. If a number of these mills suddenly were faced with foreclosure by their bankers, you can bet the government would suddenly say: "Now we understand, and we're prepared to do something about it." Why does an efficient, well-run company have to run into economic problems before the government suddenly listens?

The public are looking at this chamber, and they are looking at us on both sides of the House, and they are saying: "Why don't you people get on with the job and do the obvious?" Why doesn't the government build in the flexibility into their resource, economic rent and taxation policies in order that the kind of flexibility is in place to reward efficiency, to reward good management, to reward industries which can stay competitive? Instead, what happens is that those which are marginal get the help, and the reward of those that don't need the help is to pay the taxes to keep the marginal ones going. That is not a rational way to maintain the economy — the resource-based economy in the West Kootenay or any other part of the hinterlands of British Columbia. Those resource industries are the lifeblood of the economy of this province. It is revenue and employment from those industries which maintain the economy of metropolitan British Columbia — the lower mainland and greater Victoria.

We shouldn't need this legislation. I'm glad that the government has finally noticed and brought it in in the spring of 1991, but it shouldn't be needed. The earlier legislation shouldn't have been needed. The government should have been paying attention long before industries got into trouble. If the kinds of measures were in place that the minister and his colleagues are talking about, the industries involved would be far more stable, far more diversified, far better prepared to withstand the economic downturn which the United States and Canada are going through at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the public will say in looking at this: "Better late than never." But why, oh why, was it ever needed in the first place? If the government would only listen to the reasonable requests-not confrontational — made by company after company, industry after industry, to be allowed to compete in a meaningful way in the markets which they know better than any of us in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister will close the debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: In closing debate, I want to deal with some of the issues that have been raised, particularly by members opposite, because I think some of the issues need to be dealt with. But also some of their comments need to be corrected, because they're wrong.

In beginning I want to refer to what the member for Rossland-Trail was saying. If I understand correctly what he was talking about, he was referring in some sense to there being a permanent piece of legislation in place such as the one that we're debating. I could not disagree more profoundly with his position. I think it is fundamentally wrong, and I think that one of the reasons why this kind of legislation and what it means works is that there is not an expectation that it will become permanently part of the fabric of the marketplace, but rather it will be used during extraordinary times for extraordinary reasons and will indeed be sunsetted.

Many of the members opposite have referred to Art Phillips. I am going to point out — because I have been in contact with him today — that they have talked inaccurately about what he has said. I want to point out, though, that he too has said that one of the reasons why this legislation works is that it is sunsetted. Therefore I think he too would disagree

[ Page 11697 ]

very much with what the member for Rossland-Trail has just suggested.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Rossland-Trail was urging the government to be in contact with the wet belt group of lumber producers in order that they could address some of the very real issues that they have. I want the record to show, because I would have drawn the conclusion, which I'm sure he did not want to convey... I would have drawn the conclusion that he was trying to leave the impression that indeed the government is not alive to these issues and is not dealing with them, when indeed the Minister of Forests and the interior wet belt group have met frequently and just recently and are dealing with these issues and working together on those issues. I think the record should show that, and I'm sure that the member did not want to leave the impression in any way that it wasn't happening. I'm sure he will agree with me that I should make the record clear that in fact it is happening.

The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley was referring to the notion of failure and suggesting that there was some sort of propping-up business going on. I suppose that leads me into what I want to say in part about this debate. Indeed, as W.A.C. Bennett so frequently used to say: "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Her words in that regard are almost a carbon copy of the words of the first member for Vancouver East back on June 14, 1985, when he was debating the critical industries commission legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Déjà vu all over again.

HON. MR. SMITH: Déjà vu all over again indeed describes so well the New Democratic Party.

He said; "The policy this government has currently in terms of industrial strategy could be summed up as a two-f strategy: they will reward the failures...and...the foreigner." That was his prescription to describe what turned out to be the most successful program of its kind, one hailed by all in British Columbia. The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has picked up on that train of thinking and has moved it forward to 1991.

[5:30]

The rhetoric that we hear in that regard in 1991 is therefore as it was in 1985. Only the faces have changed. The same lines about political motivation are being used today as were used in 1985, and they are as wrong today as they were in 1985. The programs that we're putting in place today will be as successful as were the programs put in place in 1985. The matter of protecting jobs is one of considerable seriousness.

I want to say as well that earlier today we were talking about the Versatile matter and the protection of jobs with respect to Versatile's yard. During that discussion, when I was describing what would be taking place in the event that the program they have put underway or initiated in the Supreme Court and have got an order from Mr. Justice Maczko.... I was describing, with respect to the protection of jobs, how it would impact if indeed that program failed. The impression may have been left, because of the way I was saying it, that the North Vancouver yard would be closing down today. I want to make certain that the House understands that that impression is not correct, if indeed it was left. In fact, if the program works as they have envisaged, then it may very well be the result that that yard would continue for a good long time. Resources permitting, it would be Versatile's plan to ensure that it continues in operation. In any event, the purpose of that order having been sought from the court was to protect jobs during this interim period. That's what that process is for: to ensure that jobs are protected from their creditors and from others while the restructuring is taking place.

The reason this program will succeed is the ability of the commissioner. I don't think there can be any question about that. It does concern me substantially when I hear people in this chamber, for whatever reason, talking about political motivations and not making the distinction they should make about the way this legislation is structured. The fact of the matter is that if there were any political decisions to be taken, they would have to be taken on the recommendation of the commissioner.

It's nonsensical to suggest that the commissioner will in any way be influenced by any criteria other than those given by the legislation. I don't think it is appropriate to allow that kind of rhetoric to go unchallenged; we are too loose in this place sometimes with those kinds of statements. One could be left with the impression that the opposition members were ascribing that kind of comment to the commissioner. If they would think about the way they use their words and the context they use them in, one could easily draw those conclusions. They were not making a distinction between decisions which would have to be taken by government upon the recommendation of the commissioner, and only upon the recommendation of the commissioner.... It's important that the distinction be made over and over again.

I also want — although the Minister of Forests has well and truly done it — to briefly comment on the slings and arrows and charges that were levelled with respect to the provision in the bill that deals with the reallocation of timber tenures under certain circumstances. I want to make the point with respect to that forest licence issue that it can be done only upon the recommendation of the commissioner. It is not something that could be done only on the recommendation of the minister, or on the recommendation of cabinet, or on recommendation of any cabinet minister. It can be done only if the commissioner recommends that it be done, and only then does the Minister of Forests have the power to reallocate that wood resource.

It was suggested here earlier — I think by the member for Kootenay — that somehow you would be reallocating it or you could be allocating it for a long period of time. Not correct. All that can be reallocated is the unexpired portion of the current contract for tenure. And there are no limitless tenures in this province; every one of them has a time-line. Further

[ Page 11698 ]

to that, Mr. Speaker, that reallocation could only take place under the circumstances where the wood was going to go to the same mill that previously had been converting it. So I have no doubt that the alarmist kind of suggestion that was made in here was made because people have not given sufficient attention to the detail of the bill, which I know they will do as we get down to clause-by-clause debate.

The member for Kootenay also offered the view that the contracts that the commissioner could enter into are without limit. Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. In fact, imposts that the commissioner can deal with are limited to a five-year period for plans that may be recommended, and the act itself has a two-year sunset clause. So it is not correct to say that the contracts and the recommendations with respect to imposts could be open-ended. The commissioner is limited to any contracts involving any impost to a maximum period of five years, and that you will find in the legislation itself.

The member for Prince George North talked about the need to diversify, and I think it would be interesting for her to note — in terms of protecting jobs and the way we have done it to protect jobs — how successfully we have undertaken that diversification, and how much contribution to our success in diversification has come from the industrial assistance programs that you all here from the other side of the House have criticized today; and further how much of it has come from our home-based industry program. One of the finest ways that we have to protect existing jobs and provide stability for our communities and indeed to expand our job base is through the home-based business program that is growing by leaps and bounds throughout the province, indeed one of the most successful programs that we've undertaken at all, both from the cost-effective point of view and from the point of view of the bang for the buck you get in terms of the number of jobs that are created and from the point of view of the kinds of things that you get in the communities in which you get them.

One of the diversities that you will see taking place — because you are going to see a lot more resources put into that kind of home-based business initiative — in some of our small communities deals with the whole business of processing information. In some of our large agencies of government too much concentration is developing for processing information in Victoria and in Vancouver. There is no question at all that the processing of information can be done anywhere where they have a broad-band wire, where they have any of the fibre optics arrangements they have in this province. That means all of our small communities ought to be able to aspire to do major pieces of processing of information in those communities. That is real diversification. That is the kind of diversification initiative that we're undertaking, and I have absolutely no doubt that the member for Prince George will indeed be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I also heard today that people were referring to all of the wonderful things that the Leader of the Opposition had proposed for the creation and protection of jobs and what he had said on January 28 — or some such time as that. Someone told me that he had given a press release that laid out all the things that he was going to do for jobs. So I faxed up one of the press releases he had set out. I was a touch surprised, Mr. Speaker. If I had it handy, I would read it to you. Apparently I don't, so I'll just have to try to do it from memory. The great Leader of the Opposition's proposal for the creation of jobs in British Columbia was to create 9,000 jobs a year. For that he held a press conference and issued copious quantities of recyclable paper. Mr. Speaker, 9,000 jobs a year would amount to 27,000 fewer jobs than we created last year in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Take a step back into the future.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know why the Leader of the Opposition would want to take a step back into the future by suggesting he would create 27,000 fewer jobs. That would be his goal. What a diminished kind of expectation this person obviously has for the people of British Columbia. We are today creating 36,000 jobs per year, and for the Leader of the Opposition to say that his goal would be to create 9,000 jobs a year is, on the face of it, the absurdity that it so obviously was intended to be when he made the statement. But whatever kind of jobs they would be, the fact of the matter is that they are not sufficient in numbers at all to meet even the standard that we have today.

To refer, as well, to the distinction between us and what the Leader of the Opposition apparently claims he would do with respect to this issue.... It was referred to by a number of his handmaidens today — what he had said in this great January 28 press release. One of the things that apparently he said with respect to job protection in this January 28 statement was that he wanted to create a critical industry commission to help negotiate plant closures. I'm told that this was reported by no less an authority on NDP policy than the Vancouver Sun on January 29 at page A9. Imagine wanting to set up a commission to help negotiate plant closures! Therein is the nub of the distinction between what was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition on January 28 and what you find in this bill today. The Leader of the Opposition's proposal was to develop a commission that would negotiate plant closures. What this bill is all about is developing a commission that will draw people together and use ways that are innovative and focused in order to keep plants open so that we'll have long-term jobs.

Mr. Speaker, that may have been the whimsy that the first member for Nanaimo was talking about when he said that this thing he was referring to was really whimsical. I should make reference to that again, because the fact is, if the opposition's position is that they should create 9,000 jobs a year at a time when we're already creating 36,000 jobs a year, if it is the opposition's case that they want to fetch in a commissioner who will negotiate plant closures

[ Page 11699 ]

rather than one who will negotiate plant extensions and expansions and keep jobs viable in our communities, then I can well understand why the first member for Nanaimo would characterize that as whimsy, because it is whimsical. But it is not whimsical to talk about protecting jobs for people around this province. It is not whimsical to talk about the things we have done with respect to Evans Products, Western Star Trucks and West Coast Plywood.

I'm going to be talking about those particular enterprises and the position put forward here today by members opposite. They were critical. They said that they did not support what we did at Evans Products, West Coast Plywood and Western Star Trucks in Kelowna. Mr. Speaker, it was the member for Alberni who took those positions and articulated them well on behalf of his colleagues. I'm going to talk about that at great length, because I want the people of this House to know.... The member for Kootenay is starting to turn up her nose at it. I'll tell you, she won't turn up her nose at it when I'm finished, because I want them to hear about what Mike Jones, the maintenance supervisor for 35 years and a dues-paying member of the TWA, thinks about your position. I want you to know what Betty Harvey thinks about it, who has driven a forklift for 27 years and who wants her job protected — what she thinks about this whimsy you talk about because you should know about it, Madam Member for Kootenay. You should know about what Alan Farrell thinks about it, who is a heavy-duty mechanic at the sawmill at Evans Products. You should know about what Stubby Mackenzie and Jim McKay think about it. Because I think it is important that all of us in this House — all of us are guilty of this — do not get so out of touch with what's going on on the shop floors of this province, with the people who pay dues through the compulsory check-off from which they are forced to make contributions to the New Democratic Party. I want you to know what they think about it, and I think you should stand up in this House and be counted oil whether you support those loans that we granted or not, because their jobs are in the balance, and I think it's important we not get out of touch with what is going on.

I want to have a fuller opportunity to discuss these issues in terms of the job protection plan. Because we're running out of time on it tonight, I will therefore move we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would ask leave of the House to move a motion to establish a Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move, seconded by the opposition House Leader, that Angus Creelman Ree, QC, Esquire, member for North Vancouver-Capilano, be appointed Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole for the remainder of this session of the Legislative Assembly.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(2), I advise the members that the House shall sit tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.