[ Page 11773 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Regional development works! Mr. Vant –– 11773

Mr. Zirnhelt

Strength and spirit of the Cariboo. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 11774

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Relocation of Powell River ferry. Mr. Long –– 11777

Mr. Lovick

Kootenay country. Ms. Edwards –– 11779

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Job Protection Act (Bill 83). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 11780

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. G. Janssen

Third reading

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the Guides in the gallery are guests of one of our members. If they aren't, I would like the house to give a special welcome to the Guides who are here today to observe the House and probably earn another badge for their regalia. Welcome to the House.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKS!

MR. VANT: This government — the Social Credit Party and its leader the Premier — has a vision for the development of every region of this great province. Indeed, it's a good Social Credit tradition that we encourage development in every corner of the province.

This tradition goes back to 1952 and the expansion of the PGE Railway — now B.C. Rail — so that it goes to the Peace River country and beyond Fort St. James right from North Vancouver. It goes back to the development of our road systems, the building of the Cariboo Highway, and in more recent times, of course, the expansion of the freeway system to Kamloops and right to the Okanagan. Indeed, it goes back to the vision of W.A.C. Bennett, with the building of the dam in the Peace River and the power grid throughout British Columbia so that we could have the power for industrial development everywhere, including the building of pulp mills.

What a contrast to the Leader of the Opposition's lack of vision! He fails to see that every region in this province is unique. Every region is not exactly like Vancouver. Many members from the socialist corner of this House joked about regional development. They had all kinds of jokes back in 1988 about our ministers of state. I recall many of them — they called them the Million Dollar Men.

Well, regional development in this province has been guided b y the people out there. It has brought the government closer to the people in every region of this province. It has been responsive to the unique needs of the people. Indeed, last year no less than 767 volunteers served on 50 regional committees throughout this province. Over 100 initiatives proceeded last year, including business opportunities, adult training programs, tours for investors and resource development opportunities. These all bore benefits to the people.

Is regional development bringing results? You bet it is. I can give you some examples, especially in the Cariboo development region, which I, as MLA for Cariboo, am so familiar with. Our minister of state provided, along with three other ministers of state, $100,000 to the Interior University Society, That involved the Cariboo development region, the Nechako development region, the Northeast region and the Northwest region. This study has now developed into the University of Northern British Columbia. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, $8 million has now been approved for planning this $137 million project, which will provide space for 2,000 students and no less than a 500-room residence. This is the highest proportion of residences for students, indicating that this university in northern British Columbia will serve the whole interior and northern part of the province.

Another great accomplishment of regional development, indicating that regional development works, is the $100,000 wood waste feasibility study. Information from this study, gathered through this Social Credit government's regional development thrust, has triggered construction, beginning this April, of a $135 million co-generating plant in Williams Lake. CRS is the prime contractor for that project. It will consume over 600,000 tonnes of wood waste to generate over 60 megawatts of electricity. It is the first independently owned power producer to sign a contract to provide power to the B.C. Hydro grid. So far, $6 million has been spent on the $200 million Cariboo fibreboard project. Right now, site preparation, rail and road access are underway. This is made possible by the information provided by this government's regional development initiative. Certainly that $100,000 has been very well spent. That wood waste study didn't just gather dust on a shelf. It triggered the significant development which has cleaned up the Williams Lake Valley and created jobs and a value-added product.

Other regions, of course, are looking at this, so there's no doubt in my mind that it will probably end up triggering in excess of $1 billion worth of development throughout the province. Regional development works.

Another major project is the completion of the $80 million FMC hydrogen peroxide plant in Prince George. This enables the change from chlorine-based bleaching of pulp. Using this hydrogen peroxide as a whitener helps in a much safer production of good, marketable pulp. It removes the problems of dioxins in our environment. This has been so successful that a second phase is now being built.

Regional development works, and there are exciting future challenges which I will address at the first opportunity.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm really pleased to respond to the first member for Cariboo.

Let me say that in my view some regional development works. The question is whether or not the particular brand of regional development and structures put in place by the government work. I would suggest to you that the first effort made was retracted because it didn't work, that it gave the appearance of decentralization of power but in effect was the centralizing of power.

Studies themselves don't make regional development. They help, but the people in the regions and the people who are prepared to invest make the

[ Page 11774 ]

regions. What is always begged in this question about development is: what happens? What's the impact? Have we planned very carefully the very resources that are needed to sustain these developments?

I suggest to you that there are two examples of how this hasn't taken place to the satisfaction of the people in the area. One has to do with PA19. We have yet to see the evaluation documents of the impact on other resources for this. I say that people feel a little bit insecure that the land base can protect some of the other resources yet supply the wood-fibre that's necessary here.

I will admit that the wood waste study has generated economic development — there's no question. But I really wonder about the timing.... I have no need to spar with the first member for Cariboo. In fact, I cooperate with him wherever I can; I'm going to second his nomination for the run in Cariboo North.

What is regional development really about? During the Cariboo by-election there were commitments made for something like $350 million worth of investment. But why did they make it? For political reasons, because the government wanted to win the by-election in the Cariboo.

Let me quote from the Premier in an interview with the Province on August 24, the day after he flew up to the Cariboo to announce an oriented strand board plant, which we've yet to see. We all hope it goes ahead, but it has been announced at least twice that we know of. But what was really announced by the Premier was a wood supply for a strand board plant, and that's only half of it. He announced the strand board plant, and we hope that it goes ahead.

[10:15]

But let me quote the Premier. Election goodies is what the charge was. He said that they had already starting showering the Cariboo with by-election goodies. The Premier made a quick trip to 100 Mile House, where he announced the $60 million plant, and he accompanied that with the announcement of the Cariboo by-election. Then he openly admitted that he purposely timed the mill announcement to coincide with the election call. We had ministers jetting up — some 24 trips in 21 days — on separate airplane trips to deliver regional development people — coincidentally, just at the time of the by-election.

I suggest to you that in the hands of the new Minister of Regional Development, we're going to see the delivery of goodies timed for hoped-for electoral victory. But I predict that it will work in the same way that it worked in the Cariboo by-election.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, I find the comments of the second member for Cariboo very interesting. I note that in some instances he does give credit where it's due. There are certainly exciting future challenges to regional development, especially in our area.

We've recently struck an expanded tourism committee, which will be recommending actions for a regional tourism strategy. Every stakeholder is involved in that committee — everyone from a representative of a big game guide to a downhill ski resort operator. There's also a health care study, which was responding to the gaps and the overlaps in the health system in the Cariboo. Also, the ongoing transportation needs will be looked at. Again, very appropriate priority-setting will take place.

Regional development is working throughout the province, and especially in the Cariboo development region. Whether there happens to be a by-election or a general election, it is ongoing. Indeed, now even the NDP MLAs are coming to the regional advisory council meetings. They too want to rub shoulders with the movers and shakers who enable things to happen. Our meetings have a purpose, and they do bring results.

Big projects add jobs and improve the environment. This can be said of every major project that is now underway. Direct jobs lead to many spinoff jobs and many small business opportunities. This is all part of this Social Credit government's vision for take-home pay and an improved lifestyle for you and your children and your grandchildren. In every part of British Columbia, regional development is working and working very well.

STRENGTH AND SPIRIT OF THE CARIBOO

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about some of the positive feelings I have towards the Cariboo. New Democrats are often wrongfully accused of not having positive alternatives. On the contrary, we have pages of clear and considered policy to improve the quality of life for British Columbians. But today, I won't speak so much of policies as I will of the strength and spirit of the Cariboo.

Members of the House should know that I come from a small-business family originating in ranching. But with little more than a barrel of gas and a box of chocolate bars, my father started a business at 150 Mile House, which had been the original centre of the central Cariboo. He built up the business, and he bought furs and sold cars. He operated a general store, a hotel, a motel and a service station and owned a ranch.

He found time to chair the school board — probably the cause of him marrying my mother, a teacher in the area who had come up from Vancouver with her father, who was a travelling furniture salesmen, as part of the war effort. Many young women coming out the normal school in Vancouver did this during World War II.

My father's family came from a drought-stricken, mixed-farming area of the United States, where they raised purebred Herefords. My grandfather was a blacksmith, and as such was involved in that business, often dealing with the difficult wheelwrighting and welding jobs. He managed the ranching operation for the Cowans, a pioneering Cariboo family. Of course, grandmother, an Austrian by birth, cooked for the huge haying crews and raised her family, sitting down at the dinner table only after everyone else was fed. Having grown up behind the cash register in the

[ Page 11775 ]

general store just across the street from the ranch my grandfather managed, I knew what it was like to benefit from the good times and to stick it out in the bad times.

The people who bought groceries in our store were the ranchers who often struggled to survive, the Indian people who lived on a nearby reserve, and the sawmillers and loggers. Our family knew what it was like to suffer when there was change, when the big grocery stores came into the town of Williams Lake and took business away from the country store, and what it was like to try to expand the business, hoping that the paving of the Cariboo Highway and the development of mining, timber and tourism would bring better times.

My family knows what it's like to invest everything you have in the business, in the hope that it will give you retirement security. Sometimes those hopes work out and sometimes they don't. So there are dreams and realities, and those are things with which people in the Cariboo are quite able to cope. The Cariboo is a place where the small entrepreneur has been able to develop, based on the raw wealth of the area, and where he's able to be innovative and to develop new products and markets.

Waves of settlers came, from the very earliest, who got along reasonably well with the native people, to more recent ones from the United States, Europe and Asia, all of whom learned not to step on their neighbour's toes and realized that the stronger the neighbour, the stronger they were.

So while we have a strong sense of independence that we can make it on our own, we have also a long history of working in the community to survive, to build schools and livestock co-ops. We also have a strong tradition of independent leadership by representatives who can take care of our constituents' needs regardless of what party they vote for. Our communities want their leaders to stand behind their aspirations and their hopes, and to stand behind them when times are not good.

The waves of immigrants who came to the area came for a way of life. They came for material well-being, subsistence, a paycheque, the ability to buy a house, and the ability to hunt, fish and enjoy the surroundings. They have come to be prepared to put some of their tax moneys into the amenities needed in urban settings. We have that ability to adapt to new ways, yet to save many of the time-tested traditions. I can give the example of the tourist businesses that have operated virtually unchanged over 50 years, and the ranching operations that have modernized slightly but that still hay the same meadows and ride the same range.

Then there are the people who live in town and work in the large sawmills, who are so dependent upon a constant supply of timber and who feel threatened, but who also know that, given the chance, we can work out the problems. We in the Cariboo feel that some of the decisions that affect us have been taken away from us and that we want to restore that sense of being in control. To do that we need representatives in government who will listen and citizens who will speak out and take charge. So understanding that, I have spent the last year and a half, since I was elected, trying to listen to people in the best traditions of my predecessor Alex Fraser and to act on their behalf.

I know that people out there have the feeling that the New Democrats can provide leadership in managing the forests, protecting the environment and achieving a balance between growth and protecting the resources that the growth is based upon. They have the feeling that we can deal with the hospital lineups and the need to maintain quality health care and education for our young people. We know we can deal with problems of illiteracy by helping our neighbours feel confident enough to want to learn to read and write.

We know that we'll pay our fair share of taxes, but we still have the feeling that we're paying more than our fair share. We know that the government has no money; it's the people's money. It must be spent wisely, in the best interests of the Cariboo, on our highways, our forests, our environment, our schools and our hospitals. We must get the best value for our tax dollars, and we must get our priorities straight.

The people of the Cariboo know that the New Democrats under Mike Harcourt do not represent a threat to the economy nor to the free enterprise spirit of the Cariboo. They will be prepared to say that these are the objectives for our society and our economy, and then allow individual businesses to achieve those objectives. We know that in the many little valleys and settlements throughout the Cariboo, there are untapped opportunities to create employment and to secure our way of life. People in the Cariboo know, too, that the frontier is closing and that the first occupants of that frontier, the native people, want to work out cooperative measures to continue to live together in our rural lifestyle.

The people of the Cariboo know that when something needs fixing, they fix it; when something needs changing, they change it. Businesses and individuals are able to adapt and live in a changing world, and they won't throw out what they treasure in the process. They know that to change government, to invigorate government, will keep the quality of life.

One of the essential aspects of democracy is leadership that listens. My leader has listened to me and to the people of the Cariboo, and I in turn will listen to the people of the Cariboo. That's why I have been travelling and holding meetings all over — from Anahim Lake to Big Creek in the Chilcotin; Loon Lake to 100 Mile House; Bridge Lake to Horse Lake; Canim Lake to Gateway in the east and Horsefly, Big Lake and Wells in the northeast; Quesnel and Williams Lake; and to all the other places in between. I know that if there's a place I've missed, it hasn't been for not wanting to get there. Given time, I will get there, and I will listen....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. You'll have to continue your remarks in your conclusion.

[ Page 11776 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take my place today in this House to respond to the second member for Cariboo and also make reference to the comments made by the first member for Cariboo. I guess this is Central Interior Day. It's good to speak about this and to hear the good words expressed by both members for the Cariboo.

For a while there, the second member for Cariboo made one of the better Social Credit speeches that I've heard, until he started making reference to the current Leader of the Opposition. Let me quote for the benefit of the members here and others that the Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying: "If it's good for Vancouver, I'm for it; if it's not, I'm not for it." I think that that really underscores the Now Democratic philosophy and opinion when it comes to recognizing the great central interior and rural areas of our province.

MR. JONES: When did he say that? What year was that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He said it in Vancouver. Where else would he say it? Where else does he go?

The first member for Vancouver East — the charming fellow — when the ministers of state were put in place to further develop and decentralize our great government, described us....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure, I'm still chairman. Ask your colleague who just spoke. I'm chairman of the Cariboo Regional Advisory Council.

The first member for Vancouver East described us as "a bunch of unsophisticated rural rednecks." You've got the second part right, but I don't like being called "unsophisticated."

Seriously, I've got some history there. I spent the summer that I turned 21 in the Lac la Hache area at a ranching operation. As a matter of fact, I spent my twenty-first birthday at the Twilite Lodge back in the days when it was really something to spend your twenty-first birthday anywhere. That was a great summer. You know what it's like, Dale. So I do have an affinity for the Cariboo. I think it's one of the great spots of the province— without question one of the best four-season climates, if you enjoy four seasons, which a lot of us do.

I have no problem with what either the first member or second member for Cariboo said about the great area that they represent. But I think we have to set the record straight that the regional advisory committees and the decentralization move made by the Premier some three years ago have been of great benefit not only to the Cariboo but to the whole province.

I have to state for the record — and one hates to be political on a Friday morning when we're all having such a good time — that I really can't see New Democratic Party alternatives offering any great advantage to the people of the central interior or any rural area. Clearly we have a party there that has most of their energies, most of their focus and most of their raison d’être based on helping Vancouver and being a strong central government. For them to acknowledge the process of decentralization — the fact that there are people outside the lower mainland area who have constructive opinions on how the province can be operated — is certainly foreign to that NDP philosophy.

So, although I do respect the member's love for his area and his willingness to talk about it, I can't really accept his philosophy. Nor can I accept that this type of government or this type of program is going to benefit the great central interior in any way.

[10:30]

MR. ZIRNHELT: The statements attributed to my leader are a little bit out of date, and I would really urge the members opposite to read some of his recent statements in which he said that he's in favour of balanced growth. We have a 2 percent reduction in population. It has all gone into Vancouver. He didn't do that. What's wrong with standing up for the region he represents? And if he wants to represent the whole of British Columbia, I'll represent the Cariboo and stand up for it. He'll listen to me. So what's good for the Cariboo — I'm for it.

Perhaps the most significant contribution I could make to this debate today would be to quote an old friend, Paul St. Pierre, one of these independent representatives of the Cariboo. He talked about a situation where the headline in the newspaper said: "Ranchers End Group as Fence Protest." It goes on:

"The forestry department, which controls grazing on Crown lands, had apparently determined to build a new drift fence to control cattle on the range near Riske Creek. The district forester and other government men had addressed the Riske Creek Stockbreeders' Association and had produced many large studies and statistics. The audience was unmoved. The ranchers' position was that the drift fence was a waste of the British Columbia taxpayers' money, that it was being built of the wrong materials in the wrong place for the wrong reasons and that finally and above all, the last thing in this world they needed was help from their goddamned government. Seeking some way to register their displeasure, they chose to disband the Riske Creek Stockbreeders' Association. The Tribune reporter calls the discussion heated."

That was from 1938. When it was reprinted recently, a lot of people thought they were reading contemporary news. That reflects some of the spirit of the people in the Cariboo.

We know that time spent by political representatives in the community is as important as time spent in Victoria dealing with laws, budgets and bureaucracies. If time permitted, political representatives would work side by side with the people out there making their living and securing a way of life for their families.

I have great memories of working in the sawmills and in construction crews that took telephone service to some of the outlying areas. I know that people want government to be simplified so that their involvement will mean something and so that there is one process for planning the future. This process is

[ Page 11777 ]

based on cooperation, give-and-take and, where there have been excesses by society and by government, time to be involved in healing the wounds of conflict or abuse. Above all, the people in the Cariboo want someone to stand behind the working people, whether they're business people, employees or native people. And if they're unemployed, they need to know that we can somehow increase employment so that everyone can hold their head up in pride when they say that they are from the Cariboo. Then everyone else will know that it is a proud region of healthy communities.

We need to know that we have the strength to grow and prosper, not just so that we can have pockets full of money, but so that this place we call the Cariboo will be here forever much as it is today.

RELOCATION OF POWELL RIVER FERRY

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words about ferries in the Sunshine Coast and Powell River area. As you know, the new name of the riding will be Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and to make the House aware of exactly what we have to contend with on the Sunshine Coast and in Powell River is the fact that we're 100 percent dependent on ferries.

In the past, the B.C. Ferry Corporation has done a marvellous job in keeping the ferries operational and providing a service. At the same time we now have an aggressive building program to replace some of the older ferries and give greater service to Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast and all the other small communities. But on the lower Sunshine Coast, of course, the ferries are imperative. They're the only way on and off the lower coast, and those people need a better service. So I am asking the House and our government to help us in the future by providing a better service that can create the infrastructure for this lower Sunshine Coast to survive.

The other half of it is a natural boundary between the lower Sunshine Coast and Powell River and Jervis Inlet, which is a ferry crossing. So within our own constituency we have a ferry problem from one side to the other — just between them — and two separate areas with definitely the same problem. And in Powell River it's an even longer drive: five hours into the Vancouver area from Powell River, getting up at 4 o'clock in the morning to get there for a meeting at 10.30 a.m.

One of the issues that has been predominantly in the news and in Powell River's mind over the years is the Powell River ferry, which runs to Comox. It's a very volatile issue. Years ago when a member was there — Dan Campbell — the ferry was stationed in Comox and has been there ever since, running back and forth to Powell River. But so many people in Powell River depend entirely on the ferry — for a doctor's appointment, for recreational reasons, for schoolchildren going back and forth for school activities — because of the isolated area in Powell River, that they felt they had their ferry taken away from them.

Tomorrow I'm expecting one of our ministers to come to Powell River in our constituency and to maybe have something to tell our people there about what is going to happen to the ferry to Powell River. I don't know what's going to happen, I don't know what's coming down, but I'm expecting the minister to show up there.

I've got to say this, Mr. Minister. I'm getting a lot of hoots and hollers from the NDP, but I'm going to draw something forward here right now. When I asked for help on the pipeline, the NDP sat on their hands and did nothing. Every one of the members from Vancouver Island sat on their hands and did nothing. When we ask for help on the ferry, they also sit on their hands.

It's my understanding that there's some fellow from.... Oh, it's Mr. Harcourt who is supposed to be in Powell River tomorrow — that's the guy. The word is out in Powell River through the NDP: "You're not going to get any help from Mr. Harcourt. It's already...."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are four and a half years into the mandate. The member by now must know the rules. The member must refer to him either by his constituency or by his title in the House, but must not use the member's name.

MR. LONG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for straightening me out. I'm very sorry. I got a little carried away there because the opposition has never helped in this instance. They were in power for 14 years in my riding and nothing happened.

I'm looking forward to something the minister has to bring to Powell River for the people there. I'll tell you one thing: the people of Powell River deserve it and they're looking forward to it. I think they want to become very involved with Vancouver Island, and until now they haven't had that opportunity. They're all in the same area, and they will be able to get there and do what they have to.

There are also other areas. We have Texada Island involved in this, and they have to be brought into the equation to make sure it works for them, to make sure those people can get over to Powell River and also into Vancouver on a good schedule.

I think, when you take a look at the small, remote towns, the ones that are dependent on ferries, that we're probably an example of how this government with its new Bill 83 works for these small communities — looking at the jobs, creating some employment and giving back to these small towns some of the employment they need. If it happens that they move that ferry and locate it in Powell River where it belongs, where 84 percent of the people who use the ferry come from, where the entire economy of that ferry is paid by those people— and they deserve the economy which it creates — you will find that the ferry in Powell River will be the second-largest industry there, creating jobs for the people in that remote area.

So this bill, and what could happen tomorrow — and I hope it's a positive one by the minister.... This

[ Page 11778 ]

could be the second-largest employer, the one that helps these small towns. It proves here in this House that the legislation our Premier and our government have brought forward helps these small, remote towns. I'm afraid to say that the opposition has not had the wisdom to see how it affects these towns. I think it's time they took a look at all of B.C. and started making decisions that help the little guy as well as the big centres.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I notice that you had to remind the member for Mackenzie what the rules of the House are. I wasn't surprised by that, because we note that he spoke five times in the entire session last year and, curiously, though, three times already this session. We wonder, then: is it possible an election is in the air? Could that be the case, friends? I wonder about that.

It's also interesting that the reference he made was to a minister who may be making an announcement. But, as he spoke, another minister left the chamber, and the other minister was the Minister of Education from the riding of Comox, the place where the ferry is currently located and where some 50 families are currently employed. I wonder if the Powell River relocation has in fact been discussed with the minister from Comox and whether those families now living on the Comox-Courtenay side of the strait have indeed been consulted.

I wonder which minister, Mr. Member? Well, the matter obviously comes as no surprise to us. We've all heard about the "bring the ferry home" campaign, and it's a campaign that has obviously captured the imagination of the local residents. So be it.

The problem, though, is that even if this is a good idea — and it may well be a good idea to take the ferry and base it in Powell River — it's not a very good way to make public policy. It's not a good way to pit community against community and say that what is good for the community of Powell River will necessarily have a negative impact on the community across the water.

What we ought to be doing in terms of making public policy — and the B.C. Ferry Corporation is a good example of a way to make good public policy; a way we haven't done or taken advantage of is to broaden it so we do have some community consultation. I notice, for example, that the transportation subcommittee recommendation was that there should be a task force established to look into the future directions of the corporation. One of the things the task force ought to look into is the possibility of making Powell River the home port. There's nothing new in that. It may be a good idea, but it's not a good idea to pit community against community or to pit one member of the Social Credit government against another for what would appear to be very crass political reasons.

The member for Mackenzie, to put the matter charitably, has been a kind of Rip Van Winkle from Mackenzie. This is the guy who has been on the board of the corporation and hasn't, unfortunately, been able to do a thing to improve the service to his own constituency. Now, however, when the government is literally on its deathbed, seeking repentance, we suddenly have the largesse being distributed. Here is a gift for you, my friends. We've given you nothing until this point, but now we have something for you.

That kind of cynical approach to making public policy isn't going to work. Enjoy your swan song, Mr. Member, because you're not going to be representing Powell River next time around, even if the ferry is brought home.

[10:45]

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, the Powell River people should resent the comments of this member — the Transportation critic. They should resent it, and they should be appalled. If this man speaks for the local NDP people in Powell River, they should be ashamed of him.

The member also spoke about the fact that I haven't spoken in the House too often. This member spoke in the House a lot, but I'll tell you one thing: when I stand up to speak in the House, I've got something to say; when I stand up to speak in the House, I've got something to deliver.

Let's talk a little bit about decision-making. You guys have got the biggest fence I've ever seen. There's a whole line of you down here. Each one is on a picket all the time. Let me tell you, it's this kind of government that can have a member on each side of the water. But they know the difference between right and wrong, and what is just and unjust, and they make the adjustments to make it work. That's what has not happened with the opposition.

When you talk about pitting one community against the other....

Interjection.

MR. LONG: Listen to what I have to say, rather than interrupting, Mr. Rupert. Think of what I've got to say now. Of the people who use the ferry, 84 percent come from Powell River and fund that ferry. The people in Powell River and the working guy who slaves in the mill is entitled to the economy of his ferry and what he pays for it.

This member — this critic — for the NDP, who would not give Powell River their ferry, talks about the 60 families in Courtenay who may have to move to Powell River. I've got to tell you, my friend: this is the best place to live in British Columbia, and they'll love it when they get there. You don't hold 12,000 to 15,000 people to ransom for 60. Even in your book, that's not right.

It's time the NDP got on board, supported this and got off that big fence in the sun to do something right for a change. Start backing the people of Powell River.

MR. SPEAKER: I just have to check the standing orders to make sure it is Friday. It is Friday.

[ Page 11779 ]

KOOTENAY COUNTRY

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I'm sorry the title of my statement today was not as clear as it could be. I was hoping we'd have a resource minister who could respond to what I bring to the House today.

For many years, informed and caring people in the East Kootenay have called for a provincewide land use strategy. It's a bottom-up phenomenon. It's not something that was imposed from on top. We talked about it, and we talked about a provincewide strategy as we came to the understanding that we couldn't reach a local or a regional strategy without a full, provincewide strategy.

The closer we came to trying to put together such a strategy and the ways we would do it, the more we recognized that we need a resource inventory in order to put that strategy together, and that our inventories are not adequate at the moment to do the job. We have some inventories. We have forest capability maps, and they started the whole thing quite some years ago. Now we have wildlife capability maps and a tourism capability map for the region. None of them is in fine enough detail to do the kind of planning we need.

The number of people recognizing this need has increased over the years. It began mainly with resource managers — most of them within the civil service and some of them in private organizations and even in industry. It expanded very clearly over the last several years to conservationists, who felt a severe squeeze on the resource that interests them the most.

Parks Plan '90 came to town several weeks ago. What came out was the joining of forces by another of the sectors of the community. The forest industry and workers who depend on the timber resource out of forests from our land base are now feeling the squeeze on their use of the resource. They came forward to make their demand. It was the very same as the demands that have been made for years by the resource managers, the conservationists and the environmentalists. The demand is that we need, please, detailed resource inventories so that we can put together a provincial land use strategy.

I have asked this government time after time for detailed resource inventories. I've asked the Minister of Forests for forest and range inventories. I've asked the Minister of Environment for water, wildlife and fisheries inventories. I've asked in order to facilitate land use strategies for tourism and for parks. I've given the Mines minister strong support for increased geological surveys, to work toward the management of land, and I've asked the Minister of Crown Lands for the inventories we need to make the southern Rocky Mountain Trench land use map more useful and more flexible.

I ask again now, Mr. Speaker, after a vigorous and united demand from my constituency.... I demand that this government offer more than lip-service to the twin concepts of resource management and land use strategy. The response so far has not been adequate.

For example, the elk inventory — the one that's promised for the agriculture-wildlife task force, which I believe is proceeding — is emergency short-term money assured only for the length of the process.

The trench map's limitations are mainly those of lack of detailed inventory. Perhaps most obvious was the impact about what was going to happen with Parks Plan '90. The claims about that impact on the forest industry went all the way from 1 percent to more than 40 percent; there was no clear data out there.

Now this is not a partisan request. The hundreds of people who turned out to the Parks Plan '90 hearings, and the scores more who decided to write to the process because they didn't want to get involved in the conflict that arose at the meetings, all have one thing very explicitly in common; they all demand attention to resource land management, and that it be done effectively in the East Kootenays. They see the first step in that as better inventories — more detailed, more exact than what we now have.

That came from industry, civil servants and ordinary citizens with all sorts of interests. That's my message to the government from an intense resource conflict area. It's an increasingly urgent message from Kootenay, because the resources that are being allocated are near to the last. It's urgent because the people involved are feeling more and more stressed. It's urgent because a government that doesn't know what it has to deal with can't do the reasonable planning that needs to be done.

Give us the tools, and the people in my constituency will do the hard part — that of hammering out an agreement. We can't do that when the reams of information that are there may be right or may be wrong — and only may be believed.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement that the member for Kootenay made in opening her statement today. Indeed, Kootenay country conjures up a lot of ideas. I thought perhaps she would talk about a multitude of things that are there and are serious problems.

For instance, I thought maybe she would talk about the coal industry and the problems it's facing today. Although the industry has increased productivity, due to low margins it is unable to really invest in new equipment.

I thought perhaps she'd talk about the forest industry and the pressures it feels. With the closures of Crestbrook's mills in the last couple weeks and the layoffs there, certainly that is something of great importance in the Kootenay area.

I thought perhaps she would talk about the need to provide some kind of wood-waste-to-energy programs, so that when the beehive burners are abolished in our area by 1995, there will be a suitable method of disposing of the wood waste and relieving some of the problems the sawmills will face.

I thought also that she might talk about the greatest thing that has happened in the Kootenays in the last little while, and perhaps the greatest thing

[ Page 11780 ]

that has happened in the province in this last year: the go-ahead for Celgar's pulp mill expansion and cleanup program. It's a $700 million program that will end up with the cleanest pulp mill in the province, provide a stable market for the excess wood chips in our area, and provide a market for some of the round fibre that is now being left in the woods and ending up in slash burns. Certainly this is a great step forward, and something I thought perhaps she would talk about.

I thought perhaps she would put forth some concrete proposals on how we could strengthen the economy there, and indeed diversify the economy — something that the West Kootenays and the East Kootenays both require. Perhaps, with her background, she would talk about the increased access to education that we've had in the Kootenays in the last four years. But, Mr. Speaker, that was not to be.

I was surprised that she is now asking for a land use strategy. Perhaps if she had attended the regional advisory task force meetings and been involved in a process at the grass-roots level that did have the people of the Kootenays represented — a real cross-section of the total Kootenays — she would know where we were in trying to go forward with a land use strategy. But unfortunately her attendance was not.... Her attendance, though, was at the NDP miniconvention held in Creston last year. I'm quite surprised that somebody would stand in this House today and say that before we alienate any more land or take away any more of the forest space, we need to get a land use strategy in place, after endorsing at that convention the Valhalla plan for parks in our area and, indeed, throughout the province.

The miners and loggers in my area today feel very threatened by that action, so I'm rather surprised that she would make that statement after saying: "Yes, we need this for parks. We agree with Valhalla." Now she's saying: "We need an inventory." But I think she's again revealing her complete ignorance about inventories, because what is today's dirt can well be tomorrow's ore. You don't know where it is — ore is where you find it. And you can't really inventory what is there until you look at it. Certainly the process of looking for ores and minerals, for resources that are hidden, needs to be an ongoing thing. We cannot shut it out at any one time.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things going on in the Kootenay country. We've got a lot of problems. But I can't see that what the member is talking about today is the solution to the problems. I can't see that her stand in the past of alienating more land in the Kootenays for park purposes really solves the problems we have today.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, it's very interesting that the minister decided to ignore what I did say to the minister, which was a very broadly based and clear statement out of my constituency within the past several weeks. The minister obviously has not heard what has gone on. The minister pretends to be a regional minister. He does not realize that the very industry that usually would be broken on its back before it would criticize the Social Credit government is out there saying: "Give us a land use strategy. Give us some resource inventories." Very differently from what they used to say, they're saying: "The resource inventories that we have are not adequate." That is a new statement. That's what's being said out of my riding in the face of all the attempts of this government, which has not responded to the situation of resource-conflict planning.

[11:00]

Resource-conflict planning means that you have to have some data so you can make some difficult decisions. The difficult decisions are right in front of us, Mr. Speaker, and we need the tools to deal with them. So far we haven't had the tools, and we don't see our way out. When we have public hearings in our riding, what do we have? We have a request for the tools that we've been asking for for years. We have a request from a broad-based section of our community. That's what I'm putting to the government today, and that is where I wish we had an answer from this government. I will continue to say to the minister: yes, there are many good things going on, yes, all those things that you talk about require difficult decisions. Give us the tools; give us the inventory so that we can go ahead and get them. Believe me, when we get to be government, land use inventories will be right at the top priority.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

JOB PROTECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 83; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, this is the interpretation section of the bill. I don't imagine there will be a lot of debate on it, but maybe it would be a good opportunity to ask a couple of questions. I wasn't in the House when the Critical Industries Act was proclaimed, so I'm not totally familiar with the old act vis-à-vis the new act. I know that the deputy has been around longer than I have and could maybe assist.

I'm looking at the section that says "strategic industry" in the interpretation section, it seems to me that the bill contemplates two things. One is assistance to companies in difficulty that need assistance to get through a short-term problem but have long-run viability — or that's hopefully the case. Secondly, the bill contemplates something broader by this "strategic industry" section, which may be that the forest industry in the Kootenays is designated a strategic industry; therefore tax relief or regulatory relief would be applied across the industry rather than be company-specific. That's what I'd like the minister to explain for me, if he could: whether that's a correct interpretation.

[ Page 11781 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: As a normal course, the assistance that would be proposed by the job protection commissioner would be company-specific. But it may be that in the course of examining a particular facility or enterprise, the commissioner might very well identify some matters which could be applied industry-wide. Conversely, the province might want to provide a regime of assistance to a specific industry that in turn, as individual enterprises were to access the commissioner, would be of assistance.

A specific example would be the shipbuilding industry, where you might wish to determine by regulatory power that it is a strategic industry undergoing some change and consolidation right now involving Canada, British Columbia, the trade unions and the industry itself, which, for instance, could be designated in that way. I'm not suggesting it is or will be or is even being considered to be, but that is an example.

MR. CLARK: So in fact, then, my interpretation was correct. I wonder whether this is a different.... A couple of things. This seems to be different from the previous act, which was proclaimed in a previous parliament and dealt really with specific companies rather than whole industries or industrial sectors. That's the first thing. Maybe the minister could tell me whether in fact this is new and broader, in a sense, than what we saw with the previous act.

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is yes.

MR. CLARK: Does the minister have any concerns about the free trade agreement? It seems to me that you could argue that the strategic industry section might be the free trade clause. As I recall the principles of the free trade agreement, one of the concerns of our trading partner in the United States was that subsidies could be applied to a specific company — what was called the "rifle" subsidy approach. In other words, picking a particular company and subsidizing it would be contrary to the free trade agreement, but the "shotgun" subsidy approach was acceptable If the subsidy applied across the board to all companies doing business in British Columbia — American or otherwise. I wonder whether that was the thinking behind this, or whether it was something different from that.

HON. MR. SMITH: Generally, the answer is yes. With respect to the FTA, the job protection provisions are universally available. However, in terms of the mechanics one would have to go through to actually put an economic plan in place, it would apply to an individual plant. Therefore, the measurement of the actual impact would be almost imperceptible. We have examined it in relationship to the FTA.

Our view is that the FFA would have no consequence on the ability of government to use this legislation for the purposes for which it is designed.

MR. CLARK: Of course, as someone who doesn't support the free trade agreement, I certainly would not argue that this free trade agreement prevents us from doing it. I take the position — and I'm sure my colleagues on this side of the House would — that we should proceed with what is good public policy. If someone wants to argue that, they can argue it, and we'll deal with it later.

I am maybe just a little concerned because of the broadness of the act now and this interpretation the minister has given us about strategic industries. It's a substantial and significant broadening of the powers of the previous critical industries commissioner. At least it gives that option.

Of course, given that this type of legislation could be open to abuse — and I'm not suggesting it will be abused — we have to be very careful with tax dollars and subsidies. It seems to me that this perhaps opens the door to potentially broader application of subsidies and therefore tax expenditures, which may impact on the province significantly.

I wonder if the minister could explain "strategic industry" in terms of interpreting that definition, and whether a strategic industry is designated by order-in-council of the Lieutenant-Governor, or whether it is only on the advice of the commissioner that an industry would be designated strategic.

Before the minister answers that, we can debate this in other sections, and that might be more appropriate. I don't have any problem doing that, but it just seems to me that if we can deal with it now it would be easier.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, it can.

MR. CLARK: Just to clarify that, are you saying that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can designate any industry a strategic industry, without the recommendation of the commissioner?

Perhaps we will get into this a little later, but that causes me some concern, given the potential for abuse. I don't want to indicate that there will be any abuse, but it seems to me that in defence in second reading the minister said to members on this side of the House, who accused him, I think correctly, of being probably the most partisan member on the government side of the House.... He defended the bill by standing behind the commissioner. He said: "Well, it's not me. Even if you don't like me, and you think I'll abuse it, I can't, because the commissioner stands between the public purse and my political desires."

Now the minister is saying to the House that it is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, not the commissioner, that can designate an industry a strategic industry and therefore subject to tax cuts, tax relief or other regulatory relief. That causes me great concern.

I wonder if I have that correct, or whether the minister would care to respond to those remarks.

HON. MR. SMITH: My good friend the second member for Vancouver East is the only one I've heard on the other side who characterizes me as the most partisan member on my side of the House. I suspect

[ Page 11782 ]

the reason he does that is because from time to time he may think he's looking in a mirror.

Nevertheless, the issue that he's thinking about is that when I was talking about.....

AN HON. MEMBER: You flatter yourself.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, he's got a better nose than I have — I recognize that. At least it's a more photogenic nose; I don't know about the rest of it.

When we were discussing the role of the commissioner, the arm's-length position of the commissioner and my characterization of the safeguards that were built into that, we were talking about the specific plan that the commissioner would have to bring forth.

Designating something a strategic industry does not itself create a plan. It cannot create a plan, and does not itself import into the system the powers that the commissioner has to use. The commissioner has to use those independently, and would still have to take those powers, move forward with them and bring forward a plan.

With respect, I think the member is a tad confused about that. This section is written in specifically so that we could deal with things like the shipbuilding industry if we desire to do so. But in fact, the last act essentially had the same thing in it, where what was designated specifically in the last act — and the only thing with which the critical industries commissioner worked — was the mining and the forestry sector. They were considered to be strategic industries in the sense that they were ones that required that kind of a need.

If the member can be specific about this abuse that he claims is potential, it would be helpful for us in understanding what he's talking about. I fail to understand what he would be referring to in the designation of something as a strategic industry. If, in fact, it was the case that you did not have the arm's-length capacity with respect to individual plans that could be brought forward, or they could be done without the authority of the commissioner, I could understand the concern, but the designation itself does not do that. So perhaps the member could enlighten the House as to what he's concerned about.

[11:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the next speaker, I would bring to the attention of all assembled, as Mr. Speaker did yesterday, that members wishing to speak or wishing to interject must do so from their own seats.

MR. MILLER: Really, we're dealing with section 4, if the truth be told. But that's fair enough — if there's that kind of latitude. I guess the question is with respect to that.

In outlining the bill in second reading, the minister indicated things could only happen generally as a result of recommendations by the commissioner and that therefore the taint of political involvement wasn’t possible. Yet section 4 clearly allows the designation of both by the commissioner, who presumably would make a recommendation to government after having studied the matter in an impartial way and advised the government it was his opinion that a designation should be forthcoming.

This section also allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make a similar declaration. Really, the question is: why the need to have two? There is an apparent contradiction by having both the cabinet and the commissioner empowered under that section to do the same thing.

HON. MR. SMITH: Maybe it would be enlightening to the member, because he seems to think there's something new and distinct about this bill, if he read section 4 of the Critical Industries Act. Section 4 of the Critical Industries Act says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, with or without a recommendation under subsection (2), designate the whole or any part or class of an industry as a critical industry." This bill says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, with or without a recommendation under subsection (2), may designate the whole or any part or class of an industry as a strategic industry."

All that has been changed is the word "strategic." That's it. Again, when I was talking on second reading — just to make sure the record is clear — I was talking about a specific plan that would be brought forward only by the commissioner.

It would be a lot easier for me to answer the member's question if he could tell me what he thinks would be a potential problem. Give me an example of a designation as a strategic industry that you might consider to be a potential problem, and I'll see if I can help you.

MR. MILLER: Our purpose here is to try to be helpful. Section 4 clearly outlines, in very clear wording, that where the commissioner considers that an industry or part or class of it should be designated as a strategic industry.... I want to point out that in earning that designation, that industry is then in line for the waiving of regulations and fees under other sections of the act.

The commissioner has a responsibility to analyze and to make a recommendation to the government, which the government then will act on. But in addition to that section or part of section 4, there is an override— it seems to me — in the first part, where the cabinet, without even consulting the commissioner, can make that same designation. The question simply is: why the need? Would it not be preferable to have the commissioner make that recommendation to cabinet as opposed to cabinet acting unilaterally?

HON. MR. SMITH: One of the good things about committee is that it is hopefully an educational process. Your analysis, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, is entirely incorrect. You talk about being able to do imposts and so on under the strategic designation. It can't be done. Please try to, in your mind, grasp the distinction.

[ Page 11783 ]

The only way imposts or levies or anything else that can economically benefit an individual enterprise can be impacted is if that individual enterprise has been recommended through an economic plan — proposed by the independent commissioner — that has the agreement of all the parties involved and does not impact competitors, and put forward to cabinet. All of those things have to happen before the imposts can be taken in a case.

When you say in the House that you are concerned about being able to get imposts through this strategic designation, you are just simply wrong. It's not helpful for me for you to fuzzify it in that way, because they are two quite distinct things. I know it may be helpful for you, because you can fudge in the sense that somehow there is something here that is potentially abusive of the process.

But it is the process that was in place under the Critical Industries Act, and it is exactly the same one today. Perhaps the best way I could help you with this — because I know in second reading a great many people referred to some comments Art Phillips was alleged to have made in one of our daily newspapers.... It turns out those comments he was alleged to have made were not correct, in the sense that they had, of course, been taken out of context by the daily newspapers, as typically they will do. I listened to him being quoted here. He was contacted just to be certain — because I have a great deal of respect for him — what his position was. So what I'm going to put on the record now, Mr. Chairman, is a direct quote from the former critical industries commissioner dealing with this legislation, including the piece that the member for Prince Rupert is talking about. He says the legislation "is the way it should be and has to be and is fine," and he is "quite satisfied with it." So maybe the analysis of someone like Art Phillips, who has worked with it, would be helpful to you.

The simple fact, Mr. Member, is that the concerns you have about.... The ability to use imposts or to provide assistance in the way you're talking about does not flow from the designation of a strategic industry. It flows from a specific application made to the commissioner and all of the hoops the commissioner has to go through in the recommendation he makes. So the designation itself does not in any way trigger any economic activity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members, the Chair is having some difficulty. Although I am certainly concerned with facilitating this debate to the best of my ability, when we're in committee we deal with these bills section by section. We haven't completed section 1, and all the debate is on section 4. Now perhaps one of the learned members could enlighten the Chair as to why we can't proceed through sections 1, 2 and 3, and then debate section 4.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to interrupt the flow of this exchange — that would be the only reason I could think of.

I have a question that follows from the non-answer of the minister. I will break the flow, in that case, because I had a very quick question with regard to....

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: I will put my question, and we'll return to section 4. My colleague asked whether the implications of the FTA were considered in the drafting of the bill. My question is: were the implications of the MOU considered in the bill?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is yes, they were. We are not concerned that there will be arty adverse impact, or indeed any impact.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question that I hope is of very little consequence, but it has fascinated me ever since I first read the bill. I would like the minister to explain to me what the word "calling" means in the first definition under "business." It "includes trade, enterprise, calling and undertaking." I wonder if he could describe that word for me.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm most likely going to have to call for some legal advice to be able to define "calling, " but it can broadly include profession, I guess. It could broadly include some trade association; it could broadly include a whole range of things that obviously are quickly running to the imagination of the member for Prince Rupert, I have no doubt. It is a creative piece of drafting in keeping with the call of the opposition House Leader to have plain language in that which we bring in. Clearly and plainly it means a whole range of things that otherwise would have to have been defined with incredible specificity. I know you would not have wanted us to do that, so we have umbrellaed it and called it a calling." We've called it forth in that way.

MS. EDWARDS: When I saw it, of course, I thought, well, what does that mean? I know that the minister has had a bit of imaginative flight this morning, and I thought he might be interested that I wondered if this meant.... You usually hear about people taking a call to the ministry, or to a mission or something. I wondered if religious organizations were now going to be included in this bill. I thought perhaps you might have a calling to be an opera singer or a ballet dancer, and I wondered with great enthusiasm whether or not this bill might apply to the arts and whether they might be declared as strategic industries. All of these things came to mind, Mr. Minister. I simply say this to clarify why I ask the question. Does this really apply to such things as that? I will leave with the same sort of idea. I will simply drop it and not ask any question about "undertaking," which may also have some reference.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I think that's a wonderful explanation of the possibilities. Certainly,

[ Page 11784 ]

"callng" could include all of those things. I don't know of anyone who is proposing to name the arts as a strategic industry. But having listened and thought about it — and being a person who happens to think it is one of the great economic generators and will become much more important as an economic generator as we move along — it might not be such a bad idea. This word would, of course — as you have so correctly pointed out — enable that to happen if someone were so inclined.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. CLARK: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister could tell us what the salary will be of the commissioner, and what the budget is contemplated to be for this fiscal year.

HON. MR. SMITH: I can only tell you the range, which Is a deputy minister range. I'm sorry I don't know what the number is.

MR. CLARK: Section 3.2 says the commissioner can be reimbursed for actual expenses. Presumably this wouldn’t be contemplated of this magnitude without some sense of what the budget is likely to be for this initiative. So perhaps he could just give me a range or an estimate as to the budget of the actual staff of the commissioner — as contemplated by this section.

[11:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: I believe the number is $105,000. But I don't want to be hung by that, because I'm not 100 percent sure of that. But what we're doing this fiscal year — the one we're still in, because the commissioner is still at work — is to simply use the resources of our ministry budget in order to support the needs there right now.

Next year, as you will see in due course in estimates, we will be setting aside $1 million, which we think will be plenty to deal with whatever comes up. In terms of the staff resources, as well, I should say that the commissioner has the opportunity to call upon expertise from various ministries of government on a kind of secondment basis. Indeed, the critical industries commissioner did do that fairly frequently last time.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I thought my question was straightforward. There was a rather long response from the minister. I appreciate any advice that the former critical industries commissioner may have to offer.

Nonetheless, I'm satisfied that were he a member of this House, he would no doubt be asking questions about certain sections of the bill. My question — and I go back to it — is that in section 4 there are two methods under which an industry can be designated a strategic industry. There are two methods. Why?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, in the last go-around with the critical industries commission, we had that power so we could establish areas that we knew were in difficulty and which we wanted to have the commissioner examine. We had the option then, as we do now, to say that everything could be open to be considered by the critical industries commissioner. We didn't do that then. What we did instead was to designate two areas that were very specific at that time and to focus resources on them. This time what we have done with the job protection commissioner is essentially the same thing: to have that authority there.

It's going to be very broad to begin with for the commissioner. The commissioner's authority is in fact broader than it was last time, because we started off by restricting it. We haven't this time. We simply want that power to be there, so that — and I use an example — if there was some reason with respect to federal-provincial contributions to an industry, as in the case with the shipbuilding industry, where there may be some merit because the critical industries commissioner's authority obviously only goes to that which we can extend and which he can bring forward by way of recommendation.... There may be some agreement that we have entered into with Canada which, by virtue of that agreement with our authority, we would want to designate in that way. It simply gives that flexibility to do it, and that's the purpose of it.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to belabour it. It seems to me that by not restricting the bill to two industries, as the previous one was, you are opening the door to an avalanche of applications from all kinds of companies that will be in difficulty. As you know, in a dynamic market economy, companies go bankrupt every day. Of course, they now have recourse to come before a commission and ask for help. It seems to me that by not limiting it, it potentially becomes an unwieldy task. It may well be worthwhile to have all of these companies reviewed. But it seems to me that it may be more strategic to have narrowed the focus of the help somewhat.

Having said that, the question comes: what does designating something a "strategic industry" trigger? If it simply means that each individual company must still have an economic plan and must still have the commissioner's review, what is the merit in even having a section here which gives the power to designate a strategic industry? When you go through the rest of the bill, as I have. it says that whether or not it's designated a strategic industry, the commissioner can still look at it. So what’s the merit of having this section, first of all?

Secondly — and related to that — is what it triggers. If the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designates something a strategic industry without the commissioner having recommended it, which is con-

[ Page 11785 ]

templated by section 4(l), does that trigger then in the commissioner an obligation to investigate that section which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has designated a strategic industry? It just seems to me that it may be illogical to have this section here at all when everything is canvassed anyway.

HON. MR. SMITH: Maybe I can hark back to the critical industries commissioner. That section was used last time to restrict the ambit. That’s the criticism you've just made — that it may be that in fact it's too wide. One of the things that was done last time using the identical power — and in fact the identically numbered section — was to restrict the ambit of the authority to issues such as mining and forestry broadly, which are most likely to be the industries affected.

However, if we had done that — and you suggested it might have been an option right now to lay out what they all were in advance — the very important work that the job protection commissioner is doing right now with respect to the Pemberton area would have been excluded. So that gives you some sense, I hope, of the dynamics of it. Drawing on the experience of last time, one of the things you could do with it would be to restrict the ambit so you didn't have every single possibility before the commissioner, who then would need copious numbers of assistants and staff to deal with just the applications let alone with the result. So that's one possibility.

The other possibility, as I mentioned to the member for Prince Rupert, would involve where the province and Canada would themselves enter into an agreement, which you wanted to incorporate in that. The only other option would be for someone to phone the commissioner up and say, "We'd like you to look at something," which I don't think is the right way to do it.

MR. CLARK: It just seems to me — and maybe it's because of drafting, with respect — that you've sort of merged two thoughts here. On the one hand you've got the old bill, which was narrow and said "strategic industries," with a new idea which is everything. You've got two competing thoughts in the bill. It seems to me that you could have said that you would only be eligible for assistance if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designated your industry as a strategic industry, or your region as a strategic area, or something like that. That would then have meant that either the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the politicians could say this is a region or a sector of industry that we think needs help, or the commissioner could designate it on his own or her own or recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do that. That would have meant you could have covered everything, but it would have meant there would have been some discipline in terms of where and when areas were covered.

The way I read it, it seems to say everything is covered, and that in addition to that, industries can be designated strategic industries, but it doesn't seem to have any import. It doesn't make the bill. It may be just a flaw in the logic of the bill. It doesn't impair the ability of the government to do what it wants to do. I don't mean to say that, so I don't want to belabour it too long. But it just seems to me that it's perhaps sloppy — or perhaps opens the door to this avalanche of applications, which I suggested.

I just think that if it doesn't trigger anything by designating it a strategic industry in particular, then it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to have it in here, provided the commissioner can look at everything.

HON. MR. SMITH: If I may, Mr. Chairman, it was not the old bill which narrowed it down to two. When I referred back to the critical industry, it wasn't this section that narrowed it down. It was a decision taken by the cabinet of the day which narrowed it down.

It's not the bill itself. What you are trying to do....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, you do. Of course you have the option to narrow it down. That's how it was narrowed last time: "...may, with or without recommendation...designate the whole or any part or class of an industry as a critical industry." That's the way it was worded last time. Therefore you have the power to say that these are the only ones that are critical industries. You could do that. You have that flexibility. That's one of the benefits I could see.

The point is that it wasn't the old bill that narrowed it down last time; it was the decision of the executive council of the day that limited it down to the two areas. The reason they did so at that time was that.... I was involved in some peripheral way with that process up front and with the people who were working at it. It was narrowed down for the reason you're talking about — because they didn't want too many service industries involved.

The power was there to do it. The power is there to do that again. However, you have the situation with the case of Pemberton, where if you had narrowed that down, the commissioner himself could have opened it up. Indeed, the last time the critical industries commissioner did expand the ambit somewhat in the case of Western Steel, it came under that. There was that kind of flexibility there. All you are really talking about is the flexibility to get the resources to where they're needed, either by an expansive need or a contracting need or, in the case of our experience since then, where you would have some federal-provincial authority you wanted to bring to bear on it. That's really all it is.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. CLARK: Not to belabour this point, Mr. Chairman, but I want to draw the minister's attention to section 8(1), where it says: "A business enterprise

[ Page 11786 ]

is eligible for assistance under this section, whether or not engaged in a strategic industry...." I understand what he's saying, but maybe the minister could tell me that it's contemplated by the executive council that this will be narrowed and that the ambit of this bill will also be narrowed as it was under the previous administration.

It may not be narrowed in the same way. It may not be just forestry and mining. Maybe the minister could enlighten me on this. that the executive council will decide that only certain industries will be eligible in order to avoid that. In other words, there will be a narrowing of the scope of the commissioner's activities in correspondence with the needs of 1991.

Maybe the minister could confirm that first.

[11:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: I wouldn't want to bind the executive council, but my expectation would be that in these circumstances you would only do that on the recommendation of the commissioner. The most likely scenario would be where the commissioner, for some reason, became overwhelmed with matters which he couldn't deal with appropriately or effectively. That would be my expectation. If there was any narrowing, then it would be done on the recommendation of the commissioner.

MR. CLARK: If a restaurant owner in my constituency is having difficulty and comes to my constituency office and says, "I read that this business enterprise Is eligible for assistance whether or not it is designated a strategic industry," I can refer him or her to the job protection commissioner for a review. Is that correct?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is yes, you could.

MR. CLARK: In keeping with my remarks, then, do you not anticipate literally thousands of applications just because of a dynamic market economy? You have companies failing every day. That's part of the nature of our system and what keeps the system moving.

However, now they have an option to go and seek assistance. As a matter of fact, I might tell the minister just anecdotally that people phone me all the time and say: "I need $50,000. I know the minister's giving away $40 million, so I want to know where I line up for the money." I've told them now, of course, that Bill 83 gives them a place to line up.

It seems surely not to be good public policy to allow everybody who is struggling in a business in British Columbia to consume the time and resources of government to review their business plan and operation, and all that's contemplated in this bill, to see if they should be eligible. As the minister's own comments indicate, it's contemplated that the bill is designed to deal generally, I think, with forestry and mining.

So it seems to me that if you had said businesses are only eligible for assistance if they're designated as being in a strategic industry, either by the commissioner or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, that would have dealt with it. But now you've said it's "or" — whether or not they're designated engaged in a strategic industry. It seems to open the door to an avalanche of applications. Is that what the minister expects?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't expect that to happen. But if we have MLAs who would send them there for that purpose, perhaps that avalanche would arise or descend, as the case may be, and we would have to deal with it. That is not our expectation. Remember that the commissioner deals with issues of long-term viability, and so on, and I think some of the matters that you're talking about might be the case.

You raise peripherally the question of programs of assistance and loans that are available for your constituents, and I would be delighted to go through with you all the outstanding programs we have for small business. Indeed, second member for Vancouver East, I would like to come to your constituency with you, and we could sit down with the small business groups and organizations in the area. In that way I could show you not only to be a tremendous advocate of socialism, but also an outstanding and enlightened individual who is able to help business people.

To further answer the question you asked in the case of Pemberton, I think this provision is very helpful to what the commissioner, as I understand it from reading accounts in the media — which I know are not always 100 percent instructive.... But as I understand what he is doing there, this sort of thing really does give the authority to do that. But I don't expect abuses, no.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to question the minister on section 8(l)(a)(ii). This is the section that defines number of employees: "...prescribed minimum number of individuals working in...the Greater Vancouver Regional District or...the prescribed smaller minimum number of individuals working...in another region or locality...." What does the minister anticipate those numbers will be, or at least what range they will be? I presume they will come out under section 19 under the regulations, but perhaps the minister could give us some idea.

HON. MR. SMITH. If I understand your question correctly as to why we would differentiate between the regions.... Sorry, I didn't understand your question. The reason for the differentiation, I think you probably anticipate, is that.... All our programs, I should tell you, reflect our understanding that there are different resources and needs in the different regions. But I'm sorry, I guess I didn't hear your question correctly.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm trying to find out what the proportions are. What is the range of numbers that the minister anticipates? Is this going to be decided case by case, and it simply says that you need fewer

[ Page 11787 ]

people to have been employed in areas other than the Greater Vancouver Regional District in order to be considered? What is "lesser than," and what is the minimum? You refer to a minimum. What kind of range are you talking about? What do you expect would be a minimum number that you would deal with within the Greater Vancouver Regional District? What would be the proportion of what would be a minimum in the localities or the regions outside the Greater Vancouver Regional District?

HON. MR. SMITH: The numbers, the minimums that have been set out for now, subject to perhaps the commissioner himself wanting to adjust them, are 50 in the case of the GVRD, and 15 outside of the GVRD.

MS. EDWARDS: Would those numbers be subject to recommendation by the commissioner, or are they going to be prescribed in the regulations?

HON. MR. SMITH: We will very definitely seek his advice on those numbers before they are — or if they are — to be changed or etched in stone by way of regulation, Definitely, yes, we would seek his advice.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure I understood what the minister means. He says he would seek the commissioner's advice before it goes into the regulation, but one assumes that the commissioner will now be using the act until the regulations are in place. Does that mean the regulations will have a number when they come out? Does it mean that the commissioner will be able to go around those numbers under certain circumstances? How solid will those numbers be?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, we expect that the regulations will have a number when they are issued following the presumed passage of this legislation. Therefore, as is the case with all regulations, they could be changed if the commissioner, for instance, wished that it be done for some reason. In the absence of any contrary advice from the commissioner, they will begin at 15 for outside the GVRD and 50 for inside the GVRD.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 11 standing under my name on the order paper.

On the amendment.

MR. MILLER: This amendment is carefully considered, and I would like to just take a moment to outline the reasons behind it. Essentially, among other things, this section, and the bill itself in a broader sense, allows timber that is currently allocated by the Crown in various licence forms — forest licence, timber sale licences, section 16(l) value-added sales, TFLs and woodlots — to be in whole or in part taken away from the current holder of the licence and reallocated to a new business.

The general rationale behind that is that when the current holder of a licence is not operating a milling facility or not directing the timber from that licence to a milling facility, and there are others who are prepared to do that, that timber can be reallocated.

There are a number of conditions in the Forest Act which set forth the basis upon which Crown resources can be allocated to companies. There are varying conditions, depending upon which form of licence we refer to. We have taken exception to the waiving of the requirements under section 27, when it comes to allocating a tree-farm licence. We have singled the tree-farm licence out for concern, primarily because that licence confers far greater rights, it confers in fact proprietary rights to an area — to land — upon the holder, and it's clear from events of the not-too-distant past that if the Crown wishes to change those arrangements, the Crown is then in a position to provide compensation to the licence-holder.

We have generally taken great exception to the forest policy announced in 1987 by this government to further allocate lands in the form of tree-farm licences. In fact, the general public took the same exception, and the government has retreated on that policy position.

It is our view that, given the nature of a tree-farm licence, it is not in the interests of the Crown or the public generally to have those parts of section 27 of the current Forest Act waived. Those requirements as defined in this section are the requirement that there be competition for the licence and that there be a public hearing on the licence allocation before it is awarded.

As I said at the outset, we have considered this amendment carefully. We think it's in the best interests of the Crown and of the citizens of this province, who are the owners of the resource. I would appreciate the consideration of the amendment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can appreciate the thought and the concerns that have gone into the amendment from the member opposite, and I can assure him that we had in cabinet a great deal of difficulty in drafting this section and narrowing it down to the point where we felt it was workable.

In fact, I can honestly say that I was the one who insisted that we tighten this section up, so as not to give too many arbitrary powers to the Minister of Forests. So believe me, the way it's worded and structured now, it's very limiting on what the minister can do. I point out, as I did the other day in second reading of this bill, that anything can be done only with the recommendation of the commissioner after he has looked at the situation in great detail and decided that a volume of timber would be better

[ Page 11788 ]

placed in the hands of a new company or a different owner.

Let's talk about TFLs for a moment. The member is absolutely right when he says that we shouldn't be transferring a TFL; we have no intention of doing that. If we transferred any timber from a TFL, it would be a. very small portion of that TFL. While the forest resources commission is doing its work, we have no intention of altering the holder of a TFL. It would be a small portion thereof, and as it says in section 11(3): "...an annual volume not greater than the reduction referred to in subsection (2)...." So it would be a small portion of that TFL.

[12:00]

The other thing I would point out to the members is that I think the member was also mixing some of the conditions in section 24 when he was talking about timber being processed in a certain community. Those are entirely different sections. But again, Mr. Chairman, while I do appreciate the thought that has gone into the amendments, I personally feet that they are not necessary. The constraints are on the minister and the ministry, and the whole power to do this - the recommendation — has to come from the commissioner. It cannot be initiated by the Minister of Forests.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I really think the minister misses the point. It is not — nor did I suggest — that the minister would misuse this section in some way. I am making a general argument that to allocate in the form of a tree-farm licence should not be done without the requirements of the Forest Act. It simply should not be done, and this bill allows it to be done. I want to remind you of what I've said: a tree-farm licence confers extraordinary rights to its holder — far greater than the other licence forms that are identified in this section. It confers proprietary rights to the land. It is clear from recent and past examples that that imposes an obligation on the Crown to compensate. Maybe that's debatable, but our history so far has been....

There's a current case that we know exists today, and that's South Moresby. We should not allocate that licence form, except under the provisions of the Forest Act. We simply should not waive those requirements. I would say that whether this side or any other party were the government, it's a fundamental point, and I hope the minister appreciates what I'm saying.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I understand fully what the member is saying. I don't believe I missed the point of what he is saying, and maybe he didn't get what I'm saying. We have no intention of reallocating a TFL. There may be a small volume taken out of that TFL and reallocated, but that would be the most. As I said, under subsection (3), it would not be greater than the reduction referred to in subsection (2).

Now the reason that's in there.... Believe me, we went around this many times when we were putting this together. I think I explained it in second reading, but it bears repeating now. The only instance I can think of is when a company was not fulfilling their obligations vis-à-vis the wood supply they have to a certain mill or a certain community. Rather than allow that company to allow the mill to close and have to go through a readvertising public hearing process, the commissioner might decide that it would be better, should the employees desire to buy it and keep it operating, to immediately transfer that supply of wood, and there would be no days of work lost. It would be done without competition and without the public hearings, but only if the commissioner decided that, in the interests of those employees, we should keep that mill operating and just reallocate the portion of the wood that would be processed in that facility.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have reread the section, and I'm drawing the interpretation — and I think it's there in front of us — that section 11(3) says.... It appears to be straightforward. They refer to concessions, and they refer to other sections of the bill which allow the Crown to recapture timber volumes for particular failure to operate a mill. It deals with the fact that those timber volumes can be reallocated. In that reallocation certain provisions of the Forest Act are waived. I'm mindful of a very brief discussion where an argument was put forward — the minister touched on it in the last part of his answer — that speed is a factor in the ability to move quickly in reallocating timber. That's why it was felt necessary to waive the public hearing process and the competitive bidding for that licence.

Nonetheless, the act as it reads allows the Crown.... By the way, I should get an answer to that question; I intended to ask it. When the minister is referred to in this bill , I would hope that when we're dealing with sections of the Forest Act, we're referring to the Minister of Forests, not the Minister of Regional and Economic Development.

Nonetheless, the act as it's written and presented here allows the Crown to waive those parts of section 27. The argument I'd been given was that it was in the interest of speedy reallocation. I would suggest that the solution to that dilemma is.... If the Crown contemplates taking land and timber volumes from a tree-farm licence, it can simply allocate it in another form. It doesn't have to be reallocated in the form of a tree-farm licence.

I think there should perhaps have been sunset provisions for the new licences. I think we need those checks and balances in our legislation when we're dealing with the allocation of Crown resources, and I don't see them here in this bill. Therefore I think my amendment is to the point. I don't think my amendment frustrates the intent of the bill in the least. It allows the Crown all the freedom it has defined in this bill to deal with those critical questions. I'm sure you can get advice that would confirm what I'm saying to you.

I see no reasonable argument that's been presented to refute the amendment that I'm proposing. I think it's in the best interests of all of the citizens of

[ Page 11789 ]

this province that we maintain that check and balance on the tree-farm licence form of tenure.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I think I see now what the problem is for the member: his fear that we would create another TFL when we took.... That is not the intent. We would take the timber away from a TFL, which might cover several communities and several mills. We would take that supply of timber away from that TFL, but there would not be a new TFL given to those people. It would be on a temporary licence for a specific period of time, but they would still have to meet all of the requirements of the Forest Act. We would not be creating a new TFL; in fact, we have a moratorium on TFLs until the Forest Resources Commission rules on that.

We took that into account. It would be a form of temporary tenure: a forest licence or a timber harvesting licence with a very finite time-limit on it. So that is not a problem. We would not be creating a new mini-TFL, if you like.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to accept that the intent of this legislation and the commitment from the minister is that no new tree-farm licences will be allocated under the provisions of this act. Given that assurance, I see no need for a division. I'm not sure of the process — whether to simply withdraw....

MR, CHAIRMAN: I suggest that we vote it down, just to clear the record.

Amendment negatived.

Oil section 11.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think it's worth putting on the record to that member and to the entire House that you have my undertaking that there will be no new TFLs created because of this bill.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. MILLER: This is really a query, Mr. Chairman. The schedule attached to the act lists various acts under which the government can grant either monetary or regulatory relief. This section allows the cabinet to add other acts to that schedule, and I would like some indication from the minister of what may be contemplated, what may be missing from the current schedule that the cabinet would have to have this authority for.

HON. MR. SMITH: To answer your specific question, there isn't anything contemplated right now, or it would be in here. But it's similar to section 14 that we had under the Critical Industries Act, whereby if there is some act that we haven't contemplated that might be of some utility to the commissioner, then we can simply add it. That's all.

Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the following subsections be added to section 20, the sunset provision:

[(3) Sections 55.1(6) and 56.1 are repealed on the day two years after the day section 2 of the Job Protection Act comes into force.

(4)Section 154(2)(b) of the Forest Act is amended on the day two years after the day section 2 of the Job Protection Act comes into force by striking out "56.01(1)(c),".]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for not bringing this in sooner. Subsection (3) is 55.1(6) and 56.1 of the Forest Act, and the purpose of it is to lend certainty, if there isn't already, to the fact that when this act sunsets, so will those consequentials that flow into the Forest Act also be sunsetted — because you could interpretively read this right now that the consequentials in the case of the Forest Act are not. Although, quite frankly, I think if we look at the fact that the Forest Act provisions and authority could only be operative with an economic plan, and an economic plan can only be brought forward by the commissioner, then when the commissioner's authority sunset, I think the power is effectively sunsetted. Nevertheless, to add greater certainty to that, I've simply proposed this amendment so that the provisions of the Forest Act would indeed be sunsetted.

[12:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to get copies of the amendment to be distributed to the members. To the minister, it would be of great assistance to the Chair and to this House that when submitting an amendment you have copies available for distribution.

MR. MILLER: It's actually an interesting point. In fact, I was prepared to discuss that issue in perhaps a little different way. We don't see any difficulty with the amendment, but it does raise the question, as the minister just pointed out, that currently under the Forest Act there are no provisions, or there do not appear to be any provisions, whereby the minister can act when a company is not performing. We've seen the clamour right around this province, where it's assumed and implied that there's a quid pro quo — that we have allocated Crown resources in exchange for a promise from companies that they will provide other benefits: namely, the construction of a sawmill, the continued operation of that mill and the expectation that there would be reasonable levels of employment generated by the processing of those resources, which they have been given by the Crown. In fact, that's not been the case.

The Minister of Forests is quite familiar with the variety of situations around British Columbia. Cer-

[ Page 11790 ]

tainly we don't ignore the economic considerations, but commitments given.... I recall the Ainsworth situation. The minister and I had a discussion in question period last year. I don't think I ever did receive an answer to the questions I posed about changes...

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Reasonable questions.

...that were made to licence documents. When we entered into a contract with someone we award timber to under some of these licence forms, there were certain requirements in those documents. One of those requirements was that the company holding the licence would operate a mill. Yet we've seen companies that made those commitments and even went beyond them. In this particular case, a company bought out another company, and the Crown transferred the licence. They had committed to maintaining employment and maintaining the mill, and they didn't do it,

It does raise the very interesting point that in this job protection bill, the government is addressing that issue somewhat by proposing to confiscate timber from licence-holders in order to reallocate it, presumably, to new business people, employee owners or whatever who will be more responsible with the Crown's resources and will provide more benefits. Yet there's a failure to address that general issue in the Forest Act.

Clearly there's a contradiction, in that the Minister of Forests refuses to deal with that issue in legislation on an ongoing basis. There should be legislation that affords that kind of protection, In that respect, I'm trying to make the point that you are sunsetting a clause which, perhaps in a modified form, should be in the Forest Act.

I don't want to got into a....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I think I've made the point. I said "in a modified form;" I'm not advocating that. But it's a point that needs to be made around this province, because many small communities.... As I said, I've travelled as widely as the limitations on an opposition MLA allow. I can advise you that it didn't cost $47,000 and there were no government jets involved. Nonetheless, within those limits we try to be responsible for our critics' areas.

I have travelled in quite a few areas of this province, and there is a general feeling of disappointment and some anger in small communities which had made the assumption that in return for allocating the Crown's resources to particular companies, there was some security both for the general economic well-being of the community and for individuals in terms of employment. There's a feeling of betrayal in this province on that issue.

Now that hard economic times have hit the forest industry and we're suffering in some sense because of central Canadian economic policies, the high value of the dollar and the memorandum of understanding, the Crown is now willing to take extraordinary measures, including confiscating timber that they've already allocated. Maybe the Minister of Forests would want to offer his view on the kind of obligation that should exist under the Forest Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think the word "confiscate" is just a touch more dramatic than the bill implies. Nevertheless you're right: the forest resource is allocated for the purpose of supporting conversion facilities, which in turn support communities. In fact, if forest companies don't do that, then there should and must be a consequence.

I must say to the member that because of the extraordinary strength that we have in the current Minister of Forests and the dedicated leadership that he has been prepared to give on this issue, he has been able to do those things through the more benign administrative guidance process rather than the sort of heavy-handed legislation that you are contemplating. Nevertheless, it may be that when the forest commission reports, it will provide an opportunity to look again at some of that legislation.

In the meantime, the people of the province can be assured that where it has been necessary to do that, to allocate timber, to ensure or to take the company out to the woodshed and tell them they are not going to shut down mill X and truck the timber down the road, the Minister of Forests has been prepared to do that. That's because the Minister of Forests is a strong individual who understands the needs of the province and the relationship between a conversion facility and the stability of the community, and he's prepared to take those steps. I'm glad that the member for Prince Rupert is so supportive of the work that the Minister of Forests has done in that regard.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: After the last speaker, I should probably just stay in my seat, and let it rain down upon me. I appreciate the kind words. But I do want to assure that member, this House and all the people in British Columbia that it's a very big point with me.

I want to point out some specific examples. The member mentioned Ainsworth Lumber, and that's a good example of a company wanting to close a facility that was losing money. I wouldn't let them do that. I said: "You appoint a consultant and find a way of making a processing facility work in that community." I don't think it's incumbent on any Minister of Forests to force a company to keep a money-losing operation going just for the sake of keeping it going. I think you have to be reasonable, and try to find a way to allow the company to make it work, even if they have to modify the facility. So that process worked very well in Lillooet with Ainsworth Lumber, notwithstanding the fact the Forest Act said something different. I'm not too concerned about that.

The same thing happened recently in my home town of Kamloops where the IWA employees at Tolko were concerned about logs leaving the community.

[ Page 11791 ]

We sat the people down in a room: the company, the employees, the senior people from the forest industry and myself. And we had a very productive meeting so that the company could explain exactly what they were doing. I think it was a very satisfactory meeting. It hasn't come to a conclusion yet, but it was a good meeting. One thing you find out is that in most of these cases a lack of communication is at the bottom of the problem. If the companies and the employees would sit in a room and talk more often, most of these problems wouldn't materialize.

There's another example. The member for Vancouver East mentioned Westar. I have told them up at Kitwanga to get a facility restarted and they have done that. That doesn't end the problem. They've complied with what I asked them to do, but they're losing a tremendous amount of money. That could be partly market conditions and partly transportation problems. We're trying to work those problems out, and in this case three mills are involved.

I sat down with the company in Nakusp and went through the problem of why they couldn't keep contractors in particular working there. It's an extremely difficult problem. So we're trying to work our way through those things.

I have told the majors on Vancouver Island the same thing: "If you close a facility, you will in all probability lose some cut from your TFL, because we are not going to allow you to truck logs down the road to another facility."

It's worth dwelling on. In some cases, Mr. Chairman, it's extremely difficult to tie timber to a facility. Take the case of a mill in Delta. There is no immediate timber near that facility. It comes from about five or six different sources. Some of it is traded, some of it is bought on the log market, and other comes from five or six different sources within the company. So it is very difficult to pinpoint an exact source of wood to certain facilities.

It's not a cut and dried problem; that's all I'm getting at. We also have instances where government has forced a facility to be built in a certain community when all of the logic and market would tell you it was not a thing to do. Those usually fail, so you can go too far the other way.

I, too, do not like that it's in the Forest Act, but because we have the Forest Resources Commission out there doing its work, we've decided not to amend the Forest Act at this time until they report in. Notwithstanding that section in the act using moral suasion, I have managed in several cases to accomplish exactly what I wanted to do. I have made it very clear to the industry, to communities, that wherever possible, within all reason, the resource will be tied to a community and to a processing facility. I intend to pursue that, notwithstanding any clauses that are in the Forest Act.

I think you would agree that in most cases the Minister of Forests has an awful lot of moral suasion when we sit down to talk with these various companies, so we intend to pursue the philosophy that we have been for the past year or so.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, as much as I appreciate the remarks of the Minister of Forests, I said at the outset of debate on this bill that you can't absolve yourself of the past; you can't simply rewrite history and pretend it didn't happen. If we indeed were intending to bring stability to forest-dependent communities in this province, certain things are required.

The minister raised the issue of Westar — or perhaps we did, but Westar nonetheless came up, and it seems to me a classic example. It's not a question of using moral suasion. There is no public policy on the issue of moral suasion. Public policy is a question of allocating resources in an intelligent manner. In the case of Westar in northwestern British Columbia, it is clear that the Crown allowed this company to do whatever it wanted, quite frankly. It took commitments from this company that on the face of it clearly could not be me. This company built one mill which was capable of absorbing all the timber they had under allocation. The implications were understood that the two other mills would go down, that there wasn't sufficient timber supply to maintain those operations. It was a question in some respects of the Crown and the people responsible closing their eyes to the obvious.

[12:30]

Although we appreciate the moral suasion that the minister is trying with some difficulty to exercise around this province, we see that the root of the problem has in fact been the failure of forest policy in proper allocation of the Crown's resources. I think that that point has to be recognized, Mr. Chairman.

Unless somebody else wants to debate this section, I'll sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair makes an observation that debate normally is restricted to the principle of the section. I think it has been a bit wide-ranging, and maybe members will go back to the principle.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Right here in front of everybody?

MR. CHAIRMAN: A side remark was made, and I think it's applicable to all members of the House who have participated in the debate on the amendment and not to any one particular individual.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have no desire to prolong this debate except to make one comment. I appreciate the member's comments. But, number one, I don't feel responsible for actions taken years before I got here. Sometimes, not necessarily when he speaks of the Westar situation.... I'm not casting stones at anybody, but you can't come into a situation like that and rectify it overnight. But we're working diligently with the native people up there and with Westar to work our way out of that problem.

The only other comment I would make is that I think the philosophy behind what I have said goes far beyond moral suasion. I feel that when I, as a

[ Page 11792 ]

minister of the Crown and Minister of Forests, make a statement like the one I've made many times around this province, that the resource will be tied to the community, that is public policy. That's not just idle gossip or just for the sake of making a speech. That is the policy of the Ministry of Forests.

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

On section 21.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, hallelujah, we finally got some notice-of-termination legislation. I must say that it was a pleasure to see that there are now some requirements for notice in case of large terminations. The government has been a long time after promises of getting this in. I'm also pleased to see that what is here has really been modelled pretty closely to what I introduced in the earlier part of the session in 1990 in Bill M244, which requires a certain amount of notice when the layoffs are in large multiples.

I would like to point out that one of the major things I wish was in this part of the legislation is a requirement that any collective agreement would not be able to provide less protection than does this legislation. That was in the bill that I introduced, and I believe it should be in this legislation. Unfortunately it's not.

I also would like to point out, so that it's on the record and very clear, that the difference between the clause in this bill and the bill that I put forward is that there is notice required.... In my bill you would have required notice for far fewer employees. That would not have discriminated so much if there is any discrimination. It would have included more smaller businesses, and we would have required that there be notice to employees when there was a layoff of ten or more. This requirement is for 50 or more, and therefore there are a number of small businesses in which the employees will not have the protection under this clause.

The numbers of employees go up in increments, and as there are a certain number of employees there is a longer amount of notice required. In every case the numbers are smaller than our numbers were. We would have provided that there be ten weeks' notice for any layoffs of numbers of ten to 100, 14 weeks for 100 to 300, and 16 weeks over 300. In this legislation it's eight weeks, 12 weeks and 14 weeks, so it's basically two weeks less in every case.

This is fairly distant from the federal legislation. Current federal legislation requires 16 weeks' notice for any layoffs of 50 or more, so it would have been preferable for the minister to have expanded the needs there, to have made the bill even closer to what my bill was. It would have been simply a switch of numbers, but it would have given far more protection to employees in smaller businesses and employees throughout this province.

I would like to ask the minister if there was some reason why he excluded the requirement that this supersede any contract, that no contract can be written requiring lesser requirements than this bill. I also ask whether he considered at least looking at 16 weeks' notice, as the federal level requires.

HON. MR. SMITH: All that the member says with respect to the proposals that she and others advanced was all very helpful to us in making the decision that we have made here. But I would just point out that we haven't tried, through the aegis of a one-time critical job protection plan that has a sunset, to do major overhauls of labour legislation generally. So I would ask that perhaps you might want to raise some of those things concerning the deeming provisions and the labour standards with the Minister of Labour. But in terms of what we are trying to do here, which is to get at the anticipated Issues we have to deal with, it's a balancing act.

What we've done is we're more onerous against those issuing the layoff notice. It's more beneficial to the employees than Is the case with our next-door neighbour, Alberta. We are comparable to Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland. We don't have quite the provisions that are in the legislation in Manitoba. It's a balancing act; it's a question of what is reasonable. And we think in terms of British Columbia that this is reasonable. Indeed it is a significant improvement over what has been available over the last number of years.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister is correct when he says it's a significant improvement.

Under the Employment Standards Act, section 49.3(1), where the adjustment committee is described, I might make the point that, in the bill I introduced, in an adjustment committee we would have had representation from the employer, the employees and the community. In this case, the community is not involved. I wonder if the minister had considered making it easier and making it a requirement that the community be involved in this kind of committee.

HON. MR. SMITH: Quite frankly, I don't think you need legislative authority to get the community involved, and I’m not sure what utility would be served. It seems to me that a legislative regime presupposes that the parties mandated to be involved in something have not only a consequence from what is taking place, but have some direct authority over it. I don't think it would be useful to mandate the community's involvement by legislation in that situation, because that could do more to clog up the works than it would to assist the works. But there's no reason why the employees and the employers together on a committee — who are directly affected and do have authority over what they can do — couldn't involve the community if they see the utility. I don't think we need legislation to do that....

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would like some clarification, Mr. Chairman, on section 20. It has some provisions for termination notice. I just wondered if the termination notice could affect the date.... There are some

[ Page 11793 ]

mills in the province facing closures presently, and although termination notice has not been given directly to the employees yet, notice of the closure has taken effect. So I would just like the minister to clarify. If notification has been given of the mill closure, but the employees have not yet received their termination notice as per two weeks, three weeks or a month, would the bill thus affect them? In other words, the extension of the mill closure would then be affected under this bill, or in fact the mill will close on the regular date, and whether it's eight weeks' notice, twelve weeks' notice, or sixteen weeks' notice.... In some cases eight weeks' notice has been given; however, under this bill, sixteen weeks' notice would be required. So would the extension of that mill then take place, because it is under termination and not under closure?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the member's asking me for a legal opinion that, frankly, I'm not qualified to give. But generally speaking, from a legislative point of view, the legislation will take effect as soon as we have it passed in this House and it is proclaimed by His Honour. That being the case, the probability is that what you're postulating wouldn't in fact take place. But that is something that I'm not qualified to opine on. Frankly, any legal opinion you get from me in here will be worth precisely what you're paying for it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: This is of particular importance to a present closure in the community of Alberni, where notice has been given but layoff has not happened to the employees. The mill does include more than 300 people. I'm very anxious to see this bill enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor as quickly as possible so that that extension can be given to those workers who are facing layoffs on April 30. They will garnish an extra possible two months of work.

[12:45]

I thank the minister for his comments — and I realize he can't give a legal opinion — but certainly his remarks indicate that that mill would in fact remain open for an additional two months.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I hope that I did not indicate by my remarks in any way so definitively, but obviously as soon as the legislation is through this House and becomes law it is then open to anyone who wants to take advantage of it to see if its application is available to them in the case you are talking about.

Mr. Chairman, by some agreement across the House it was decided that we would be adjourning.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On Section 23.

MR. MILLER: I don't think I'm breaking the rules too much to say that I have two questions that encompass the remaining sections of the bill. If I can put the questions, I am sure we can deal with them comprehensively.

Although I had prepared an amendment, having studied the issue a little more closely on section 23, I am not convinced that the amendment is required. But I wanted to seek the assurance of the minister that what is contemplated in section 23 is that where timber is removed, where the Crown takes back timber that is currently allocated and that puts the licence-holder in an overcut situation under section 55, then the penalties under section 55 can be waived. My concern about section 23 was that it would legitimize or authorize an overcut, an overharvesting. So I would seek clarification on that.

While I am on my feet, I would seek assurance, under the schedule, the inclusion of the Workers Compensation Act, that any degrading of safety standards or regulations that are there to protect workers' health and safety would not be contemplated — that there would not be any waiving of regulations under that act.

So there are two questions, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that with the answers to them we can dispose of the bill.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can assure the member and this House that nothing is going to be done under section 23 that prejudices good forestry practice, number one, or allows any licensee to "get away with" overcutting. To go further into the member's amendment, I assure him that the commissioner, when evaluating any of these changes or licence transfers, will take all debts into account: debts owed to the Crown, to workers or to contractors. That includes overcutting or lack of performance on silviculture; any of those things will be taken into consideration.

I'll let the minister answer the WCB question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Possibly we should dispose of sections 23 and 24 and then get into the schedule you are talking about, There is an amendment to section 23.

Amendment negatived.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment?

Amendment negatived.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

On the schedule.

HON. MR. SMITH: In answer to the member for Prince Rupert — without equivocation, no. There will be no compromising of safety in the workplace, and there will be no authorization of compromising safety in the workplace by this government — and I

[ Page 11794 ]

dare say, there will be no recommendation by any member of the Legislature itself.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 83, Job Protection Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 83, job Protection Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I wish everyone a very pleasant weekend and move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.