Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1992

Volume 2, Number 22

[ Page 1293 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today a group of seniors from James Bay who are walkers. They walk every year from May until September, and today they have chosen to walk to join us at the Legislature. Their coordinator is Helen Snye. I wish all of the members of the Legislature to make them welcome.

L. Hanson: British Columbia is very privileged to have two outstanding junior hockey teams. Last night the Kamloops Blazers won the western Canadian championship and the right to represent British Columbia in the Memorial Cup in Seattle. In my hometown of Vernon, our Vernon Lakers are in Winnipeg now representing British Columbia in search of the Centennial Cup championship. I would ask the House to please recognize these outstanding teams and wish them well in their challenge for the championship.

Hon. T. Perry: On behalf of the hon. member for Mission-Kent, who's unavoidably absent, I'd like to welcome some social studies students from Fraser Valley College who are visiting today. I don't know who they are, but if they're not in enormous numbers and if they happen to have time for a cup of tea after question period, they'd be welcome in room 112.

G. Wilson: I'd like the House to make welcome Alisa Mills and Kent Judish, two students studying at Camosun College, who, like a majority of young people in British Columbia, are now Young Liberals.

J. Pullinger: I had the pleasure today of having lunch with two friends from the Duncan area: Phyllis Comrie, who's a community worker in our area and a friend, and Ken McEwan, who also is very involved in the community and is an executive member of the IWA, Local 180. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

L. Reid: If I can, I'd ask the House to welcome the students from Walter Lee Elementary School in the riding of Richmond East. They are joined today by their teachers Mr. Norm Eyford and Mr. George Nakanishi.

I also welcome Tony Keen, Mary Keen and Phyllis Keen. Phyllis is actually visiting from Australia and is in the Legislative precinct today.

C. Serwa: Later on this afternoon we'll be joined by a group of approximately 100 grade 7 students from the Hudson Road Elementary School in the dynamic and beautiful constituency of Okanagan West. They will be accompanied by teaching staff members Jerry Holowchak, Gerry Kroeker and other individuals, and by parents Mrs. Dianne Daoust, Mrs. Sylvia Lehmann and Mrs. Marshall. Hudson Road Elementary School is a marvellous school where excellence in education is in fact an accomplishment. Will the House please register a warm welcome.

B. Jones: Joining us today are two old friends of mine, social studies teachers par excellence, from the Coquitlam School District. They are Lorne Ziemer and Alan Swetlico. Joining Lorne and Alan are about 25 grade 11 social studies students, who are here as part of their social studies program, to appreciate the cut and thrust of question period in a few minutes. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Tyabji: It seems there are a lot of introductions today. I'd like to add one to the list. Watching us in the gallery is someone who is going to be helping me with my research today -- so watch out -- my cousin Mark Devereux.

Hon. P. Priddy: For many of us, the community colleges in our areas are the heart and soul of our communities. Joining us today in the House are students from Kwantlen College, along with their instructor Mr. John Yates. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to ask the House to help make welcome the editor of Coquitlam Now, and one of their staff reporters: Pat Cooper and Hazel Postma, who cover the Coquitlam area for the Now newspaper chain.

[2:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would first like to thank the member for that famous Kamloops suburb Okanagan-Vernon for congratulating the Kamloops Blazers.

I would like to introduce my ministerial assistant's spouse, Barry Salmon, and my ministerial assistant's parents, Joan and Gord Inglis from Brechin, Ontario. I'd ask the members to help me make them welcome to the House.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a friend, Judith Hayes, from Victoria, and guests Mary Ord and Robin Callance from England.

Introduction of Bills

EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. D. Zirnhelt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am pleased to introduce Bill 36, the Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1992. This is a bill that primarily contains technical amendments to the Employee Investment Act.

As members know, the Employee Investment Act came into force in September 1989. As it is a relatively new act, changes have been required as experience with its application has grown. The amendments contained 

[ Page 1294 ]

in the bill correct the technical shortcomings in the Employee Investment Act.

In addition, the bill increases the opportunities to invest in the recently registered Working Opportunity Fund by broadening investor eligibility so as to include all working British Columbians.

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

Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question today is to the Attorney General, and it's on a grave matter. Will the Attorney General confirm that the reason he has asked the Deputy Attorney General to provide an independent examination into the contracts held by Mr. Hanson is that there is a potential for criminal charges to be laid in this matter?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, hon. Speaker, I have not referred the matter to the deputy; the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has done so.

G. Wilson: A supplementary. Will the Attorney General commit today that he will instruct his deputy, once any reports or findings are made in this matter, to make them available to the Attorney-General? Will the Attorney-General commit to making them available to the public through the tabling in this House of any findings?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think members of this House know that it's not necessary for me to instruct my deputy in matters of this kind.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

G. Wilson: With respect to the independent examination that is being done, does the Attorney-General not agree, given the potential gravity of this situation, that in order to protect the integrity and reputation of this fine rookie minister, and in order to protect the reputation of this government and the traditions of parliament, it would be appropriate for this minister to step aside while the investigation is underway and until it is complete?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. He must be aware that as minister he has to accept the ultimate responsibility for actions in his ministry and by the staff in his ministry. It's sad to see the minister try to put the blame for the Hanson contracts onto members of his staff.

Does the minister agree that he should have been aware of the details of the Hanson contract, particularly given the fact that as a former NDP MLA it was obvious that any deal with Mr. Hanson would be subject to considerable scrutiny by the public and by members of this House? Does the minister agree that if he didn't know, he should have known all the details of Mr. Hanson's contract with his ministry and with a group that his ministry funds?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I reject the notion that I have passed responsibility or any blame onto my staff in this matter. Everything I have said suggests that my staff acted impeccably.

The position I have taken, and continue to take, is that I took responsibility for the hiring of Mr. Hanson. I asked my deputy minister to assure himself and me that there was at that time no inconsistency or conflict with Mr. Hanson's contract in my ministry, given that he had a relationship with the council. My deputy minister did so. I accepted that advice, and I have no reason to doubt that advice.

Furthermore, I instructed my deputy minister to then negotiate the contract, and he did so. If the member opposite is suggesting that I should have asserted some unusual supervisory powers because this was a political appointee, I reject that. Mr. Hanson was hired on the basis of his qualifications, and I dealt with the matter as I will with any contractor. I left to my deputy the responsibility for negotiating the contract, given that it was his administrative expertise that I was relying upon to reach a fair settlement in the contract.

J. Weisgerber: Why on earth would the minister expect a member of his staff, whether it be the deputy minister or another, to be in a position to negotiate a settlement with a former MLA, a former colleague of the cabinet and a former colleague of the Premier? Surely it's unreasonable to expect that person to be able to sit down and negotiate a settlement with a former colleague when it's clear that the government wanted Mr. Hanson hired -- and it's clear that the government wanted him hired at a salary that probably had less to do with his abilities than the commitments that had been given by the government.

Hon. A. Petter: I certainly wanted Mr. Hanson hired in respect to his qualifications at a salary that reflected those qualifications. I instructed my deputy to enter into negotiations. I had utmost confidence and faith in my then-deputy -- as I still do in that deputy -- and I expect that had there been any question in the deputy's mind as to the terms that were settled upon, he could have come back and consulted me. That was not done, and therefore I made what I think is a completely reasonable assumption: that my deputy judged the terms to be reasonable.

Hon. Speaker: Final supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: The minister himself says that the terms of the contract seemed a bit rich. Is he suggesting that he would have negotiated a considerably lower contract than his deputy negotiated? After having reflected on this issue overnight, and having thought 

[ Page 1295 ]

about whether or not the minister should have been better informed about this issue than he obviously was, has the minister indicated to the Premier that he's willing to step aside until this issue has been resolved?

Hon. A. Petter: The matters that the member is raising have only a peripheral reference to the matter that has been referred to the Deputy Attorney General. The original contract and its signing is not a matter that was referred to the Deputy Attorney General in terms of quantum. I don't understand the relationship the member is making in that regard. It seems to me that there is no relationship there.

I must admit that I've forgotten the first part of the member's question.

An Hon. Member: It was a statement.

Hon. A. Petter: It was a statement? In that event, I suppose that summarizes my answer.

MINING INDUSTRY

D. Jarvis: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I am concerned about some of the ominous signals that her government has been sending to the mining industry, and I would like to offer the minister this chance to set the record straight. Today the London-based Metal Bulletin Research organization predicted that the recession in Japan will lead to a zero increase in base-metal demands this year. What measures is the government taking to address this situation, and what reassurances can the minister offer to the industry?

Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly the member recognizes one of the major problems that the mining industry faces these days; that is, the price of metals. It's a major problem; it's an international problem; and it's a problem of the private enterprise system. What this government has been doing to ensure that we continue to get mining investment in British Columbia is to ensure that we have a solid economic base, that our fiscal situation is in order. We have been working to do that. We are very happy to be able to say that we have maintained a solid fiscal base, and that is what we can do for the investment -- for the corporations in British Columbia.

D. Jarvis: Supplemental. I'm glad the minister is concerned with the apprehension that the miners feel towards the government. However, I'm not sure that they are totally reassured just yet. Just a few days ago this government suspended the rights of mining companies to seek compensation when the lands they have invested in are taken away from them. Today the government, I believe, will announce that they are doubling the amount of provincial parks. Can the minister tell me if there's any significance to that sequence of events and what signal this action sends to the industry and investment in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Edwards: The announcement on the compensation, of course, is so that we can seek a better way to do the compensation process, so there's a fairer way without simply requiring that a lot of money and time be spent. We're seeking a better way for that. The other is speculation, I believe, on the part of the member. However, we are certainly proud to say that we have announced that we will double the amount of parks and wilderness in British Columbia. That was an election promise. That is something that has broad, general support, and I believe I can assure the member we will find a way of going ahead with it.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

D. Jarvis: This government was elected on promises of openness and due process. Now it's time to put the money where your mouth is. The garnet mine at Apex Alpine met all the government's requirements some time ago. It has passed all environmental studies and has played by the rules in good faith, yet it still cannot get approval from this government. Here's a chance to send a clear message to the mining industry. Will the minister commit today to give whatever approval is necessary for this mine to begin production?

Hon. A. Edwards: It is presumptuous to suggest that the minister is willing to go against the recommendation of the person who has been appointed to investigate further and come back with a recommendation. That is the action that we took, and that is what we will follow.

ABORTION REFERENDUM

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui.

P. Dueck: Thank you, hon. Speaker. My faith has once again been restored for equal opportunity in question period.

P. Dueck: My question is to the Minister of Health. Before the election the NDP promised consultation and negotiation on all issues. Democracy was the buzzword -- let the people decide. Just recently Saskatchewan had a referendum asking taxpayers whether they wish their taxes to go towards funding abortions on demand. Will the minister give an equal opportunity to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. E. Cull: I think that the people of British Columbia did decide very clearly on this issue when they elected a pro-choice government.

P. Dueck: I must remind the minister that that was about 39 percent.

DOCTORS' PENSIONS

P. Dueck: Another question to the same minister. It is an understatement to say that the doctors of British Columbia are very angry. They are angry because a 

[ Page 1296 ]

contract was broken. I, for one, was never in favour of the pension plan, but once an agreement was signed.... A contract is a contract is a contract.

The other item that I would like to bring up is....

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

P. Dueck: Yes, but it is all part of it. Negotiations with the doctors have been very limited, if at all. What strategy has the minister got to settle this very ugly situation that now persists in British Columbia with about 6,000 medical professionals?

[2:30]

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I thank the member for these questions and for the opportunity to set the record straight. Right now I am waiting to hear again from the B.C. Medical Association as to whether they are willing to negotiate with this government, as we have offered, on the distribution of the money that has been set aside for physicians' services this year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. E. Cull: I can say again, related to your first question, that we campaigned against the pension. We fought it here in the Legislature, and we opposed it during the campaign. There is no other group in British Columbia that has 100 percent taxpayer-funded pensions. It was an unfair deal to begin with. Furthermore, Mr. Member, we've taken that money and returned it to where it should have been in the first place: for providing medical services to people in this province. It has gone back into the Medical Services Plan budget.

The Speaker: A very brief final supplemental, hon. member.

P. Dueck: We're talking about money. The question is: do you give the same consideration to children with diabetes, where the families have to pay $400 every year up front for a sickness that is fatal if they don't take those drugs? Therefore my question is: why favour one group of people in society at the expense of another? And are you afraid of a referendum? Let the people decide; let them speak.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, the amount of money that we've put into the physicians' budget this year is 4.7 percent more than last year. If we were to increase that any further, as the physicians are demanding, we would have even less money to spend on people with diabetes, disabled children, children at risk, the mentally ill or seniors needing care at home.

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services. In a recent press release, the minister indicated that $25 million in new money was available to B.C. families, especially those who need it most -- those in poverty. My sincere question is: why did a significant portion of this $25 million not go directly into GAIN payments to alleviate this unacceptable poverty by providing for basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, instead of increasing the size of the bureaucracy?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would have hoped that the member, after going through our estimates process, would be a little better informed on this issue. The member very clearly knows that we have not only increased GAIN rates in this province, but have just recently announced an earnings exemption, which is a considerable expenditure and commitment to the poor in this province.

As I explained to the member earlier, the $25 million has to do with family support and community services. There is very little of that money actually going to the bureaucracy. Instead, as the member well knows, that is money going directly to community services to support and strengthen families in this province.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 11, hon. Speaker.

NATURAL RESOURCE
COMMUNITY FUND ACT

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The bill before you shows this government's continuing commitment to increase the long-term stability of British Columbia's resource-dependent communities.

As all members of this House know, many communities are facing severe economic challenges posed by the possible -- and in some cases likely -- closure of large resource-based businesses. Clearly, as we have seen far too often when such enterprises close, entire communities are at peril. Examples include the closures of Kootenay Forest Products in Nelson and Brenda Mines in Peachland, and the announced upcoming closure of the Bell Copper mine and gold mine in Granisle, to name a few.

There are a number of programs which provide various forms of adjustment assistance to such communities. Some of these programs throughout the government include the local government emergency account. Under this program, municipalities and regional districts can receive compensation for unexpected loss of tax revenues or for increased costs due to environmental and economic emergencies, including plant closures.

There is also the industrial adjustment services agreement -- the IAS -- which is jointly funded by the federal government and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. It is primarily focused on the adjustment needs of the employees of a large business facing closure or other structural changes.

In addition, this government has increased the total funding for the employment opportunities and job action programs to $57 million, an increase of 43 percent. These programs are targeted at communities 

[ Page 1297 ]

with high unemployment rates, and they provide job skills and experience for those in greatest need, especially young people receiving income assistance.

Nevertheless, there are currently no programs that adequately provide an all-encompassing, comprehensive approach to a community adjustment. The bill before the House will address this need, hon. Speaker. This bill will create a fund which will provide a stable source of funding to assist resource-dependent communities to adjust to the severe economic dislocation associated with business shutdowns or with major downsizing.

When funding is not available from other sources, this fund will be able to provide financial assistance for adjustment planning by the community; for program partnerships between all levels of government, including the federal government; for training and skill development to assist workers both directly and indirectly affected to adjust to labour market changes; for job-creation and job-maintenance initiatives; for worker relocation; and for local government operating and infrastructure adjustment costs.

In order to ensure full accountability, the fund will be a special fund, subject to the Financial Administration Act. This means that the Treasury Board can set limits to the amount that the fund can expend, as well as establishing conditions on the way the fund operates. It also means that the fund will be subject to all audit procedures of the government's consolidated revenue fund. Initially the Natural Resource Community Fund will receive $15 million from the B.C. Endowment Fund which, as members know, is being seeded with the assets of the former privatization benefits fund.

Thereafter, the Natural Resource Community Fund will quarterly, each fiscal year, receive half of 1 percent of government revenues from various natural resource revenues, including forest, petroleum, natural gas and minerals. As such, no new taxes or tax increases will occur because of the creation of this fund. The fund will be capped at $25 million, and any balance in excess of $25 million will be transferred to the general fund each year. I want to emphasize that this is a real fund with real assets. That's why, for example, the fund will earn interest on its balances.

Hon. Speaker, I also want to stress that the Natural Resource Community Fund is meant to be a complement to all existing federal and provincial programs such as the Job Protection Act. As members may know, the Job Protection Act is specifically designed to facilitate and assist in the revival of failing businesses that the job protection commissioner believes are of strategic importance and can be made viable over the long term.

The Natural Resource Community Fund, which Bill 11 will establish, is meant to provide assistance to communities which will be severely affected by the unavoidable closure of strategically important resource-based businesses. However, the fund should not be viewed as a mere follow-up to the Job Protection Act. We do not intend to wait for the job protection commissioner to complete his work with any one business; instead, we will move to identify and plan for the possibility of closures prior to any actual closures.

A key criterion or trigger for assistance from the fund will be an explicit indication from the residents of a community that they will play a significant role in the adjustment process. Thus, assistance will ultimately depend on the commitment, cooperation and input from all interested parties in an affected community.

As part of a comprehensive, community-wide adjustment assistance process, the affected community will be asked to form an adjustment committee. This adjustment committee will consist of representatives from groups such as, but not exclusive to, local governments, small businesses, workers and their organizations, social agencies and hospital and school boards. In a nutshell, every group affected by the closure will be asked to participate.

The adjustment committee will be responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive adjustment plan. In developing this comprehensive plan, the adjustment committee can apply to the Natural Resource Community Fund for assistance to finance costs. When the plan is completed, the committee can apply to the fund for assistance to implement it. Assistance to implement the plan from the fund will be conditional upon evidence that every other available source of assistance -- federal and provincial, as well as private sector sources -- has been utilized and that the plan is comprehensive, realistic and attainable.

Besides providing financial assistance through the fund, the province will work as a participating partner with the committee at the pre-planning and planning stages. The province will form a working group staffed by officials from relevant ministries and coordinated by my ministry. This working group will have priority access to information and technical expertise from every provincial ministry. Furthermore, as part of a joint effort, the government will carry out any other commitments it has made as part of the plan.

In conclusion, I would like to say that, as I've outlined, we intend to work with all interested groups in affected communities to develop a coordinated response which will ensure that all existing programs -- both federal and provincial -- and the expertise of the private sector are fully utilized. As such, the fund will serve to complement other existing sources of assistance.

Even prior to the formation of a community adjustment committee, my ministry will work with other ministries and the private sector to identify potential closures in resource industries. We will forward this information to the communities, and we will assist them in forming adjustment committees. This will take place well in advance of the actual closure or downsizing.

This is vital legislation. It's vital to the communities which, through their reliance on natural resources, are facing or may be facing major economic challenges. I expect that members of the opposition will find comfort in this legislation and find it in their hearts to support it.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 11.

[ Page 1298 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: It's my pleasure, and with very great gratification, today to rise to support this bill, particularly as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, because of the nature of those industries. But it is a pleasure, I would think, for anyone who has ever considered community, to look at what this bill does. It finally gives some cushion of protection for those communities that face what they sometimes consider to be very unfair times and the very difficult things that happen to them. What this bill does is begin with the first step of a promise that we as a party made to look to community, to attempt to help communities work their way through the ups and downs of resource cycles, and so on. This, believe me, is only a first step, and I recognize that, but it's a great pleasure to be able to support the bill.

There are many communities in British Columbia that may or may not be wanting to use the resources that would be supplied under this bill. Everyone is familiar with the community of Cassiar which -- under normal circumstances, had the bill been there -- would have been able to apply after it had exhausted every other means of getting funding for what it needed, or if it needed more. This is what this fund will do.

We have to look at communities such as Houston, where about 600 people will have been put out of work by the summer, and certainly by late fall. We have to look at communities such as Kimberley, Stewart, Port Hardy, and so on -- and you can go on. The things they face and the problems they could have are extreme. This bill allows the assurance that in a crisis situation there is some help and some funding there.

I have mentioned only mining communities, and I believe people largely think in terms of mining communities when we talk about this. But we've got to remember that there are other communities that depend on resources, and they could be affected too. If the petroleum industry had a major problem, the communities of Fort St. John and Fort Nelson could be in this kind of situation. Certainly if a pulp mill went down in some communities in this province, they could be in a crisis situation. So it's not simply the mining communities that would be able to take advantage of this fund. There are 2,500 communities in British Columbia that are at least partly dependent on the mining industry, but there are more communities that could have a dependence on the good results of this act.

[2:45]

If you look at the kinds of problems the money in the fund can address, it's not just training and skills development, job creation and job maintenance. It's also local government operating costs, worker relocation and other initiatives consistent with the purpose of the fund. These allow the government to address the human problems that go along with the technical, commercial and financial problems that come with poor trade, and with the fact that we no longer can trade at this cost. The technical problems are there. These are the human problems that we can address, so we can invest in the most valuable resource of all, which is human beings.

As I said, one of the problems you can see with this bill is that the more you use it, the less you will be able to replenish it. It goes without saying that if you're using resource income, when the resource income is on its way down, that's where we're going to have the squeezes. We have to work. It gives us all an incentive to make sure that we keep the economy of the province healthy.

Hon. Speaker, I could repeat, I could elaborate and I could add several examples to the things I've already said, but I won't take the time of the House, because I'm sure that every other member here will want to do those kinds of things. But I would like to say that I welcome it as the first step. I hope that as we go along, we will be able to move further toward community diversification programs and the kinds of things that will make it possible for us to address problems at the planning stage, rather than at the crisis stage. Meanwhile, I fully support this bill.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to respond in principle to Bill 11, the philosophy of which is difficult to argue with in principle: establishing a fund of between $15 million and $25 million for use in ailing single-industry towns.

As we know, many towns in this province today are facing severe economic dislocation. Typically this would apply to small resource-dependent communities, as the government has indicated, where the resource is about to run out or is becoming uneconomic to mine or log. We know that unemployment and general hardship can result, and that these communities with limited funds are usually unable to address the situation on their own. The provincial government is called upon, often in a crisis situation, to intervene.

Of course, we know that the other intent of the bill is to allow the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, with the approval of Treasury Board, to provide retraining, job creation, relocation, local government assistance and similar measures consistent with the bill.

As I indicated, we have no difficulty with the philosophy. There are some aspects of the bill that do trouble the opposition and give us cause for concern.

First of all, the Liberal opposition believes they should be working foremost to diversify local economies so there are fewer single-industry towns that need to be bailed out with this special fund.

Our other major concern is that any funds paid out should not be necessarily at the recommendation of Treasury Board and the Minister of Economic Development, because we know they can be subject to political interference. We would like to see a role for the job protection commissioner up front in recommending how these funds are distributed, and how they fit into an overall strategy of community development in these troubled communities.

The Liberal opposition believes that the government must avoid any further appearance of disposing funds without due process. Once the decisions are taken by Treasury Board and executive council, our feeling is that communities have the potential to be weighted in terms of being assisted. Unless there's a role for the job protection commissioner in recommending how the funds are distributed, there is a potential for political 

[ Page 1299 ]

favouritism. We feel sure that this is a situation that the government wants to avoid as it handles the fund proposed by this bill.

We're also somewhat concerned that the bill does not really address the root of our problems in single-industry towns. If the government destroys investment and is not involved in the expansion of value-added resource industries, more and more communities are going to suffer the consequences. We need a strategy and a government willing to start working with businesses in the community -- and not when they reach a point where the ore body or the forest is no longer economic. In other words, we can't stand back and wait for a crisis. We need to be involved up front from an economic standpoint and from an industrial strategy standpoint to ensure that the number of problems are diminished.

The other thing that the Liberal opposition feels strongly about is the need for adequate inventories, not only in forests but in mines and mine development. What we're seeing in this province is a real concern that we don't know how much we have left in ore bodies and in the forest resource base. This is contributing to a loss of confidence in one-industry communities and is discouraging investment -- the kind of investment that's needed to secure a future for one-industry towns.

While we support the bill in general principle -- it's hard to argue with a special fund to deal with these problems -- we're convinced that it has to be part of a broader strategy to address the underlying problems of economic diversification and development in one-industry towns.

Bill 11 does recognize a fundamental problem that B.C. has always faced and may face in the foreseeable future in the economic development of this province: completely resource-dependent communities. We're pleased that the government has accepted responsibility. The provincial government must ensure the well-being of communities in transition. They've learned from the situation in Cassiar. The time to develop a strategy is when the ore body is winding down and there needs to be alternative strategies, rather than when it's too late and the towns are basically being closed up.

Above all we need a long-term vision. We're convinced that the government has to begin to understand the role it has in planning for the economic future of the province and in ensuring that there may come a day when this fund will never be used.

Further points on a general discussion of Bill 11. We're somewhat concerned that the creation of a special fund does send out a signal that we're starting out with a somewhat defeatist attitude. If we devoted as much resources and commitment to economic development and diversification as we do to setting up special funds, we'd be much further ahead.

The other thing that concerns us about the bill is that in the way it's worded, there appear to be no clear guidelines or criteria for when this fund should be assessed. How do we define a town in crisis? What are the parameters and definitions? This gets back again to the question of process and whether we can find an independent assessment of the situation in towns and small communities in British Columbia, or whether it becomes a political assessment, in which case the resources are allocated based on political advantage rather than the clear basis of need.

Generally speaking, the Liberal opposition is supportive of the concept of Bill 11. We certainly accept the fact that, given the nature of the British Columbia economy, there's a need for a safety net, a fund that provides assistance to towns that do not have the assets or the tax base to support themselves when their industry is in a shutdown mode. We feel strongly that the amount of money devoted to the bill since it was first introduced in this House may be inadequate given the kind of issues we've seen come forth on dramatic cuts in the forest harvest in British Columbia and in the continuing deterioration of the mining sector. It would appear, based on what has happened in the past four or five months in this province, that a $25-million fund could well be exhausted by the winding down of Cassiar all by itself. Unless we have a definable strategy in conjunction with the bill, we'll soon exhaust the fund and be right back where we started from.

We also feel there has to be a role for the job protection commissioner. It's absolutely essential that he be involved in dispensing funds under this particular bill. We also encourage the government to tie the provision of funds, when it does have to pay out of this fund, so that they provide for some sort of economic analysis of the community and some sort of diversification strategy. When the community draws on the fund it should have some measurable hope that it can get out of depending on this particular emergency fund, can stand on its own two feet and become a viable, diversified community with a vibrant economy that may never need to draw on this in the future.

I know there are others in the House who wish to speak to this bill and the principles, including members of my own caucus, and I would encourage them to make their views known.

G. Janssen: Before I begin, hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Janssen: A surprise visit from some very dear friends, Bob and Jean Barrett of Santa Barbara, California, their son Mickey Barrett -- a noted ornithologist, well travelled throughout the world -- from Whiskey Creek, just outside of Coombs, B.C., and his friend Jackie Byers from Saskatoon. I wish the House to make them welcome.

L. Stephens: Hon. speaker, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today 37 grade 7 students from Glenwood Elementary School in Langley with their teacher Mr. Amado. Would the House please make them welcome.

[ Page 1300 ]

G. Janssen: I rise to congratulate the minister and the government on Bill 11, the Natural Resource Community Fund Act. Unlike the Liberal opposition, who want to be negative, who wants to study everything to death -- probably for 50 or 60 years -- while communities like Alberni, Trail, Canoe Creek and Tahsis are in dire economic straits.... They want to continue to study; they want to continue to guess; they want to continue to say: "The money will magically appear from somewhere else. Free enterprise will prevail. Capitalism will take care of everyone." People are being put out of work in this province through no fault of their own. They're losing their jobs. Resource-dependent communities have severe problems, which the last Social Credit administration didn't address. They didn't replant the trees, and they didn't plan on mines running out of ore. They simply let the communities go downhill. There was economic depression, with no planning whatsoever. We have addressed that problem with the Natural Resource Community Fund Act.

The severe job losses that have been experienced in resource-dependent communities outside the lower mainland and Victoria have been regrettable, to say the least. The amount of harvest in the forest has gone down. The amount of minerals in the ground, as I think was raised in question period today.... The prices have diminished. Markets, generally, during this period of recession, which seems to be ongoing.... Although we see hopes of recovery, yet another recession will come along. The recessionary periods are longer, and the periods of recovery are shorter. This government is acting to protect jobs and local economies in those communities.

Many members from urban areas perhaps enjoy a better lifestyle. They enjoy the benefits of ever-rising property values, lower unemployment and the human resources and social resources that are available, which are not available to many of the resource-based communities, those isolated communities that I mentioned earlier.

[3:00]

MacMillan Bloedel is the primary employer in Alberni and has been for many years. It has provided many well-paying jobs from their enterprise there, the five mills that they had. However, we have seen a reduction in the workforce there in MacMillan Bloedel from 6,100 employees in 1982 down to 3,000 after the announcement a week ago. One of the major contributing factors to this has been the modernization of the plants, almost forced by the ongoing dynamics of the world economy.

We have to go back and do a little history. In logging communities such as Franklin River and Great Central Lake, Camp A; the Anderson sawmill, one of the first established on the west coast.... The McLean mill, which is being refurbished as we speak, is the last fully steam-operated sawmill left in Canada. It will become a major tourist attraction and has been designated a national historic site.

The Industrial Heritage Society, made up of many members who were, and are still, employed in the forest industry, have refurbished many of the logging trucks that were employed in the industry, some with vintages going back to the thirties. They refurbished a steam train, the Two Spot, which was virtually falling apart. Members of the community rebuilt that train from the bottom up, and it now chugs up and down along the waterfront.

C. Serwa: On a point of order, while I enjoy the anecdotes and the rhetoric, the member is not speaking at all to this bill. There's nothing about steam trains in here. Surely the member can confine his remarks to the philosophy and principles of this bill.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure the hon. member for Alberni will take your comments.

G. Janssen: I appreciate the member's remarks. He has been in the House about a year and half longer than I have, but from his remarks, he thinks he has been here ten years longer. By the look of the back of his head, he might well have been.

As I was saying, the steam train is now operated by well-known Mark Mosher, who originally operated this train as part of his job in the forties. The point I'm getting at, Madam Speaker, and for the benefit of the member from the Okanagan, is that the resource-based communities such as Alberni are diversifying on their own. The last administration, of which he was a member and a very short-term cabinet minister, did not appreciate that and offered no assistance to those communities.

But the people in Alberni, Canoe Creek and those areas who have lost those jobs said: "We will tackle the problem on our own." Alberni was challenged, and the people met that challenge. The modernization of the mills, the replanting of the forests, which started first in British Columbia in Port Alberni in 1939.... We are working consistently. Rebco Wood Products Ltd. is a modern milling company with contracts in Germany. Sarita Furniture is producing forestry products and furniture for the European market. In another ten or 11 days' time we will be meeting with operators from Hong Kong to further develop the textile plant that we have been talking about in Alberni for some time. A tire recycling plant is making paving blocks, such as you walk on in Victoria.

We welcome the bill, because the bill will help to speed up the process of redevelopment and diversifying the economy in these single-industry communities. We have been doing it on our own; we had to do it on our own. These communities had to develop on their own, because there was no help from the previous administration. They turned a blind eye to the future. They depended on the large forestry company and the large mining companies to continue to provide those jobs -- rutting British Columbia, in the adage of the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. But British Columbians will move forward without government.

The Natural Resource Community Fund Act is self-financing. The resource community itself will fund this. A half percent a year will be taken from petroleum, natural gas, mineral and forestry revenue. It will fund itself. The resource communities don't ask for handouts from the urban centres of Vancouver or Victoria or from 

[ Page 1301 ]

government. They are simply saying: "Give us back a small percentage of where our dollars have been coming from all these years."

Give it back for training and skill development to assist workers so they can meet the challenges of the nineties. I remind members that Marshall McLuhan said the years of the nineties will be the years of learning a living, for workers will change their jobs two or three times during their lifetime. We must provide the incentive. We must provide the opportunity to those workers so they can meet those challenges, so they can learn new skills and so they can remain productive citizens in our society. This bill ensures that. It ensures job creation and maintenance of initiatives and supports local economies -- so the infrastructure, such as delivering of hydro services, the delivery of roads and the delivery of site preparation.... Industries can locate in those communities, and there's an incentive for them to do that.

It will help local government to develop infrastructure. These dollars will be used to make sure that local governments don't incur additional costs when they attempt to diversify away from those local and longstanding principles that they've operated on, of resource development.

Worker relocation. In the case of Cassiar and others.... And certainly members of my community have relocated to other communities to take their skills with them to make them useful.

The initiatives of this fund will change the face of rural British Columbia -- of resource-based British Columbia -- forever. This government has taken action. This government has seen the need, unlike the third party, which didn't act during its long mandate, and the opposition, which continually wants to study everything and put it off and have a second look. And what happened? If we look back to the Liberal administration in Ottawa, they taxed and they spent. Now the deficit in Ottawa is so large....

D. Mitchell: Point of order. I might remind the member who has the floor that we are on Bill 11, the Natural Resource Community Fund Act, 1992. His comments are entertaining, but I think we are not here to be entertained. We're here to do the business of the people, to debate the principle of Bill 11. If the member could stick to the bill, we would all appreciate it.

The Speaker: The comments of both points of order do have some merit, and I would ask the hon. member to try to focus his comments on the purpose of Bill 11.

G. Janssen: I find it amazing, hon. Speaker -- and I take your remarks with great respect -- that the opposition members only stand on points of order when they are embarrassed.

However, I will conduct my remarks to the bill, and I will end by congratulating the minister and by congratulating this government for taking action after all these years of inaction.

R. Neufeld: I stand to speak to Bill 11. I think that I would be remiss if I did not digress a bit into how the initial part of the money was put forward under this bill. The $15 million came out of a privatization fund that was started by our administration. I think that was thinking towards the future -- starting that, putting that little nest-egg away -- so that in these times we could start funding some of these processes.

I know that none of us like to see places like Cassiar, what happens to Cassiar. It doesn't matter what party you belong to. I think that the problems in Cassiar affect all of us, and specifically in the north they affect us quite a bit. The member for Alberni may not be aware that even living in Fort St. John the closure of Cassiar will affect my community. Even though it may be a small amount, it will still affect my community.

So, for those reasons, to help those communities that find themselves in those positions when the prices of the metals or the ore that they mine have declined and mining practices change.... In some cases these mines have to close down. This will help those mines and will help this government to look after those situations.

I would also be remiss if I did not bring to the attention of everyone here that under the last administration the government did try to encourage corporate development in the mining industry -- the Stronsay mine, for instance, which is on hold now. Those are all parts of the economic wheel that drives this province, and we need the royalty from the minerals to keep this province going. That's why the past administration kept business taxes and corporate taxes at a minimum and tried to run a strong economy. It ran the province with the lowest per capita debt of any jurisdiction in Canada. All those have an effect on whether or not industries are going to settle in our province -- if they're going to come and bring their money and invest it here. I don't think raising the corporate tax at a time when the rates for minerals are down or putting on a capital tax or raising almost all fees....

J. Pullinger: Point of order. I thought we were discussing Bill 11; I didn't understand we were discussing the budget. I would like to suggest that the member speak on Bill 11.

The Speaker: A point of order has been raised. I hope now, with three points of order, all hon. members will know that we must contain our remarks to the purpose of Bill 11. However, I would also remind hon. members that the practice has been to allow some leeway. So I would urge hon. members to try and find a balance.

Please continue, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's that leeway that I was trying to use. I apologize if I pushed it too far. I thought I was staying within the realms a little bit more closely than my friend from Alberni.

Getting back to Bill 11, one of the items in here is money for training and retraining that is available through the government; it does not need a special fund. I believe that those funds are available already through the federal government in cooperation with the 

[ Page 1302 ]

provincial governments. I would like to see us look into that.

We already have a critical industries commissioner. What role does he play in Bill 11?

There already is a local government emergency account that provides an emergency fund for local governments. Here we are creating two separate accounts.

I would like to go back to the budget a bit. Talking about Peat Marwick in relation to the budget, I believe they criticized the last administration in their report for creating too many funds in different areas for different things. What we see here is creating more funds -- directly against the Peat Marwick recommendation. I would hope we would look at that.

Basically I support Bill 11 and what it intends to do: help the communities that need help. With that, I commend the minister for bringing this bill forward.

[3:15]

G. Wilson: It's important when entering debate on the bill before us today that we understand that to speak against the bill as it is worded and proposed is not to speak against providing adequate and proper resources for the communities of British Columbia that are dependent upon single industry, but rather to speak against the process by which this government seems to be falling in step with the previous government in establishing funds that can be paid out at the discretion of ministers without any adequate guideline, direction or process for determining the priorities and the degree to which those funds can be committed. I find it strange indeed that when this government was in opposition, it was opposed to these discretionary ministerial funds and spoke out so eloquently in opposition to those funds. Now that they are in government, they find themselves in a similar situation, and they are creating similar funds.

Bill 11 indicates two things to the people of British Columbia. First, it indicates that this government is prepared to put in only stopgap measures for those areas where there are serious economic difficulties, because they have no economic strategy; they have no plan. That has not been demonstrated in the broader budget that this bill is part of. Secondly, it demonstrates quite clearly that this government is not prepared to put in place the kind of development that should be in place in the communities to allow communities to generate the economy from the local sources of revenue that are possible there through a reduction in taxation, which is the main fuel of the economy. What the government is saying through this bill is that we are going to essentially allow this government to become the hand that will go out and hand out to the people of British Columbia, and through that handout direct the level and form within which the diversification of the economy in these communities that so desperately require diversification can occur.

Fundamentally we believe that to be wrong. Fundamentally, once you have a government that starts the proposition of handouts, of special funds for grants into communities, grants into agencies, it underlies a philosophy that says that this government believes they know better and can direct better the economic growth, development and diversification of the province than the very people who are engaged in industry, business and commerce in the communities.

Fundamentally and philosophically, the Liberal opposition must be opposed to this bill. We do not believe, as we start to look at the fundamental and philosophical proposition of this bill, that this is an appropriate direction. Yet the difficulty that opposition members will find themselves in is because this government is so devoid of any alternative that without this bill it would seem that greater hardships are going to be brought upon the people of British Columbia. As a result, we find ourselves in a situation very much like what we see in our urban communities, where we have created, in the form of some special measures towards social assistance, a proposition, for example.... I use this analogy as only an analogy and not direct comparison -- the question of a food bank that is established and funded out of a community that allows for handouts to people who are in desperate need as a stopgap band-aid measure, becoming the form by which we look after the social service interests and needs on a long-term basis.

That is not the solution. That is only the stopgap measure that alleviates the conscience of government when they are bankrupt and devoid of ideas that are going to develop the real diversification that will once again put the wealth in the communities that the communities desire.

I come from a riding in which MacMillan Bloedel has for a long time been seen by those in Powell River proper to be a single industry that has funded, maintained and developed the kind of infrastructure that that community has depended upon and needed. The wealth of that mill has been very much the lifeblood of that community. Today, regrettably, we see machines being shut down. We see workers being laid off. We see a proposition where the investment and reinvestment in that mill is becoming something that the company is reviewing with greater and greater scrutiny as they look at their position vis-�-vis the world markets and the trading markets.

I can tell you that a discretionary fund of $15 million -- despite what my friend from Alberni may say, who shares a MacMillan Bloedel mill -- will do little to alleviate the long-term conscience of that company that is indeed looking at Powell River in terms of the impact on communities.

To suggest that this fund is going to be the solution, the answer to the critical problems facing the single-industry communities in British Columbia, is foolhardy, if not simple political rhetoric; once again to try and alleviate the conscience of a government that has no economic plan. It has no economic strategy to diversify the answer.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I hear from the member opposite that he wants to know our solutions. I'm delighted to be able to tell him that the Liberal opposition indeed has an economic strategy for the province, and that economic strategy is ridiculed by 

[ Page 1303 ]

members opposite who talk about a 60-year plan. Let me say that the 60-year plan that we talk about includes, in the short term, immediate diversification of the economy through a reduction in the tax demand, through a streamlining of government by removing government as the single agency that thinks it's the driving agency for the economy, and once again investing in the people of British Columbia -- to allow the people to keep more of the money they earn so that they can invest more of it in their communities and allow the wealth and strength of their communities to grow.

The solution and strategy of the Liberal Party, when we form government, will clearly no longer look at the single-industry communities of British Columbia as though they were some kind of welfare recipients, with their hand out to ministers who have discretionary dollars which they have taken from the tax base, so that they have to put their hand out and beg this government to please provide the communities with the kind of sustainable incomes that all of us want to see within those communities.

What we need is a proper economic strategy, not a a band-aid solution through the bill that is being proposed today. We do not need to build into the institutions of government another method of providing a handout to communities which require real economic strategies for development of a diversified economy to provide long-term economic growth and development. We need to have a greater commitment to those single-industry and resource towns.

Today we asked the minister responsible for mines if there would be a decision taken on one matter that would allow diversification of the economy to happen in the Okanagan, and we had no answer given to that. We have seen time and time again single-industry towns requesting that the government act quickly on the development of our mining and forestry communities, on the development of diversification of industries such as aircraft industries. Time and again, this government says it wants to study it or put it to a commission. Let's wait until the investment dollars that are available today are not available tomorrow. Then we can use a fund that is provided in this bill to give handouts to those people who could start to have a better base of economy, if the government would act to work in consultation with the people of the communities of British Columbia, rather than in isolation from them. Simply to stand up and hand them out the money when their economy is so depleted and when the single-industry community is in such conflict that essentially the $15 million being proposed is going to be a stopgap measure -- inefficient and insufficient funds -- is only to give a thread of hope to people who need more than a thread of hope, who in fact need a government that cares about their long-term welfare.

We find ourselves in a difficult situation with this bill, because this government is so devoid of economic strategy. What the government is asking us to do is accept the proposition of putting in place a system of delivery of funds at the discretion of this government that should be made available through investment capital at the base of the economy, prior to the taxation that has been demanded from the people.

We need to have a government with an economic strategy that does not rely upon these kinds of discretionary funds that can simply be paid out at the discretion of the ministers of government, so that they can reward those areas that they believe are deserving of reward at the expense of other areas that will receive nothing. Quite clearly $15 million or $20 million or $25 million will not be enough to go around.

The main question now -- and my concluding comment on this most offensive bill in terms of economic strategy for the province -- is how we will determine who gets the money and who does not. What process is in place to make sure the application is fair? How is this government going to make sure that all people of British Columbia, on $15 million or $25 million, will get the security they require, when they see that the single industry in their town has been brought to ruin by the policies or lack of policies of the government? Clearly, this is nothing more than a bunch of window-dressing around a budget that essentially is putting greater and greater authority and control in the hands of government and less and less control in the hands of the people.

It is time that we return the economy and the welfare of this province to the people. It is time that we start to invest in the people of British Columbia and allow the entrepreneurial wealth and spirit in our communities to flourish and grow, and not to have a government that simply sees every profit dollar as a new proposition for harvesting, so they can bring profit dollars into a highly centralized government and then hand them out at their discretion, when we find the economy in absolute disarray.

Hon. Speaker, philosophically this is the wrong way to go. As an economic strategy, it is an inadequate measure. We in the Liberal opposition believe it is a shame that this government could not come up with a better and more secure strategy for maintaining the wealth of single-industry towns in British Columbia.

J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, we on this side of the House have thoroughly enjoyed watching the Leader of the Opposition gallop full-tilt down both sides of the fence at the same time.

On one hand, he has argued the traditional, neoconservative argument about the trickle-down theory, and how if you feed the engine of the economy -- big businesses and the wealthy -- somehow it will trickle down and help these communities. On the other hand, he tried to argue that we should be working with the communities. It's a most interesting example of liberalism in action, which sounds an awful lot like what we've been listening to in this chamber for the past five years on the other side of the House. We have really enjoyed that.

I would just like to offer, though, as we hear this classic analysis of neoconservatism that the right-wing coalition has brought to this province for a number of years -- the liberal-conservative coalition that began in 1941, was formalized under Social Credit and seems to have fallen into three little chunks right now -- that the 

[ Page 1304 ]

neoconservative economic analysis is just a little flawed.

I would like to point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that those food banks he talked about came to us under that right-wing neoconservative analysis and trickle-down theory that doesn't work, quite frankly, because anybody who has looked at this society knows that it doesn't trickle down. In fact, what happens is that it stays right at the top, and neoconservative policies end up with precisely what we've got, which is a growing gap between the very wealthy and the many who are doing less and less well in our society.

This bill focuses right on what the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in one part of his speech, said we should do, and that's to work with the communities that have historically been and continue to be single-industry towns. They are now suffering the effects of 40 years of mismanagement of our resources, our land base and our economy.

[3:30]

In communities like Duncan, Cowichan Valley and in the rest of my riding of Cowichan-Ladysmith, but focused primarily in Lake Cowichan, we have seen past governments allow overcutting. This government is correcting those things, I'm happy to say. The previous government -- the neoconservatives, the right-wing coalition -- continued to mismanage our forests. The people of Lake Cowichan, like people in similar communities around this province, are paying dearly for those 40 years of mismanagement. They are paying with their jobs, their families and their communities.

For these people to argue that we should not help those communities and not work directly with them is foolish in the extreme. I found that diatribe from the opposite side quite fascinating but, as usual, totally incorrect -- a very flawed analysis that we have experimented with in this province and in this country for a long time. We have found it wanting indeed.

As I say, my riding is largely dependent on forestry. Particularly in Lake Cowichan we have a number of mills and logging operations, including the Walbran valley. The communities are therefore typical towns that would be affected by economic problems and problems in the forest industry, which we see happening now.

I note that the opposition is anti-union. The labour critic is on record as saying that people don't work very well in unions; they're less productive and less happy and all sorts of things. Those good union paycheques that come from forestry, mining or other industries in these single-industry towns.... Let's not forget, those on the other side who purport to be the saviours of free enterprise and small business, that those good resource paycheques are what keep small business alive in this province. That is the backbone of the economy. In my area it's very obvious to see that the mismanagement of our forests over the last 40 years has ended with a situation where small business and tourism and all other parts of the economy are hurting, and hurting badly. As I say, it's unfortunate.

I hear again and again from the other side of the House how we should look after the corporations. They seem to forget that the forests in this province belong to the people. It's the people who work in those forests or in the mines -- in my riding it's the forests -- who pay the taxes to keep the economy running, who support small business. To suggest that there's something wrong with taking the taxes paid by the people who own the forests, paid by the people who work in the forests, paid by the people who run small businesses, who are the next level of development....

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. I was not in the chamber a few moments ago, but I did hear some comments during the member's speech. She attributed comments to me, as the labour critic of this party, that I certainly did not make. I would ask her to retract those comments now if she would, please.

J. Pullinger: I certainly would apologize. It was another member who was speaking on that issue as the labour spokesperson. It was the member for Richmond-Steveston, I believe. So I do apologize to the critic for that error. It certainly wasn't intentional. However, I would assume I was speaking on behalf of the party in this system, and my comments about the opposition's position on labour still stand. They're there; they're in Hansard for anyone who would like to look at them in writing.

In any case, what we have is the opposition, which obviously has put out a very anti-labour position, now suggesting that Bill 11 is somehow wrong, that we should not return those tax dollars paid by the people of British Columbia to help support communities, people and workers who are suffering the effects of 40 years of mismanagement. Quite frankly, I think that's a misguided attitude. It's a typical neoconservative attitude that we've seen again and again from the right wing in this House. What more proof do we need that that doesn't work? We have proof all around us that that kind of philosophy, as you call it, doesn't work. The invisible hand of Adam Smith that he referred to, unfortunately, rather than gently guiding the economy, guiding growth and guiding our society, tends to reach out and smack down certain groups. Among them are the people that work in these communities.

It's about time that we did, in fact, target some of those taxpayers' dollars back to the taxpayers to help those communities in crisis. I'm certainly going to encourage my community of Lake Cowichan, which has been severely hit by those euphemistically called things of downsizing and downturns -- which cash out to mean lost jobs, a lot of pain and a lot of tragedy in families and in the community. I am going to encourage my communities to continue the work that they're doing, and that I've been involved with, to develop ways, to develop strategies, to work in the new context that we've been handed, to work with the resources that are left there, to work with the community. We've got tremendous human resources in my communities, and we will certainly be working with those people and with the IWA. Fletcher Challenge has agreed to work with the IWA and the economic development officer of the area. I would encourage these people to apply soon 

[ Page 1305 ]

for this kind of funding, because there is no question that Lake Cowichan is a community in crisis.

I think we all understand that we are in very difficult economic times. We therefore cannot do everything that we would like to do in providing the amount of funds to all communities that might be able to apply. These are difficult economic times. I'm very proud of our government, which has -- in spite of the difficulties, in spite of the large deficit left, in spite of the financial mess we've inherited -- seen fit to bring forward this policy that we argued for prior to and during the election. We're happy to implement it, so closely following the election, in our first six months as government.

I am very pleased and supportive of the Natural Resource Community Fund Act, and I know that there are a number of families, individuals and communities around the province that will benefit from this act.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

The fund will provide a stable source of funding to resource communities like ours. I would like to point out that it is not an ad hoc fund. This is administered through a line ministry. It's not like what some of the members opposite are so familiar with -- all of those ad hoc, non-accountable funds that have been kicked around year after year by the auditor general. This is, in fact, administered like any other program, through a line ministry, and is therefore very accountable. For the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that this is some sort of a sham is simply wrong, is simply incorrect, and I would argue that it's an excuse to defend his new conservative ideology that obviously isn't working.

I think these communities will be very pleased, in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition says. Those who understand the problems and live with them every day will be very pleased to see this act come into force, because it will protect these communities. The funding is stable, and it will help in the transition from a single-industry community, such as Lake Cowichan, to a more diversified economy. This will work with the worker opportunity fund and other programs we have in place to build that secondary level of manufacturing, which the opposition parties have not seen fit to build or to encourage in any way historically.

I think that's a step in the right direction. I know the communities that feel these problems at a very personal level will also understand that it's a good program which they will welcome.

There are going to be funds for training and skill development of workers. That will help individuals and families adjust to the new reality we have out there, in terms of our economy, and to new labour market requirements. I always found it amazing that the gap that small business has identified between the needs of small business for trained and skilled employees and what we're producing in our society has never been appropriately addressed. This will help address that. It will help to train people for the jobs that are available; it's about time we had that.

Funds are also going to be available for job creation and job maintenance initiatives. In my community, they have a wonderful initiative going; they have an ecomuseum that fills in around the resource industries. It has been somewhat of a pilot project under federal funding, and they've done a tremendous job. They've built a tourism sector around the forest industry, and it has worked very well indeed.

They've also lobbied for a long time -- unsuccessfully in the past, but they are being heard now -- for some community control of forests around the Cowichan Valley. They want to do that so they have some control and the ability to know they've got some tenure to train forest workers of a different kind who can do all facets of logging, planting and so on, and so they can have a stable forest sector in those communities.

I'm very familiar with the proposals they've put forward, and I have long been very supportive. I certainly encourage those who are working on it most centrally to continue what they're doing. I offer my support again in whatever way I can, because the people own the forests. The original intent of tenure systems and especially the new tree-farm licences was supposedly to tie those licences to local jobs and communities. As we have seen, that certainly has not been the case.

There's a very rude member over there in the Social Credit caucus.

An Hon. Member: He's asleep.

J. Pullinger: Yes, he's asleep or just plain rude.

The trees belong to the people in the community, and I certainly think it's time we encouraged them to garner some control. The tree-farm licence system didn't work. The Social Credit government cut the only link there was between those licences and the communities, and we have seen devastation as a result. This bill begins to address some of the problems from mismanagement and flaws in the system. I know that it will certainly be welcome.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The local government in my area, as well, has been very concerned. I know a number of the members over there, who are sleeping and otherwise occupied, don't understand that out in the regions, when these single-industry towns are affected by companies' decisions or by the fact that there has been so much overcutting and now we have to move back to sustainability, that severely affects the local governments' ability to function, because their tax base dries up. We're dealing with that situation right now in Lake Cowichan. I'm sure that the initiatives and so on that are being worked out by the economic development officer and others in the community will be very helpful. I certainly would like to encourage them, as I say, to go after these funds. I know that there won't be enough to go around for the whole province, because we are in difficult times, but this bill is a step in the right direction. It's a step that's long overdue, and it's one that all of us on this side certainly welcome. I know that most resource communities, the many that have suffered crises and downturns and so on, will welcome it as well.

[ Page 1306 ]

D. Jarvis: I speak as someone who has seen the results of the closure of resource towns in this province. Now I see it again as the mining critic. It is a tragic situation that a province such as British Columbia, that is so rich with resources, should be faced with the prospect of debating a bill that would support the unquestionable thought that British Columbia has to provide assistance to people in small or large towns throughout the width and breadth of it. It's a situation where our prime industry has become uneconomical, and they are forced to close a town. This is a tragedy.

Why is this happening? Why are these towns closing down? Why has the problem not been addressed before? There has been a lack of foresight on the part of previous governments to prevent such situations from occurring. Now we are faced with this bill of tragedy again. Job losses are a tragic situation, but when they are measured up against a small community, when it directly affects 400 or 500 people who have lived together for years in a community, it becomes more than tragic; in fact, it's demoralization at the utmost.

[3:45]

How do you measure the impact on a family who have strived for years to pay off their mortgage and save for their children's education and then tell them that there is no future? It is even more tragic. How would you feel if you were suddenly advised that your career is gone and your mortgage is in question? Some of them are smiling down there, but it may happen, and you may have to go back to your riding and explain to your people one of these days. How do you explain it when your children's education is up in the air? They are completely demoralized with the thought that there's not even a chance of going to another town to find a job to help their children and their family. They have to start all over again. How are they going to do it?

Let me give you an example of how you would feel after you found out that your job was gone and your town has gone down the drain. I would read from this bulletin. It's with regard to a weekly government news bulletin. If you live in a one-industry town, the "B.C. government has created a fund to give financial aid to residents" of your town. "As an interim measure, the province is prepared to make the following advances from that fund." If you are a permanent resident and your job is being terminated by us, the province is prepared to give you $2,000 in advance. If you choose to fly out of this town, the province will pay the cost of one airfare to Vancouver or Edmonton, or anywhere else you want to go -- even out of this province. The province will reimburse you for the actual and reasonable costs of packaging and transporting -- packing up your children's kiddie cars -- and all the rest of it, and they'll give you $2,000 maximum. And on and on it goes.

This becomes one of the most degrading things that could happen to you as an individual, and then you have to go home and face your family on top of it. It's a tragic situation. We owe it to ourselves as members of this government to try and correct situations such as this.

A simple solution is not to create a bill to offer compensation when perhaps the whole event could be avoided. That is not the situation. Unless this province is prepared to change its agenda or its direction with regard to the resources in this province, we'll be facing the same situation again. We'll be facing a very bleak forecast in the foreseeable future.

We are seeing temporary layoffs all over this province of professionals and other workers who are never again to be rehired. They're too old to be rehired. Even all the professionals in the mining industry, for example, are starting to leave this country. We are about to lose a workforce of unskilled and skilled workers and professionals due to a lack of work. Here we are in a province that has the greatest riches and resources of probably this whole continent, and there's no work.

We can only think that the responsibility for this situation has to rest with past governments. This present government, and future governments, are also going to be faced with the same problem. We must encourage investment and exploration in this province like we have never done in the past. There is a perception throughout the world that British Columbia is no longer open for business and that it is a province that does not encourage exploration -- in mining, for example.

Last year over $1 billion dollars left this country and went south, and $58 million of B.C.-based money went south. This money should be coming to British Columbia. All this time workers in this province are in jobs that are slowly, and in some cases rapidly, deteriorating due to economic conditions and to the simple fact that the ore in the ground is running out.

These thousands of skilled and unskilled workers are faced with the bleak question of where they go now, as there are no new mines coming on stream. No new mines are opening up in this province. In the past it was a very straightforward situation: if you were out of work, there were always two or three mines coming on stream, and you'd be able to find a job. This is not happening. There are no new mines coming, and we're faced with dire consequences.

I would like to add that there are a few points....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: No, I know. I'm on the next page, so don't worry.

A member of the government, who has now left, mentioned a while ago that the situation occurring now is the responsibility of the previous government or governments of the past 40 years. I would like to remind her that approximately 20 years ago her party was in power in this province, so they are responsible too. Fortunately it was just a brief flirting issue, and they only lasted three years.

An Hon. Member: One thousand dark days.

D. Jarvis: One thousand dark days, for sure. And they started the whole situation.

I have several points on why this bill is basically wrong. We should be working on diversifying local economies so that fewer single-industry towns will have to be bailed out in the future. The very fact that 

[ Page 1307 ]

such a bill is so desperately needed is an indication of the shortcomings of our current system. However, this bill only begins to treat the last symptom, rather than get to the root of the causes. Any funds paid out as a result of this bill, not on the recommendation of an independent adviser, are wrong. This government must avoid any further appearance of a disposal of funds without due process.

This bill does not address the root problem, which is what this government has been doing by destroying investment and the expansion of value-added resource industries in the province. More and more communities are going to suffer these same consequences. This government needs to start working with business, not against it.

On the one hand, this government professes great concern for the workers and residents of single-resource towns. Yet on the other hand, they are bringing in arbitrary measures that discourage new industry and break the backs of the current industry. How else can we provide a stable employment base for the people of this province if we are not prepared to start with ensuring that the companies and industries are here to employ them?

I want to sum up by saying that this bill does not address the problems currently being mishandled by the NDP government -- for example, the Cassiar mine close-out. This bill begins from a defeatist premise by assuming that the towns will go under, rather than working with them to avert such crises. This bill is not really a solution; it is only a stop-gap measure at best. We should be working to diversify local economies, not just propping them up.

This bill allows for the potential of funding abuse. As I said before, this fund should be overseen by an independent monitor like the job protection commissioner.

C. Serwa: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The member opposite from Cowichan -- or whatever her constituency is -- is heckling, and she's not in her seat. She knows full well that she cannot talk out loud across the floor other than from her own seat. I would expect the Speaker to remind her of that.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member; his point is well taken. Members on both sides of the House should be reminded of the caution to not speak from another member's chair. Would the member please proceed.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, this bill allows for potential funding abuse. The funds should be overseen by an independent monitor like the job protection commissioner -- not just by the Minister of Economic Development or the Treasury Board. As it stands, this fund could be abused in the same way the GO B.C. grants were alleged to be used by the Social Credit government previously.

However, I'm going to conclude by saying that this bill is not all wrong, but I am philosophically against it.

P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill 11, the Natural Resource Community Fund Act. This is a good-news bill in times of bad news in the natural resource communities of British Columbia. It follows through on our pledge in the throne speech to protect workers and local communities from the vagaries of the economy that may affect any community, particularly communities in the interior. I thought it was interesting. We must focus on what this bill does and not on what other members would have it do. The purpose of this bill is fairly narrow and fairly well defined: to provide funding to assist communities that are, in large part, dependent on a single-resource industry to adjust to a severe economic dislocation arising from closures of businesses in that industry or reductions in the work force.

I find it fascinating that the leader of the official opposition arises in the House to attack this bill because it doesn't happen to be a comprehensive industrial strategy. What a surprise! It was never designed to be that. Neither is it a measure to provide funds for colleges and universities or to revise the way we do highways in this province. It has a very limited purpose, and it's focused very well on that purpose. I honestly found it fascinating to make of list of who rose, and where they were from, to speak for or against this bill.

This bill is aimed at those communities in our province that are dependent on natural resources for their very existence. Many members are aware of a recent study done by the Forest Resources Commission on what the economic engines are of small towns and cities in our province. They identified close to 200 cities, villages and towns whose main dependence -- economic engine -- was the natural resources of our province: forestry, mining or, in some cases, both.

I think we have here some members who don't seem to understand what it's actually like in those towns and villages when something goes seriously wrong. I'm not sure that they're aware of places like Valemount, McBride or Bear Lake in and around the Prince George area. We've heard the member from White Rock attack this. We've heard the member from North Vancouver -- that bastion of resource dependency -- attack this bill. I'm not sure that they really understand what it means to a town when their major mill or their mine blows away through no fault of their own.

I must say that it was pleasing to hear the member from Peace River North, who stood in this House and did seem to understand the dire economic consequences that some of our smaller communities face when their natural resource industries are threatened. While he found some fault with this bill, I think he recognized the problem it was designed to address. I'm not so sure I saw that acknowledgement from members of the official opposition.

Let's make it clear here. This bill comes into force -- or the provisions of it can be acted upon -- when something dire happens to a small community. Bad news. That bad news is really no fault of that community or of the workers in that resource.

[4:00]

[ Page 1308 ]

There are probably three or four circumstances of which members of the House are well aware. Members have already risen and spoken about the cyclical nature of our natural resource industries. It's no fault of a worker in Valemount, Vanderhoof or Fort St. James when the lumber market goes in the sewer in Chicago, yet it may result in the loss of his or her job. That's a fact of life in our natural resource towns. When Granisle closes down, partly it's the result -- not that there's not enough ore there to keep on mining -- that the ore is not of sufficient quality to extract it at a price that the market will bear. That's the reality of life in natural resource towns. The market is cyclical, and sometimes disaster happens through no fault of anybody.

The second cause of industry failure is, of course, poor management, poor products. Even with the best will in the world, even with the best industrial strategy in the world, bad decisions can be made. Products are made for which there is no market. Again we have failure.

A third cause and one that's becoming increasingly a threat to some of our towns is, of course, the international market that we live in. I received a copy today of a petition from workers, individuals and resource communities around this province, and they're asking that this government continue to use all the tools available to it to fight the financially debilitating duty that the United States is going to impose, or is attempting to impose.

These workers recognize that through no fault of their own -- through nothing that they could prevent, anticipate or do anything about -- their very livelihood is threatened by a court action in Washington, D.C. These people from Kamloops, Barri�re, Louis Creek, Quesnel, Merritt and other towns in the interior know full well that bad times may come to those communities.

Finally, of course, we may have the sort of disaster which Bill 11 seeks to address when there is the exhaustion of a resource, as has happened in the past for some ore bodies in this province and which may well happen in the future. I think the conclusion is clear: bad things can happen to good people, good communities and good companies. We as government must be prepared to assist those people and those communities. Far too often, those least responsible end up bearing the greatest burden.

I want to draw the attention of the House to two provisions of this act that I think are right on in the way that they approach this problem, and those are the provisions that provide for training and retraining of workers and for worker relocation. Very often the workers in these small natural-resource towns have a double whammy if their industry fails. First, they may not have the skills to get a different job either in their resource industry or in another industry. Many members of this House recently attended a seminar put on by the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, which reported some findings of a commission that was looking into what sorts of jobs are going to be created in this province in the next decade and beyond. One of the conclusions of that commission was that something like 60 percent of all new jobs being created are going to require some post-secondary education. In many of our resource communities, that level of education is not common among workers in those industries. They need retraining desperately, and this act is one way of providing them access to it.

The second provision, of course, is for relocation. Again I suggest that this is a problem well recognized by those of us who live in the interior of this province and in these communities, and who know that if the mill closes in Bear Lake, you don't sit around and wait for another one to open. You move to Vanderhoof, Prince George or Kamloops, where work might be available. This act speaks very clearly to that need of workers.

I want to finally deal with one objection to this bill raised by the members of the official opposition -- that somehow this bill is unnecessary, irrelevant or should be subsumed under the Job Protection Commission. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of the Job Protection Commission and how this act is designed to supplement and assist, rather than replace.

The Job Protection Commission is specifically charged with facilitating and assisting the revival of businesses which are faced with short-term economic problems. Notice the emphasis: businesses. If you have a business in the forest industry which is in short-term trouble, you can seek the assistance of the Job Protection Commission, and that's appropriate.

But Bill 11, the Natural Resource Community Fund Act, is aimed not at the industry but at the workers and the communities that those workers have formed. If the Job Protection Commission cannot do its job and the business cannot be revived, then indeed we must have other assistance -- and Bill 11 helps provide that assistance.

In closing, I would like to commend the government for introducing this legislation. I'm sure it's a bill that will be welcomed by workers in natural resource communities around this province, Prince George and elsewhere.

F. Gingell: I will be very brief. I wasn't originally going to speak on this bill, but I was sitting listening to the minister's introduction of it and all of a sudden my ears perked up. The minister suggested that because the capital for this fund was being transferred from the privatization fund, and because they are then transferring revenues from a series of natural resource revenue sources identified in this act, it wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything, it wouldn't increase taxation.

It's very important that our friends on the other side of this House in government recognize that when you take one-half of 1 percent of a revenue stream that is presently all going into government revenues, and put it on one side for some other purpose, it reduces the revenues of the province. It either increases the amount of money the government raises by taxation or increases the amount of the deficit. It is just one of those important basic understandings of finance that was probably discovered by Michelangelo, because as we go through life, we discover that Michelangelo discovered a lot of basic premises.

[ Page 1309 ]

One other thing I would like to bring up about this act is that if the government believes that they should set up this fund and transfer into it $5 million a year, which is my understanding of the amount of money that is involved -- I believe it is one-half of 1 percent of roughly a $1 billion revenue stream -- they should just do that. They should include an amount of $5 million in their estimates and put it in the fund.

By us now having to hire more bureaucrats to make a calculation of 0.5 percent of a series of revenues.... Not do it once a year. No, this bill requires it to be done four times a year. So someone, a secretary, will have to put it into a diary, it will be fed into a computer, and every three months someone will get a memorandum that the time has come to make the calculation. They'll sit and do it, and they'll be checking around talking to the various ministries in showing that the numbers are correct. It's just wasted time.

If one-half of 1 percent of this revenue stream is $5 million, just put $5 million in the estimates and put it into the fund annually. You're going to strip out of it any amount if the funds exceeds $25 million, so I don't see any reason why you shouldn't put $5 million in a year. Then, if you ever see the funding going over $25 million at any year end, you just put in a little less. You calculate that by taking the value of the fund, deduct $25 million, deduct the resulting number from $5 million, and that's what you put in your estimates -- it's all very simple.

We should stop complicating our lives. We should stop making government more involved. We should stop bringing acts forward that call, as this one does, for 0.5 percent from the Coal Act, Forest Act, Geothermal Resources Act, Logging Tax Act, Mineral Tax Act, Mineral Land Tax Act, Mineral Tenure Act, Mines Act, Mining Tax Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and Range Act. If it's $5 million, we should just put it in the estimates, and then we the people of British Columbia would understand what's involved. Right now, when the public reads this act, they haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that I had the opportunity to stand up here so that I could explain it to you.

L. Fox: Much to the dismay of the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, I suppose, I will stand to speak in support of the principle of Bill 11. You see that we stand and speak our own conscience in this third party. It's not often that I agree with the member for Prince George North, who so kindly mentioned two of my communities in his presentation a few moments ago, but I do agree with much of what he stated. I want to say, however, that I wish the budget had reflected the same intent that this reflects, which is the principle of helping resource-based communities. Had we had that same principle ingrained in the budget, perhaps the need for this would have been somewhat less than it is today.

I also know, given my experience as a municipal leader, that while you may be well intentioned in attempting to diversify the economy of a community, it takes confidence to do that. It takes the confidence of those people living within the community to do that. While it's true that the limited resources for infrastructure development and other major expenditures can be a detriment to those respective communities, if you look around the province and see the communities in the north and the rural parts which have been successful in growing, they grew on the strength of the resources and on the confidence that they could invest in those resources and put it back into the local economies. I really do appreciate the intent of the bill, but I believe that somehow we have to build confidence in those communities, confidence that allows those people to reinvest in their communities so that we can diversify those economies.

One concern that I have with respect to this bill, however, is what the trigger mechanisms may be. At what point can the municipality, regional district or economic area ask for help under this bill? The other concern is what the level of that help may be. What will be the driving factor which will determine the level of provincial help under this bill? I understand that we will have an opportunity to question the minister on these issues at the committee stage, and I look forward to that.

I would also hope that the intent of this bill is not just to help communities which are seeing the very serious things that are affecting their economy, such as the total loss of a resource -- in Houston's case, Equity mine shutting down; in Cassiar's case, Cassiar mine shutting down. I would hope that the intent of this bill is to deal as well with the technological change in the workforce and those other jobs that are being lost presently due to that change. We might have help for those particular individuals to find new opportunities and new jobs. They may not be of dramatic proportions. They may be ten or 20 individuals who have been displaced by a sawmill diversifying and becoming more technologically advanced.

[4:15]

I would also hope that if we have an area where there are brand new opportunities, such as the Vanderhoof pulp and paper initiative in my riding, the infrastructure dollars and the opportunities identified in this bill could help to develop those very badly needed infrastructures in order to accommodate that very important development in that area of the province.

I would hope as well that we would see the cogeneration initiatives and the opportunities to bring new technology and new job creation into the rural parts of this province. That would also fit within this bill. In many instances that would help the province in relocating individuals from other areas of province that do not have the jobs or the opportunities to these areas where there may be new opportunities for the province.

With those kinds of concerns, I stand in favour of Bill 11, and I look forward to the committee stage.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to rise to address this House on the second reading of Bill 11, the Natural Resource Community Fund Act.

Bill 11 is creating a $25-million fund with only the vaguest of guidelines as to how that money may be spent. This money would be available on the recom-

[ Page 1310 ]

mendation of government and at their discretion for any variety of situations. For a government so concerned with impartiality and due process, how do they justify not creating an independent office to oversee disbursal of these funds? For instance, a person working in consultation with the job protection commissioner, where the appearance of conflict of interest has been recognized to be as undesirable as its actual existence.... These decisions should be based on the judgment of an independent authority.

Stricter definitions and guidelines with less latitude for creative interpretation are another safeguard against government misuse. Who and what determines when a town is about to suffer sufficient dislocation to warrant use of the fund? What prevents industry from locating in areas that are not viable over the long term and taking employees with them who settle in the area knowing that the government is committed to bailing them out after the resource ends? There must be a recognition that most natural resources have foreseeable life spans, and it is irresponsible not to plan ahead for them.

The mandate of this fund extends to several different ministries to varying degrees. They include Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; Advanced Education; Social Services; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; Forests; Aboriginal Affairs; Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing; and Government Services. What provision has this government made to create the potential for massive confusion, bureaucracy and duplication of services?

While the situations addressed in the proposed bill are sometimes inevitable, they are also often avoidable. It is the responsibility of both municipal and provincial governments to work to ensure the economic diversity and thus, hopefully, the stability of resource-dependent communities. Why do we see no similar initiative in this direction?

This is not meant to imply that the industries have not taken on a considerable degree of responsibility for their employees. It is a warning that by instituting this fund in such an ill-defined, open-ended manner, we may create the perception that responsibility has shifted and is now the property of government.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

F. Jackson: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 11. The Natural Resource Community Fund Act will ensure the economic survival of single-industry and resource-dependent communities that are affected by industry downsizing or other closures. This bill will protect workers and local economies when economic circumstances make companies take action that will be detrimental to their communities. I don't mean that they are doing that deliberately; they may not have any choice in doing it.

In my first speech to this House, I stated that it was difficult to imagine a constituency without a forest, as most of us are somehow affected by that industry. It's quite obvious that our forest industry will remain crucial to the livelihood of the people of this province. It's also obvious that there is going to be downsizing in the forestry industry, and it's going to cause a loss of jobs. I don't think that we're in any way being defeatist when we recognize that fact. I don't think that this can be construed in any way as a bill from a defeatist government.

Most of us, because of the mobility of our society, have probably spent some time at least in small towns, either in British Columbia or elsewhere across the country. It's very easy for those of us who live in larger centres -- Vancouver and other places in the lower mainland -- to get out of touch and lose the vision of what a closure in a single-industry town does to the people living there. I know that for myself, even being here in Victoria Monday to Friday, I go home and work at getting back in touch with the people in the North Thompson Valley. I was in Clearwater on the weekend, and it was refreshing to go back and get close to people who are close to the roots of this province. But as a reminder, again, communities like Clearwater, Barri�re, Vavenby and a few others that have been mentioned in this House today are in a very precarious position. Because of that, the people who live there are constantly under some kind of tension that is caused by the reliance on one industry.

I don't think this is peculiar to the forest industry. When I first came to this country, I lived in Kitimat, and at that time, Kitimat was dependent on Alcan, which is one of the bigger companies in the country, but nevertheless one industry. I remember that fluctuations in the aluminum metal prices caused Alcan to have some concern, and that didn't take long to work its way down to the citizens of Kitimat. Other communities -- like Logan Lake, which was dependent on mining in the Highland Valley -- have managed to diversify into a retirement community, which has been very lucky for them. It's something that we've always got to be aware of, and this bill goes a long way to protect the people in these communities.

The bill is going to provide money for job creation and job maintenance, and I don't see how that can be construed as being defeatist. That's a very positive move, and it's a very positive aspect of the bill. Failing that, at the very worst it's an insurance policy, and I don't think that people who take out insurance policies can be considered defeatist. It's a very wise move, an insurance that in the absence of the ability to keep the community afloat, at least will provide help for relocation and help to local governments to survive without a single industry. I think the bill offers more than the kind of band-aid solutions that we've had from some previous administrations. I think some of this is proactive and progressive. It will allow communities to develop and diversify. Those of us really interested in our communities are going to take very little time before we're knocking on the doors of the ministry and the minister to get some help for the communities in our constituencies that need this.

I spent some time in the last month or so talking to officials within the ministry about how we can help the communities in the North Thompson valley, and how we can help the North Thompson valley as a whole. I have an idea of some kind of group to focus specifically on the North Thompson valley because, although it's 

[ Page 1311 ]

not unique and there is a valley like the Cariboo or the Skeena, for me it's unique because it is mine. I think that it's up to us to look at our own constituencies and, wherever possible, to make things like this work for us.

I think the idea is right and time will prove that we are right, because it's not in any way defeatist and it is certainly progressive. It's imperative that we get into this business, because we don't want what has happened in Cassiar -- and we've heard that mentioned today -- to happen again. We want to be better prepared for this. The Natural Resource Community Fund is going to help us prepare for situations like that. I think the fund is a job creator, and will also go a long way to at least taking the edge off the burps -- ups and downs that economic activity tends to react to. I think it will ensure, in the long run, that when a company closes, the town doesn't close. If nothing else, that is one reason why I can support this bill.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 11. I think all the members from all the parties have been more or less all over the block on this one. I think that the thought or the intent is certainly warm and cuddly, and nobody will dispute that particular intent. We in the Legislature really have to recognize, in the development of legislation, if there is an actual need for this bill. I ask that in all seriousness to all members, because recently a mine closed down in my constituency -- Brenda Mines ceased operations. They had quite a number of employees, approximately 200 or 250. Peachland, a small community of which about 50 percent of the population is over the age of 65, was affected quite dramatically. It affected my main community of Kelowna.

But what happened there? A number of joint provincial-federal initiatives occurred. There was strong cooperation between the union and the workforce, between the mine itself and the various levels of government. All those things are in place at the present time. The various programs this bill is going to fund already exist in federal-provincial programs. They all exist right now, so the bill really doesn't do anything new. This, I regret to say, is simply a politically inspired good-news type of bill, but everything it purports to do is already looked after and done.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Some of the ministers have a little difficulty.

Job creation and job maintenance initiatives and support -- I'll go over a few of them that already exist in the Economic Development ministry -- and a supplement to the local government emergency account.... I think we're going to have to face some hard facts. There are some realities of life in the resource extraction business that we all have to understand.

[4:30]

Ocean Falls was a resource community which this government, when they were government in 1972-75, decided to go out like knights in shining armour and save. They spent millions and millions of the taxpayers' dollars in that particular futile attempt. The reality is that, in terms of technology and transportation, the community had outlived its usefulness.

All of us who have lived in resource communities understand that communities are born and communities often die. That has been the history not only in British Columbia, but in every jurisdiction in North America. Those realities have to be faced. It doesn't make it any easier for the citizens of those communities. I understand the difficulty when they have lived in these communities for 30 or 40 years, but at some point in time those communities outlive their usefulness -- and they are located in an area where it's not possible to develop them in any other way. Then government has to look at itself and ask if the rest of the taxpayers should support a community that has no opportunity to survive on its own. I don't think we can do that.

This government alludes all the time to the fiscal difficulties they're faced with because of the current shortfall or the recession that is impacting the revenue side of the ledger. The reality is that, as we continue to go, we're all -- each one of us in all of the communities -- going to have to basically carry our own weight.

So that's the sort of decision that has to be made before this goes through. You certainly can't have it both ways. There are some anomalies that come in here. The Minister of Finance spoke glowingly of cutting out all these special accounts, which will allow the movement of money in government; you can shuffle it from here to there. The Peat Marwick Thorne manifesto spoke against it, and here we are creating a special account to do something that everyone is already doing. It's hard to see the validity in that. The member for Prince George North spoke very well, and he indicated that hard times will in fact come. That certainly is a definite truism; there's no discounting that statement.

Communities themselves can do a great deal about that. I'd like to speak briefly on Kimberley, which is dependent on a mine. They knew that there was going to be a terminal end to the ore resource in a very large, productive and profitable mine. About 20 years ago, the community started to diversify by attracting tourism. They started to develop North Star as a major ski resort. The community encouraged the building of condominiums and started to attract tourists who were interested in winter and summer recreation. Obviously it's in the heart of tremendous fish and big-game country, and they have other resources they can depend on. That community has a will to live that will allow it to survive and live. That community has taken advantage of various provincial government programs, rehabilitation and renewal-type programs, and it is a charming alpine community. That is a success story that really belongs to the people of Kimberley, who knew full well that they would have to rely on revenue-generating activities other than mining, which is terminal. So there are other options that can be taken. Kimberley is an example of that type of community.

Many of our communities in the province.... Revelstoke, from its earliest days, has been a boom-and-bust community. It was a boom-and-bust community with mining. When mining picked up, Revelstoke boomed again. It was a railroad town, and during that construction it was dynamic, and then it quieted down. With the 

[ Page 1312 ]

major development of dams, that community strengthened; it then had to downsize again upon the completion of the Mica Creek and Revelstoke dams. That community has made those necessary adjustments. They don't require a paternalistic, Big Brother type of government to help them decide that. I don't think that we can honestly do that; the community itself has to make those decisions.

Stewart, in northern British Columbia, is another community that, since its evolution, has had times of strong economic development -- again, from mining primarily -- and then long periods of bust, which is tough on the people there. They are tremendously strong and resourceful people, and they have hung on and clung to the community with faith and optimism. That community is again alive and well and really booming with the forestry opportunities, with the export of about 15 percent of the logs that come into it; the rest is pulpwood that feeds other coastal pulp mills. The community has taken the bit between its teeth and made major accomplishments.

Our government, the previous government, enhanced that community's opportunity with the power-line extension that went up the highway and then back down to Stewart. That gave them some opportunity, some assistance, but basically the community survives on its own.

What is available when we make the decision that either a community will continue or it will not continue? If it definitely appears that it's a one-industry town, or it may be a company town.... It may be Elkford up in the Fording area. At some point in time -- I don't know when it will be -- the coal reserves will run out in that community.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources said that they will never run out; we have a perpetual resource. Well, that's fine and dandy. I appreciate your confidence.

I'm trying to use it as an example of a community. The people who move there know and understand full well that there is a finite time-period for that town, and at some point they will have to move. I think they understand that completely. But again, because that community is in the heart of some of the most fantastic big-game country in the world, they may have other opportunities there, and they may develop them. But the community has to do that; we can't impose that on them. Nor should we give them crutches that will allow them to excuse themselves from the responsibility of seeing their own community survive. British Columbia has succeeded because of the resourcefulness, the innovativeness and the work ethic of British Columbians, and I think that's what has to be encouraged.

If we decide, for example, that the community has a future, then what resources are available? Some members have said that the previous administration did absolutely nothing. Well, in the B.C. Guide there are a number of services that are available from the hon. minister's ministry. It's very comprehensive. There are pages on it: strategic services and communications, economic development division, industrial development branch, technology and communications branch, primary industries branch, major projects review process, Queen Charlotte Islands economic development initiative, Shipbuilding Action Group, planning and research unit, library services, the collection of market feasibility studies. There's a tremendous inventory of resource material for communities, individuals and small business: a businesswomen's advocate in that particular ministry, business development division, small business development branch, business development and investment branch, student venture loans program. There's the business information centre -- a marvellous bit of technology that allows small communities to have enhanced opportunities so that they can take advantage of market opportunities anywhere in the world equivalent to some of the largest corporations. So there has been a lot of money and time and thought and resources provided so that these communities that can and should survive have the mechanics and tools to survive.

Clearly the intent of the bill is noble, and clearly -- politically, I suppose -- it's a good-news item. But the bill is shallow. It will induce increased taxes. There is no way that this government can cut some ministries by 51 percent and other ministries by 41 percent, and then say in the resource-extraction industries: we're going to take 0.5 percent of revenue and put it in this fund of $25 million. I know, as certainly as God made green apples, that all of the resource industries are going to have to come up with more taxes to fund it. That fund or those taxes in funds will then go into the general revenue fund. Clearly that is the intent of this bill.

The measures proposed in this bill are simply an expensive duplication of goods and services and resource materials that are already available out there. So while no one can dispute the intent, this bill doesn't justify any support at all, because it doesn't do anything that enhances job security. It doesn't strengthen those communities. All of those resources are available through mechanisms throughout the provincial government spectrum, through the federal spectrum and, most importantly of all, through the individuals in those communities who have a strong commitment to their community. With those total resources, I cannot speak in support of the bill. It is shallow. It's simply a political type of initiative, a good-news, publicity type of bill. But it performs no useful function whatsoever; it's merely a duplication of services that already exist.

C. Evans: I rise in support of Bill 11, the Natural Resource Community Fund Act. I'm a little bit disappointed by some of the debate on both sides -- or in a triangular sense.

Interjections.

C. Evans: That's right -- on both sides of this House today, hon. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: What about your side?

[ Page 1313 ]

C. Evans: Including my side, hon. Speaker. I'm a little bit disappointed by members who have stood up from various parties and suggested that some other party in some other era was responsible for the collapse of some mine or some sawmill or some town in the resource sector. It is insulting to the working people, the people who do that work, the people who live in those towns, to suggest that resource towns live and die because of who is government at the time. People who log, fish, mine and farm know that their family interests, their community interests and their business interests rise and fall according to the vagaries of the commodities market worldwide. The mysteries of capitalism are more important to whether the mine survives or not than who is government at the time.

I say that in full knowledge that it's not my party who has been government for very many of the last four decades, but we have to take our share of the responsibility. All politicians do. We guide societies that we literally cannot control, and Bill 11 is a recognition.... It is one of the first times in my life I have heard a government recognize that one of its jobs is to deal with the vagaries of a society and a world market that we cannot ultimately control.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

What does Bill 11 say? It says that we shall take one-half of one percent of resource wealth, and we'll set it aside. We'll set it over here against the day when, because the ore runs out, the timber runs out or the market falls, the community that produced the wealth runs upon hard times. I think this is a wonderful day. I have been arguing since about 1973 that resource wealth should stay where it was generated. To the greatest of our ability, we ought to put stumpage wealth back into the forest to grow more trees; we ought to put mineral wealth back into the communities to diversify the economy; we ought to put hydro wealth into the communities that suffer the flooding.

This bill is starting down the road saying: the people who generated the wealth, the people who in lots of cases were broken or killed in the production of the wealth, the communities that have experienced the rise and the fall of the marketplace, are going to get a little bit. Please don't figure that having one-half of one percent is more than their due. They're going to get one-half of one percent of what we used to throw into general revenue -- and build UBC, build the transit system down here, build these buildings and build the wonderful urban populations of B.C.

[4:45]

That's where the money used to go. Now we're going to get..... Hon. Speaker, and members in all parties, vote for this bill. Vote for this bill if you support those people who did the work that made this place. One-half of one percent. We're going to set it over here. We're not going to take it out for parties; we aren't going to buy musicians or world fairs periodically; we're not going to eat real good on Christmas Eve with this money.

We're going to save it until -- as one of the members said -- somebody somewhere in Chicago or Tokyo, or maybe in Vancouver, Bonn or Brazil, does something to the market or the supply of the commodity that you have grown up with all your life, mining it out of the ground or cutting it off the mountain. All of a sudden -- in spite of the fact that your town is still full of fine people, you're still raising fine kids, the people get up in the morning and they still want to go to work -- you can't.

What we're going to have to fall back on is this tiny chunk of what some members here who maybe haven't had this experience -- maybe they haven't even thought of it this way.... I'm not fighting with you folks; I'm saying: look at it a little differently -- one-half of one percent is not very much to you. Let it go out of general revenue. When it goes into general revenue, it's in the main spent on educational resources, health resources, social services. It is mostly spent where the majority of the population lives. Members from the cities, it isn't even doing you any good for us to send you our broken and our poor. It'll do you a favour if we keep the towns together in the hard times.

I want to go a little farther. I think this minister has done a wonderful thing. I'm going to celebrate this day. I'm going to go home and talk about it. But I want to push the minister, or the government or future governments, and say: let's start from this place. Let's start from this day, when we recognize that maybe we've been doing it wrong, and let's see how the flower blossoms. Let's see if we can't take the wealth out of the forest and put it back in the forest, instead of bringing it down here to the city and then watching the allowable cut fall. Someday let's say that the resource wealth should be used to diversify British Columbia, not subsidize the southwestern corner.

I heard a little criticism here that the $15 million which is starting this fund came out of the privatization budget. One of the members -- it doesn't matter who -- thought that it was maybe inappropriate that we emptied the privatization fund in order to start this fund to support rural communities. Once again, let's put a little analysis to it and not so much rhetoric. Where did they get the privatization fund? They sold the machinery out in the countryside that had belonged to the Ministry of Highways. They took apart the stuff we relied upon for life in the rural areas, brought it down here, and made this pot called the privatization fund.

This great move by this minister is going to take that $15 million and say: let's put it back there -- maybe we can't afford to gather back up all that some confused people did, but, by God, we'll put the money back where the money came from in the first place.

I don't want to stand here too long and bore the folks. We've heard almost all of the arguments, but at the risk of using language we don't use here too often -- like "capital" -- I want people to look up and notice that there's nobody here. We're having this debate with ourselves. I think the reason the public is bored to tears with what passes for debate in this House is the fact that we're all using euphemisms and blaming one another for stuff the working people know is nonsense.

In reality, capital takes working human beings, mines the earth and makes wealth. Wealth accumulates and makes bigger capital. We don't use these words, 

[ Page 1314 ]

because we like to blame one another, and it sounds too much like old-fashioned politics to use words like "class" and "capital." The fact is that no matter what party we're in, we know that's how it works. What government does is mitigate that stuff. It doesn't matter if we're the government or those other folks are the government. We mitigate that stuff.

At this moment in history, we're going to say: if land is capital and people are capital, then let's gather a little bit of it up and give it back to the land and the people. I think it's a great bill. I invite you folks and everybody to vote for it, then start from this day on to say that we're going to build British Columbia back to where it should be.

D. Mitchell: It's a pleasure to rise and speak in second reading debate on Bill 11, the Natural Resource Community Fund Act. It's a special pleasure to rise to speak after the eloquence of the member for Nelson-Creston, who spoke passionately about this bill. It's especially noteworthy that in the debate on this bill, a number of government members have risen to speak. It is a treat in this House, because oftentimes we don't see that. A number of members, especially those on the government side, have risen to speak in this debate.

I must caution the minister, though. I think he's being lobbied by members of the House for funds from the new slush fund that's proposed by this bill. I'd like to remind members of the House what this bill tries to do. The bill tries to establish a new fund, a new mechanism, which says that it is intended: "...to provide funding to assist communities that are in large part dependent on a single-resource industry...."

We can all support that. We can all support the notion that communities in our province, wherever they are, that are largely reliant on single industries should require some special attention, because after all, the wealth is created in the heartland of our province, in those communities where the resource industries have developed and built up the province as we know it today. The notion that those communities should have returned to them some of the wealth that they generate is one that all members of this House can agree with. But we must resist the hyperbole and some of the wild exaggeration that we've seen in this debate today about this bill, because surely this bill is not a panacea.

This bill surely does not provide justice to all of the injustices that have occurred throughout the history of our province. This bill surely will not solve all the problems that exist in the economy of British Columbia. This bill modestly suggests that a fund will be established, that the opening balance for the fund will be some $15 million -- which is being transferred from the B.C. Endowment Fund -- and that it's to be augmented by revenue amounting to 0.5 percent of the total revenue that is generated from resource extraction in our province. The fund may be established at anywhere from $15 million to $25 million. That's a sizable fund, but it's certainly not going to solve all of the problems that have been created in the resource industries of our province in the communities that are reliant on them.

Not all of the forest industry workers who are facing a threat to continuity of employment today can count on a fund of this size for training, retraining, relocation or transitional assistance. Not all of the workers in our mining industry today can count on this fund for the assistance that they are going to require to help keep their communities alive, to continue to build their communities and to diversify. That's the prime goal of all of us in this House: we want to see our economy diversify; we want to see our communities less reliant on single industries; we want to see a diversified economic base.

Does this bill achieve this? If we were to listen to and believe some of the comments made in this debate today on second reading of this bill, we might be led to believe that this bill is going to solve all the world's problems. I warn the hon. minister responsible for this bill.... He is certainly being lobbied today for funding to communities, and that's one of the concerns that we must raise with this bill: the discretionary powers of the minister for dispensing these funds. That's one of the flaws with this bill. There are a few flaws with this bill.

Surely, one of the themes of this new government over the six months that it has been in power has been caught up with the evils of patronage and the evils of old-style government that sees the dispensation of funds to friends and insiders. That has been one of the dominant themes of this government since it has been in power. Here we have a fund being established with no guidelines for the impartial, independent allocation of these funds to communities based on need. What we have is the minister, at his discretion, being allowed to dispense funds -- to whom? To communities. To which communities? To individuals and communities. We have no guidelines for this. I'm not suggesting for the moment that this hon. minister would do anything other than his best to ensure that these funds go where they're needed. But how are we to guarantee in the future that another minister, perhaps less impartial, perhaps less independent, might not fall prey to the evils of the past, to old-style patronage? There is no guarantee in this bill. If this bill is to become an act -- to become one of the laws of the land of British Columbia -- then there need to be guidelines and some guarantee that these funds will be distributed in an evenhanded manner. That's not in this bill.

There is, therefore, some hypocrisy here on the part of a government that first brings in a budget that wields a club over the head of communities, individuals and small businesses of British Columbia by clubbing them into the ground with an increased taxation burden that is threatening their very livelihoods. Now they're coming in with a special fund that is going to solve that problem. First they club the communities into the ground, and now they bring in a modest fund that they say is going to cure the problem that they first imposed on those communities. I say that's the height of hypocrisy.

There's another problem with this bill. It's creating another fund. After all, when these members of this government were in opposition, they criticized the previous administration for the array of special funds that were established for various purposes. They criticized them because of the lack of accountability of these funds. They criticized them for fancy bookkeeping, 

[ Page 1315 ]

which all these funds represented. Here we have this new government hypocritically establishing yet another fund, when their own Peat Marwick manifesto suggested that these funds were out of control. The Peat Marwick manifesto suggested that these funds were out of control, and now this government is creating yet another fund.

Yet there is no guarantee that this fund is going to be used for the purposes it says it will -- which are honourable purposes, purposes we can support; and the principle of this bill is certainly supportable. But we have some concerns about how this bill is going to be administered -- how the fund which this bill proposes to establish is going to be administered. For that reason, I think we need to give further consideration to this bill before we can pass it, before we can approve it in principle today.

For that reason, I would like to move an amendment, which I would hope that all members of this House could support. This amendment reads: "That this bill not now be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources."

With those few words, I would like to move that amendment to this bill.

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: It is a privilege for me to rise and support the amendment from the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I note with interest that the government members of the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources are the member for Nelson-Creston, the member for Prince George North, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, the member for Yale-Lillooet, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, and the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke. It is interesting to note that almost all availed themselves of the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. I would remind the members on both sides of the House that if the standing committee had more say over how these funds were dispensed, every one of the members of the House who spoke in favour of the bill would have some direct input into how the funds were spent and which communities directly benefit.

I think that the amendment by the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is a brilliant piece of legislative suggestion, and I believe the amendment deserves the support of every member of this House, including those who spoke in favour of the bill on the other side of the House.

[5:00]

V. Anderson: I've been very interested in the presentations today and the persons who are concerned about the development of the community. Again, we are in support of the principle of the bill of aiding those people who are in greatest difficulty. It seems to me, though, that we're dealing with the items after the fact when we should be involved in trying to prevent some of those difficulties and giving support much earlier to the communities in difficulty, so that perhaps they will not have to relocate and will be able to take part as a community.

Therefore I support the amendment, because it gives us an opportunity to re-examine the implications of this particular bill. It seems to me that when a mining or one-industry resource town is being developed, at the very beginning of that development there should be a recognition that there may be a time-limit on the community, and the planning for the community and for the people who live in that community should take that into account in the first year that they're in their community -- not in the last year when it's too late to do anything about it -- so that the community can be built over a period of time to survive that dramatic case, if it should come, and so that the development of the community takes into account the transition of the community into some other base of economic existence than the one that originally brought it into being.

I also believe that in the development of the community, the resource industry -- the mine or the forest industry; whichever it may be -- should put money into the community directly during the time it's there, to ensure the future. They shouldn't just take money out of the community without putting money into it. It shouldn't be coming just through the tax base; it should be coming through a joint operation of the resource industry -- the mine -- and the people, doing this planning from the very beginning.

When they begin to do this kind of creative planning, a variety of options come to mind. One of them might be that out of this fund, for instance, after it has come up to $25 million with the extra money that's coming in, some of that money might go back into the community. Some of that extra money which is there for insurance could go into the community and be a base for the very development we're talking about, by the mine, the company and the people. Over time, they could build the new resources they have in mind. They would then have the base for the community to be able to continue to exist, even if that particular resource were to go from their midst.

The other thing is that in this kind of resource community, the hurt does not come just at the end; the hurt comes during the life of the community, when young people who cannot find a job in that particular resource are forced to move but have no place to go. So there need to be opportunities for them in that undertaking.

Having this re-examined in the way that our amendment suggests means that we can go back and get some creative suggestions, some creative opportunities that don't just look at the end of the road, when it's too late to do anything, but examine it at the beginning, so that we work over that period. As speakers on all sides of the House today have acknowledged, it almost goes without saying that this kind of community is time-limited if it's based on only one resource. Since we know that, why don't we build at the very beginning a way to deal with that and to have the resource be a part of the building plan over that period, so that the people of the community can have the control and the say and the development in their own way?

[ Page 1316 ]

I think there are creative ways to deal with it which could not only be helpful to new resource communities that may come into being but also be helpful at this very moment to resource communities that are threatened and uncertain about their future, and where people are in dire hardship. Even if the resource is going to continue for another ten or 20 years, now is when they need help, assistance and support; and now is when the government could give them that support, if it is really interested.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I'm interested in the title of the bill: Natural Resource Community Fund Act. The purpose of the bill is "natural resource discontinuance of community fund act." The purpose of the bill is to discontinue the community, move the people away, put them into other places and give them other opportunities -- exactly as is happening in Cassiar -- rather than having been there early and built the community so it could have continued, so it could have adapted and been given the opportunity.... That is the kind of supportive role that I believe we need to give to the community.

By referring this, so that it could be studied by the committee.... These positive opportunities can not only improve the principle which was undertaken in the presentation of the bill, but can take it further and give far more meaningful opportunities to the communities we're concerned about, which have been named again and again today by people on all sides of the House. We know the communities. Those communities can use the help now, not five, ten or 20 years down the road when it's too late.

Hon. G. Clark: I have to rise to speak against this motion to refer this bill to a committee. I have to say that I am frankly appalled, and I think British Columbians should be appalled by the behaviour of the Liberal opposition on this question.

This is a good-news bill in the midst of very difficult times. This sets the significant precedent of putting aside 0.5 percent of natural resource revenue to deal with hard-hit communities in British Columbia that deserve our attention and our action.

Frankly, I cannot believe that I'm hearing from the opposition that we should delay the implementation of this bill and that it should go to study. This Liberal leader said that the opposition would be constructive, that there would be some difference in this opposition from the past. He stands and has the gall -- the gall of the Liberal Party -- to refer even this piece of legislation, which deals with a very serious issue in British Columbia, for study. I think it is preposterous.

Anybody watching this would be appalled by the behaviour of the Liberal Party, which did not have the grace or the courage to stand up in this House and applaud this administration for this kind of legislation. It is good-news legislation that sets a precedent that exists in other provinces and that is long overdue in British Columbia. I think people should see through it for what it is, which is just cheap gamesmanship -- cheap, inexperienced stupidity on the part of the opposition. We have seen....

J. Tyabji: On a point of order, I'd like to say that if the hon. minister is referring to us in terms of stupidity, I don't think that's parliamentary language. I don't think it's acceptable to the House for the Minister of Finance to be referring to the opposition in terms of stupidity.

The Speaker: I'm sure the hon. minister would like to withdraw those words or rephrase the sentence to avoid language that may be offensive.

Hon. G. Clark: I withdraw any concern that I might have cast aspersions on the intellectual abilities of the members opposite. But their actions are stupid. That is parliamentary, and it's quite appropriate to say that. I certainly don't withdraw that. The actions of the Liberal Party today demonstrate not just naivety, not just incompetence, not just inexperience, but outright stupidity.

It seems to me that we like and should have good debate and opposition from the members opposite on matters of substance and of controversy -- and we have them and we're delighted to have that debate. On this bill, which is a modest attempt to try to deal with serious problems in natural resource communities in this province, which tries to deal with redirecting some of the limited and scarce revenue and to bridge the gap between the variety of federal and provincial programs, I cannot believe that they simply cannot find the time not only to support that initiative but to laud the government.

By all means criticize us for it not being enough. By all means say we should be spending more money in these areas, and we may well agree with that. But to stand up there in all seriousness and say that this should be referred to a committee or hoisted or killed or debated at length, for such an important and obviously needed initiative in British Columbia, simply demonstrates appalling behaviour on the part of the official opposition. In fact, I can't think, even in this limited session, even with my disagreement with the members opposite and the remarks on a variety of bills.... This simply infuriates me and I think demonstrates more than just inexperience, for which members might have some understanding and have some genuine feeling that it's simply because we're going through a new process here. This is much more serious than that, and I think members and people watching this should be concerned about the level of the opposition and the level to which they will stoop to try to make cheap politics on an important initiative of this government, which demonstrates our commitment to the resource regions of the province.

Frankly, people expected more from the Liberal Party. People expected more from the opposition, given the comments of the Liberal leader during the last election campaign that the opposition would be constructive. This is really contemptible, hon. Speaker. I ask all members -- I ask the Liberal Party -- to simply reconsider their position on this question. I ask the 

[ Page 1317 ]

Social Credit Party to vote against referral. Make your points in debate. Make criticisms of it, but vote in favour of this very needed legislation at this time.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, notwithstanding a rather petulant display from the minister opposite because he hasn't had his own way on this particular issue.... I notice that having done so, the minister does not even wish to hear the remarks of the opposition in defence of the motion, which is indeed a constructive motion.

The official opposition in this House today has not moved this amendment in an attempt for any kind of theatrics or cheap political movement or anything else. What we have indeed attempted to do is take the government upon its own word when it was in opposition and when it formed government that it would effectively use the committee structure of this House to properly and adequately review bills that come before this House, so that we can look at not only the content of the bill but the measure by which that bill can be administered and applied on behalf of the people of British Columbia. And that is what we are doing today.

This government, which has a 51-seat majority, believes that it can introduce bills at will, do what it likes and sit and tolerate debate, fully cognizant of the fact that when the motion is moved their members will troop in in response to the bell and simply pass this bill verbatim without any kind of concern for amendment. Hon. Speaker, what this amendment suggests is that there is a better way to deal with the matter contained in this bill.

Our concern -- and I believe it is a legitimate concern that all British Columbians share -- is that this bill provides another special fund that is available at the discretion of the minister to apply that money without any clear guidance, such as the recommendations that would be put in place governing the application of the money. In fact, it was interesting to hear the comment handed over by the minister to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi when he was speaking: "Pass it. Who knows? You might benefit in your riding." He might, but he might not. What we are concerned about here is the fairness with which the money, that is essentially taken from the tax base, is going to be applied in a consistent manner to look after the interests of all British Columbians.

[5:15]

Hon. Speaker, if this government -- and the somewhat petulant display we have just seen from the Minister of Finance, who isn't going to get his way as quickly and easily as he would like today -- wants to have this bill passed quickly, they will accept the amendment, vote for it, move it to committee to review the potential for amending this bill, bring it back to this House and have it passed with the constructive implementation of ideas and recommendations that are coming from the opposition members on this side of the House.

That's what we meant when we talked about constructive opposition. We did not mean that we were going to be a constructive opposition by simply sitting back and looking at the government's agenda and deciding to give in to the whims of a rather petulant minister opposite, who finds himself unable to deal with the timetable that the opposition is now working with. We said that we wanted to review the content of every bill dealing with the moneys that the people of this province have to provide for this government, so we could form the very best possible way of disbursing those moneys for the people of British Columbia.

To suggest that the members of the Liberal opposition in this province are not concerned with those people who face serious economic crises in the single-industry resource towns of this province is ridiculous. I mentioned in my contribution to the initial debate that I come from a community -- Powell River -- which is affected because it is a single-industry town.

But I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that $15 million or $25 million is not the panacea this government pretends it is going to be. It is nothing more than a discretionary pool of money that a government minister can once again administer to the ridings that he selects on the basis of his criteria. I thought those days ended when, on October 17, we got rid of the former government that did exactly the same thing.

We advance this amendment because we believe in the committee structure. There can be a sensible, honest approach to looking at the good parts of this bill, amending those parts so that we can have a fair and proper application of funds and recognizing that we do not wish in this province to create all kinds of funds, which this government's own independent review by Peat Marwick said was an inadvisable and not sensible way to deal with it. In amending this bill, we want to find a mechanism whereby we can ensure, as the member for Vancouver-Langara said, that the bill entitled Natural Resource Community Fund Act is indeed a fund that will be used within the community, prior to those communities suffering and facing the kind of financial calamities that so many are.

Hon. Speaker, I take great exception to the Minister of Finance, who was not part of this debate and who did not take the time to sit in to listen and to scrutinize all the comments by members opposite and even members of his own party. When there was an amendment proposed, he found that this was going to disrupt his timetable, and he came in in a bit of a temper fit and provided a petulant display of anger that his agenda is going to be disrupted because this opposition wants to make sure that the committee structure of this Legislature is put to work, so that we can find a proper, better and more adequate way of dealing with the kinds of concepts that this bill tries to address.

The Liberal opposition in this province is not opposed to trying to assist members in single-industry towns and resource-based communities of the province. But the Liberal opposition is opposed to allowing more tax money to go into special funds that are used at the discretion of ministers, because that perpetuates the kind of poor economic planning and strategy that we saw over the last ten years in this province. We find it absolutely contemptible that this government, having spoken out against these special funds, now expects to introduce their own set of special funds and get by without a whisper of opposition from the Liberal Party. 

[ Page 1318 ]

which wishes to try and amend and change the way that we do government in the province.

If this government wants to move this bill quickly, there is a way to do so. The way to do so is to pass the amendment to refer it to committee, to get in place the kinds of sensible amendments that we are proposing. Bring this bill back, and we will be happy to move it forward with our full support and endorsement.

F. Garden: I rise to oppose the amendment to refer. Like the previous speaker from the government side, I am appalled at the strategies being shown in this House by the opposition. I've sat through the debate patiently waiting for my chance to speak, trying to catch the Speaker's eye over a period of time. I have a few things I want to say on the amendment, and I might as well say them now, because once we get into our little political chicanery, we might never get another chance to say it.

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition standing up and saying he comes from a resource community that's affected by this. But I defy that same person to take this simple protection, which may have to be used in the future, to Powell River and say to the 400 or 500 people who have lost their jobs over the last number of years: "We don't need this kind of legislation." I defy him to go into Quesnel, Williams Lake, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Fort Nelson or Terrace and say to the people in those resource towns: "You don't need this kind of legislation, and we're going to delay."

We've waited 40 years for this type of legislation. During that time.... I was involved in this in Powell River. I was one of the people who was "downsized." I had a couple of young kids and would have been glad of something like this, so that I could have said: "Where can I go for training? Where can I get the money to relocate?" While all of this has been going on, the Leader of the Opposition has been mute. He has not made any kind of criticism of the type of layoffs that have occurred in Powell River and other parts of this province. He should be ashamed of himself. He should ashamed to stand up there as leader of a responsible opposition party and say that we don't need this kind of legislation.

It's legislation that I hope none of these members will ever have to see implemented in their communities. But there have been communities, including that of the Leader of the Opposition, which have been faced with this. They're needing this kind of legislation. Mayors and chairmen of regional districts all over the north are looking for this type of legislation.

I applaud the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade for making sure that it's tied to his ministry, because his plans for regional development won't only encourage industry in this province, but will put in a bit of protection just in case we get into some of the cyclical stuff that we know exists in industries. To stand in this House and say, hypocritically, let's put this off for six months to play political games, is absolutely ridiculous.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

F. Garden: I heard somebody stand up and say that this is warm and fluffy legislation. I would suggest that before you start talking like that, you'd better walk in somebody else's moccasins. I've been there. I've been in one of these resource towns with a young family and been laid off and had the sickening feeling, like many right now, wondering what's going to happen to them because of the economy: where do we go from here? It's easy when you're fluttering around the lower mainland, but you try relocating from Fort Nelson and the mind-boggling things that a family has to be faced with in doing things like that. They have to uproot their kids from the school. They've probably got no training. Where do they go for training with no money? They go on unemployment or welfare.

We're suggesting this is progressive legislation. It's 40 years too late, and the delaying tactics of the Liberal opposition are shameful. We should vote against this amendment right now.

J. Tyabji: The committee concept is being missed in this debate in terms of those who are opposed to the amendment. First of all, the reason we want it referred to a committee, which is a very different committee from this committee, is so that there can be constructive input from the opposition. We have some very good ideas as to how this bill must be amended in order to be effective. I would say to the member who was speaking previously: why would we refer it to a committee if we were opposed to it? We're in favour of the intent of the bill, but we find that there's just not enough in here.

Some of the things that the Minister of Finance was saying are totally irrelevant to what we're trying to propose in this amendment. We are a thoughtful and cautious opposition. We believe the intent of the bill is correct. However, the Minister of Finance was talking about incompetence and vagueness of direction. If you want to talk about incompetence, the intention is good, guys, but you need some more practice. That's basically what we're saying. We can help you with this. We've got a lot of offers; we have a lot of things that we can suggest. There's just not enough here.

The Minister of Finance was talking about a good-news bill. Is it good news to say that you're expecting communities to fail, and therefore you're putting $25 million aside? In this economy do you want to hand out money? Is it good news that you're ready to print cheques for any communities that are failing? The Minister of Finance talked about the courage to present this bill. Is he talking about the courage to hand out money?

As far as I'm concerned, if you had any initiatives in this bill that were more than a stopgap measure, we'd be in favour of supporting it as it is. It's just not ready yet. You rushed to table the bill so that you could say to the communities who were worried: "Look. We've got this stopgap slush fund." You rushed into it too quickly, and you didn't put enough meat into the bill. The thing that is missing is that there's no plan, no long-term strategy. All you've got right here is some money set aside.

Anyone can set aside money in case of emergencies. It's a great idea. But let's figure out what kinds of 

[ Page 1319 ]

emergencies are coming. Let's figure out what kinds of emergencies we can anticipate. If we're anticipating these emergencies, then we say: "Here's money set aside. It's a contingency fund going to another point." This is just.... You hand out the cheques; the money is gone. It's finished. There's nothing left. Once the kitty is empty, then what do you do? What about secondary industry? What about diversification of the economy? What about some kind of research and development?

The worry that we have on this side is that all of this....

An Hon. Member: What about accountability?

J. Tyabji: We'll get to the accountability later.

All of this is in keeping with the kind of agenda that we're seeing coming out of the government. We see things like no land use strategy in place, which is one reason why some of the industries are in trouble in the first place.

That brings us to this bill. This bill is not going to be addressing how we get to tomorrow in a responsible manner. All it does is say: "Here's some money. We'll give you a cheque if you lose your job." That's not a good way to do things. We want to see what direction the government is planning to go in.

[5:30]

This bill is just one part. Where is the land use strategy? In these economic times, if you want to put $25 million into something, how about some job creation? We had a budget where all the money was put into things like this. The safety net was taken care of, but what about the things that prevent people from needing a safety net in the first place?

Talking about the whole debate here, we had a Minister of Finance who walked in, wasn't participating in the debate, gave us some rhetoric and walked out again. He isn't participating in this part of the debate, and I think we have to look very seriously at things going to a committee so we can actually put some meat into this bill.

As my hon. leader said earlier, there's no administrative guidance in this bill; there's nothing cut and dried. I mean, anyone should feel nervous. If you operated your personal finances in this way, where you put money into a bank account and gave signing authority to anybody, or you said, "Oh well, anybody can draw the money from this, and it doesn't matter what it goes to," I think you would be a little bit worried.

The minister is going to have spending authority. We could end up with some kind of riding-wide patronage fund. Look at some of the examples we've had in the past of people being very nervous and cynical about how the government is spending money; here's a good example of why people should be cynical. There's no accountability in this bill; there's nothing in it. The bill is not ready to be passed into legislation. You talk about a rookie opposition; we have a rookie government as well. We're trying to help the rookie government with some good ideas as to how they can be accountable, how they can put something more thoughtful into this bill. We agree with the principle of the bill, but there's just not enough direction, hon. Speaker.

For the government to be suggesting that we're being irresponsible in trying to put accountability into a bill that has $25 million set aside is ludicrous, because any responsible opposition who allowed this bill to go ahead without accountability and pass into legislation, without at least voicing opposition to it.... In my view, we would not be doing our job if we weren't saying: where is the accountability? Where is the rest of the bill? You've got a good start, but where's the rest of the bill? Where's the part that tells us what we're going to do when the community dies and you hand out the money? Then what? Are you just going to relocate everybody? Where are they going to go? What are you going to do the next day?

Really, hon. Speaker, what we should be doing in this Legislature is trying to get an economic development strategy in place that this bill is just one part of. It's kind of disturbing that this bill has come under the Economic Development portfolio. Well, it's not economic development. It's a slush fund; it's a safety net. It is obviously in the wrong portfolio.

There are all these suggestions that we could be making to the government at the committee level, and that's what we as a responsible opposition are putting to the government. Let's work together on this. You've got a good start here. It's not finished yet. We'll help you finish it, and we'll pass it quickly.

L. Fox: I find myself in a very strange dilemma. I rise to speak against the amendment. While I hear the arguments that the official opposition is making -- and I respect the intent of those arguments -- at the same time I would like to see this bill put through to the committee stage where we can actually achieve some of the answers to our questions, and perhaps through that debate deal with some of the very important issues that are out there in all the rural communities throughout this province. I believe there are very few communities that will escape the intent of what this bill has been put forward for. For that reason, I would respectfully suggest that the members of this House should reject the intent of the amendment and get on to the committee stage, where we can deal with the particulars of this bill.

The Speaker: Do I have any further speakers on the amendment?

I will read the amendment for the members. The amendment is a motion that this bill not now be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 1320 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is defeated. We are now back on the main motion, which is second reading of Bill 11.

A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, we are disappointed that the amendment was defeated. We would have preferred that it go to a special standing committee, where we could address our concerns. We support the bill in principle, and when the bill goes to committee, the official opposition will be very pleased to put forward their support of the bill and deal with their specific concerns.

J. Weisgerber: Speaking to the bill, I want to reinforce a couple of points that our party and my colleagues have made. I think it's important to recognize that the government has been critical of the establishment of special funds. They've used the Peat Marwick report to criticize a number of special funds that were established by the previous government. Now we find ourselves -- almost immediately after Peat Marwick -- setting up another special dedicated fund. We must have a great deal of concern -- and we do have grave concern -- over this bill and the establishment of a special fund.

It's important to understand that the motives I assume the government would attribute for this fund would probably be very much the same motives that the previous government had, when it created a whole range of special funds. There's a real contradiction here between what the government preaches and what it practises, and I think the government has to recognize that fact.

[5:45]

The other point that was made very well by my colleague from Okanagan West is that the purpose of this bill appears to be to provide a service through the fund that is available through various ministries already. We're not talking about a new service for resource-based communities that doesn't already exist. So what have here, it appears, is a bill that brings together some funds and uses some funds that were created by the previous government, to provide a service that is already being provided and has been provided over time by the previous government. I think that's something that has to be recognized.

But most importantly, I'm concerned that the focus of the government appears to be on addressing the wind-down of industries -- particularly resource-based industries -- in communities that depend on those industries. At the same time, you have a government which has imposed a capital tax that this year will take out of industry -- particularly out of resource-based industries -- $225 million, which will make the future of borderline resource-based industries more precarious. They're taxing the industries that support these communities, and at the same time have indicated that they're going to take some more revenue from these hard-pressed companies to establish a fund to help the community when they eventually fold. It seems like a rather bizarre way of dealing with an issue that the government is doing a great deal to contribute toward. The government is putting in place some solutions to problems which it itself creates. I would encourage the government, instead of addressing the winding-down of resource-based communities, to in fact focus their energies and their attention and their money on supporting the industries, keeping them going and keeping the communities vibrant. That would be a far more useful exercise for the funds the government intends to allocate to this bill and to this fund.

While I didn't feel the solution to this problem was to refer it to a committee, I must say that I have a great deal of difficulty with the purpose of this bill and the establishment of the fund, and I will join at least some of my colleagues in voting against this bill.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister for Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, who will close debate.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I hope the opposition has got their ranting out of the way now so that we can close quietly on this. If they want to rant, yes, at committee stage is a good time. We think this bill is so important that it should be discussed by the Whole House, and in committee there's ample opportunity.

A number of people on the other side have suggested that we're creating a special fund that has too much discretion in it. Well, a lot of programs have a certain amount of responsibility attributed to ministers -- and ministers have to spend the money and are accountable for it, and special accounts will come before the committee.

Others have suggested that with this bill we are supposed to bring in an industrial strategy or a whole economic strategy. You're asking the bill to do too much. This is a very simple mechanism that is designed for a special purpose. In fact, the whole apparatus of government deals with encouraging and supporting industries in communities. What happens here -- we've found this in the experience of Cassiar -- is that the mechanisms aren't there to plan when you need to. When you have a crisis or you know there's going to be a crisis, you need to have some way to provide money up front so that the communities themselves can provide the plan for an easy transition.

It has some flexibility. If it wasn't flexible, you'd be standing up there and saying that it's too rigid. 

[ Page 1321 ]

Guidelines will be developed by government, and policy will be there. Next year, when we debate estimates, and you can look at the record.... Shake your head if you want. But support the communities out there. Say to them: "We think we'll stand with you." We're putting some real money here. It's not creating more taxes. It's going into a real fund. It takes existing taxes, that are paid anyway, from general revenue and puts them into a specific purpose.

W. Hurd: At your discretion.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At whose discretion should it be? Yours? They sure wouldn't trust you after listening to you complain today, you who don't understand the procedure....

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Through the Chair to the opposite side.

It's just about time that we passed this bill so we can get on with the clause-by-clause debate, which I look forward to.

I have to remind you that the Leader of the Opposition was completely out of line expecting that this bill would create an economic strategy for B.C., and that everything from my ministry would be rolled into this one bill. This is very simple to understand; it's only a few pages long. If you concentrate really hard on the simple purpose, we can pass this expeditiously through the Whole House. It would be a signal to rural British Columbia that we care.

We have put real money here for those communities that are in real need, and those communities themselves will help to define whether or not there is a crisis in their community. They have to be ready. We aren't going to impose a plan on them if they aren't ready. If you want some decentralization of power there, we've given it. We've said that the opportunity is there for the communities to come forward. We've also said that this is not going to solve all the problems, and we don't intend it to. We've got all the other ministries that are working on programs. My own ministry, as the member for Okanagan West said, has lots of programs to work on -- industrial diversification, economic diversification -- and we do that.

In the debate you will be able to debate the strategy that we have in place. But I need to remind people that a simple act like this, designed for communities in crisis, cannot deal with all the planning problems that they have in restructuring the economy. They are far too complex, and there wouldn't be enough money in here to deal with it. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars putting together the planning for the economy of the province.

This is a small act with a discrete purpose. I don't know why you're upset about it. It's a good piece of legislation. I think you have to understand that it's very much needed, and it's very well designed for the purpose. We can go clause by clause.

I would like at this point to move second reading of Bill 11.

[6:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 11, Natural Resource Community Fund Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada