1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1993
Morning Sitting
[ Page 4935 ]
Volume 8, Number 12
The House met At 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
BUDGET DEBATE
(continued)
E. Barnes: Once again, I'm very pleased to take my place in this debate. I'm sure that when I have an opportunity later on to get into some of the details that I find quite exciting -- and certainly inspirational for the citizens of British Columbia -- I will be doing so. But for the present time I understand that it is appropriate for me to ask adjournment of the debate until later today.
Motion approved.
HON. M. SIHOTA: I'm impressed by all the red bow ties that I see on the other side today. I don't know if it's got anything to do with April 1, or what the Liberals are up to. In any event, I call second reading of Bill 2.
JOB PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Bill 2 is necessary to extend the Job Protection Act and the Job Protection Commission beyond April 12, 1993. The Job Protection Act was brought into force in April 1991 with a two-year sunset provision. Without amendment to this sunset provision, the Job Protection Act will automatically be repealed on April 12.
Unfortunately, the important work of the Job Protection Commission is not yet finished. This act was enacted to help reduce job losses, particularly in resource-based communities. The act creates the office of the job protection commissioner and empowers the commissioner to provide counselling to businesses in trouble and to mediate plans for reducing the impact of plant closures.
The Job Protection Act also provides a mechanism that encourages all the stakeholders in a restructuring -- including the employees, shareholders, financial institutions and provincial agencies -- to participate in economic plans to avoid closure of firms in strategic industries. Although there are encouraging signs of recovery in some areas of the B.C. economy, the effects of the recession continue to seriously impact many B.C. communities, and the commission continues to work on many important projects.
To date, the work of the Job Protection Commission has been vital in protecting the jobs and paycheques of thousands of British Columbians. I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members about the commission's activities over the past two years. It has received over 470 inquiries from businesses and communities affected by the recession. It has taken on 78 cases requiring assistance, involving more than 12,000 jobs. It has developed 31 economic and mediation plans, which have saved 2,700 jobs. It has provided counselling services to 23 firms involving 2,100 jobs. Additionally, the commission has worked on 24 special community projects, including those at Pemberton and Port Alberni. It is of particular relevance to this bill that the commission's work is still in progress. The commission is actively responding to 22 inquiries and is developing seven economic and mediation plans involving a total of 1,800 jobs. The commission is also working on four special community projects involving over 5,000 jobs, including those in Trail and in the Elk Valley.
I'd like to provide some details. I announced today that the special commissioner in the Elk Valley, Mr. Ken Neilson, is working closely with the business community. He and three business analysts from my department are stationed in the Elk Valley, and they have received over 48 applications under the small business initiative that we launched there. Of those 48 applications, some 16 have passed the approval process. I've signed off 11 loan guarantees and expect to sign off another five in the days coming up -- as soon as the final typing is finished on that. We're really pleased that we were able to respond to a community that had secondary problems in addition to the ones in the primary industry. We have gone in there and worked with businesses that are viable in the long run and that were pleased that we had a tailor-made program that fits the needs.
I'd also like to point out the rapidity with which people in the Job Protection Commission can act. During the briefing we provided to the opposition as part of our open-government style -- we like the opposition to be well-briefed -- the question came up about why it takes so long. The case was raised by the member for Surrey-White Rock; he asked about Little Valley Forest Products in Hagensborg. Just to show you what's happened there, between January 19 and January 27 all stakeholders signed off an economic plan, and the next day moneys flowed through Rainmaker Ventures -- a venture capital corporation -- in accordance with the plan. So it happened within a day or two.
Little Valley made some necessary repairs to the mill in the month of February, secured some inventory, the MOF stumpage deferrals began, cheques were forwarded to Revenue Canada, and in March Little Valley began custom cutting with C&C Wood Products. So there's a plan in effect, and within a very short period of time, some of these businesses do get up and running.
The passage of this bill will ensure that the commission's important work can continue for a further two-year period by extending the sunset date to April 12, 1995. The bill also extends and strengthens some related Forest Act sections. The Job Protection Act originally enacted several consequential amendments to the Forest Act. The additional Forest Act provisions assist the Job Protection Commission in developing more effective economic plans for wood processing firms.
Also, in situations involving mill closures or decreases in production, they allow the Minister of Forests to reclaim timber harvesting rights. This is enabling legislation which would only be used in circumstances where the social and economic interests of a community
[ Page 4936 ]
are threatened and where some measure by the government is clearly in the best public interest. We are emphasizing community stability when we approach restructuring plans, and that's why this is an absolutely essential component of the Job Protection Act.
Some of the sections contain the two-year sunset provisions, while others are permanently established to make important job-saving tools available on an ongoing basis.
This bill improves the legal certainty and effectiveness of some of the Forest Act sections. It doesn't change the principle; it changes the effectiveness. My colleague the Minister of Forests is here, and he will be speaking on the debate soon after I sit down.
This bill also confirms the appointment of the job protection commissioner on April 12, 1991, and endorses all the work he's done since his appointment. This is necessary because the previous government neglected to pass the official order-in-council, so this legalizes the economic plans that are in effect and reaffirms his appointment, which is made under an order-in-council.
In closing, I hope that all members will support the passage of this bill in advance of the many budget-related matters that we soon have to introduce into the House. Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 2.
[10:15]
C. Serwa: Point of order. The minister indicated that the Minister of Forests would be speaking and expanding on the forestry role prior to our responding.
The Speaker: The Chair can only recognize members who do stand to be recognized. Perhaps the hon. minister can clarify on this point of order.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I clearly remember saying that the Minister of Forests would speak soon after I sat down. I didn't say immediately.
L. Stephens: I'm pleased to stand today during second reading of Bill 2, the Job Protection Amendment Act. The opposition acknowledges the important work of the Job Protection Commission. As the minister said, its key functions are to counsel businesses in trouble, mediate or facilitate plans to prevent or reduce the impact of plant closures and create economic plans which will provide for temporary extraordinary assistance or concessions by governments or utilities.
Since this government came to power, the commission has been kept very busy -- Cassiar and the Elk Valley. Incidentally, I had dinner with the mayor and some council members from the Elk Valley on Tuesday evening, and the story that they have to tell is a very different one from the one the Minister of Economic Development has put to us. There are major problems in the Elk Valley with unemployment, and the Ministry of Economic Development has thus far not been as helpful as many of the citizens of the area would like.
Trail is also a very good example of this government's inability to deal with the resource issues of the economy in the regions of the province. Many of the communities outside the lower mainland are completely dependent upon resources for their economic and social well-being.
Government members who were in opposition like to castigate the government of the day for their inability to diversify the economy of those communities. But as the Leader of the Third Party likes to say, now you are driving the bus. This is true. Can this government keep us all out of the ditches? Only time will tell.
The Forests minister and the Minister of Economic Development both stated that this bill is enabling legislation which will be used only where the social and economic interests of a community are threatened and where some measure by government is clearly in the best public interest. The ministers say, "Trust us," but after the budget of only two days ago, it is going to take a quantum leap for the people of British Columbia to trust either of these ministers. Is it possible that this legislation will simply become another tool to let the Minister of Forests expropriate or repossess timber without compensation?
Hon. Speaker, we are into the second year of an NDP administration, and at no time have we seen any economic plan whatsoever. All we've seen is higher taxes and more government spending. Another sad truth is that the indecision and dithering of this government regarding land use and environment plus the unpredictable AAC reductions have made it virtually impossible for resource companies to do any long-term planning. We do not need initiatives to protect the single-industry communities in this province. We think that, on a broad basis, it should be through a comprehensive growth and strategic plan that removes the dependencies these communities have.
We now have a bill before us that opens the door for pork-barrel politics. They have clearly demonstrated that they're prepared to play political games with the allocation of forest resources in this province. The Forests minister, with this bill, can award Crown timber on a variety of licences -- now to be called agreements -- without competition or public hearings. I suggest that this element of the bill in the hands of this government is extremely dangerous. The government is asking for a blank cheque and, as I said before, is simply opening the door for pork-barrel politics -- the NDP version we saw last year, with all the imports from other provinces, failed candidates, friends and insiders.
The long-term solution is to recognize that we need to put in place an economic plan to keep forest industries alive at a critical time. These new discretionary powers of the Minister of Forests further undermine the stability of the industry. I look forward to dealing more specifically with some sections of the bill in committee, particularly those dealing with the Forest Act.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Forests is going to deal with some of the misconceptions about exactly what this legislation proposes as far as the forest industry is concerned. In the few minutes that I have here, I want to respond and to make very clear the kind of impact that the job protection commissioner has had in the province.
[ Page 4937 ]
When the original legislation to establish the position of job protection commissioner was brought forward, we in opposition supported it. Despite the fact that we thought there could be a few improvements -- as we usually did, being in opposition -- we could see that it was good legislation. We needed someone with this kind of a mandate to work in B.C. communities that had difficulties and needed the individual hand of someone who could actually be a fixer, if you like; someone who could talk to the people and see what needed to be done, who could do what needed to be done, who could talk to government and respond as quickly as possible, far more quickly than the normal government machine is able to respond.
I would also like to say as firmly and strongly as I can that I believe the current commissioner was an excellent choice, so what I say is certainly coloured by the fact that he has done such good work in this province. In a broad sense I think the legislation is good, the position is good and other people could do it, but I must say that the current holder of the position has been excellent.
I want to talk for a minute about the Elk Valley, because that's where I'm most familiar with the work that the job protection commissioner has done. I might remind members opposite that he went into the Elk Valley more than a year ago to look at a situation that was just then developing. We knew there was a problem. Mr. Marshall had already referred to it. Everybody was telling us that a problem was coming up in the Elk Valley, and the job protection commissioner went in. He saw the problems that were about to overwhelm what was going on in parts of the coal industry there, and he made a report, which of course was too late to save that company. Nevertheless, he was able to identify some of the problems and where we could take action that would be useful.
I believe that the job protection commissioner had a significant impact on the course of events in the Elk Valley. Because of his work we were able to work with groups of people who were already focused on the issue. People were able to look at the problems that could be solved. They had already looked at the possibility of solution on their part. They had looked at what the stakeholders -- and I use that term very advisedly; it's a good healthy term in the mining industry -- could do together, and what kind of solutions they could reach. Because the job protection commissioner had been there first, everyone was looking there before the actual eruption occurred, if you like. So I would say that had there been any chance of saving the industry, it would have been helped significantly by the activities of the job protection commissioner. Since that wasn't possible, I believe his activities helped us all to move forward to the sale of two mines to new owners. Basically, what he was able to do was contribute significantly to the ultimate resolution of what went on in the Elk Valley.
That wasn't the end of what the job protection commissioner did. He came in after that and established an Elk Valley small business initiative. I was very proud to participate yesterday in a press announcement of 11 businesses in the Elk Valley who have received provincial government loan guarantees.
This is not the only thing that's happening in the Elk Valley. We have an industrial adjustment process going on there with communities and so on. But the job protection commissioner was able to come in around that and help the small business sector, which doesn't have these kinds of mechanisms that help when a large industry goes down with a large number of employees. Those are the people that we normally look to first, which doesn't mean that the small businesses aren't affected; they are affected. The job protection commissioner sent someone in there to look at it. We already have 11 businesses that have received approval of their loan guarantees, and there are at least 48 more who have applied for assistance either in counselling or in loan guarantees. So there is a major impact on the Elk Valley, a valley that is suffering significantly because of industrial restructuring.
I cannot say too strongly how much I support the bill and the continued activities of a job protection commissioner. British Columbia is a province that does depend and will continue to depend on its basic resources, and will have towns, small villages and other communities that depend largely on those resources that have a cyclical nature.
A. Warnke: We can take turns, and I'm sure the Minister of Forests is in a pretty good position to provide a critique of some of the remarks that I want to make concerning Bill 2.
There are a number of aspects, as pointed out by my colleague the member for Langley, that we will want to take up in committee and, I suppose, take up in a context in which we might want to provide amendments. But generally speaking -- and I will not belabour the House too long on some of the remarks that I have to make here -- I think it is fair that I and my colleagues on this side of the House share with the Minister of Economic Development the recognition that to protect paycheques in this province, in this industry and, indeed, in all parts of British Columbia where paycheques are dependent on single industries.... Located throughout this province and, indeed, throughout this country, one-industry towns are especially subject to problems of closure. Certainly, therefore, what is needed is an adequate response to the impact of closures and so forth.
So in this context the bill that was originally introduced wanted to address those particular problems, and, as was pointed out by the Minister of Energy and Mines, all sides of the House then wanted to respond to these kinds of problems that are acute to Canadians. We on this side, during these times, are equally concerned.
On the other hand, hon. Speaker, the bill is not simply an extension of the sunset provision to 1995. Indeed, when one examines this in closer detail, we may argue that it is the beginning of a whole new approach to the forest industry generally. One thing that I picked up in listening to the Minister of Energy and Mines a moment ago is that there is a recognition of the problem in Elk Valley, on the one hand, but the
[ Page 4938 ]
minister did not substantively describe where the solutions really lie. There was the reference to the job protection commissioner and the outstanding job that that particular commissioner did in response to the Elk Valley situation. But concretely I didn't hear that the commissioner really dealt with the problems of Elk Valley. So in a very general context it leaves an impression that maybe very little was done, and I wonder where the government is going with regard to the problems of Elk Valley and similar communities throughout British Columbia.
And when we take a look at the provisions of altering section 56.01, I begin to reflect on it in a context of combining it with the Schwindt commission report. The Schwindt commission report attempts to undermine the system of forest tenure, which is the foundation of the forest industry. So in this context it appears that when this is changed, and you combine that with the alteration of section 56.01, it will have a major impact on the forest industry. It will have an impact in such a context that perhaps what we will see is the development of new discretionary powers for the ministry.
This is based on the premise, if we're proceeding in that direction, that the ministry, and the government in particular, is in the best position to make all the decisions with regard to the future of the forest industry. But it neglects the problem that investment in British Columbia is already fragile in mining, in forestry and in other areas that affect the one-industry towns and communities of this province.
[10:30]
On a more general level, I would be a little bit more confident had this government really moved in the direction of providing us with some sense of an economic strategy that would address some of the problems facing forestry, mining and other primary and secondary resources in this province. What we have seen instead is the erosion of profit margins, as a result of higher taxes introduced last year. That kind of strategy by this government -- maybe not explicit, but certainly implicit -- really discourages investment.
Surely the way to get some of these communities back on their feet is to encourage investment so that these communities not only grow and prosper -- that's what we want in the last analysis -- but stabilize and ensure that they are ongoing. It's simply good economics to relieve the tension, the problems and the financial pressures that each one of these communities face. Relieve them when they are going through tough times, so they can prosper and grow.
I didn't really get any reassurance from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in a specific, substantive context. Upon reflection on the bill introduced by the Minister of Economic Development, I'm not reassured that this bill is designed simply to extend the sunset provision to 1995. I'm encouraging members to look at this bill in the context of the total legislation introduced by this government. In that context, we on this side have many reservations. However, the Minister of Forests is on the other side of the equation in the discussion of this bill, and I'm awaiting some of the rationale that will be provided by the minister.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll try to be fairly brief, recognizing that the members opposite have indicated that they want to get into some more specific questions in committee. I want to try to provide some level of comfort with respect to the government's intentions in Bill 2. I think my colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade has done a good job of outlining the need to continue the work of the job protection commissioner and thus to have this bill passed in a timely fashion. Given the expiry date of the previous legislation, it's clearly in the interest of all members to pass this legislation, so that there will be continuity in the work of the job protection commissioner. Let's recognize that there are some limits on what government can do, even through this kind of vehicle.
By the way, there is a bit of history to this. It goes back, as I recall, to the critical industries commissioner. A prominent Liberal in this province, Art Phillips, the former mayor of Vancouver, held that position. I'll refer in committee to some of the debate that originally took place in 1991 on this bill and to some of the comments by Mr. Phillips with respect to the bill at that time. Nonetheless, there is clearly a long history of the government recognizing that because of economic times, there is a need to take extraordinary measures to try to protect industries, workers and communities from the ravages of the economic cycle. I assume the opposition agrees that they want to see this kind of work continue. So I don't think we will have a great deal of difficulty in agreeing on that.
The provisions of the Forest Act that were part of the job protection bill in 1991 are being made permanent provisions of the act by this bill. I am, quite frankly, somewhat startled by.... Not as startled as that member over there -- I didn't realize, hon. Speaker, that I had such a powerful effect on that member of the opposition, who almost fell down over there.
As I was saying, the bill simply entrenches as permanent those sections of the Forest Act that were contained in the original bill in 1991. There is one primary section, and that is the one that allows -- under certain defined circumstances -- the Crown to take volume from a licensee and reallocate that volume. As I recall the debates in '91, it was to reallocate it either to entrepreneurs who were prepared to provide jobs and benefits in communities or even to workers' associations that could do the same thing. And there was no significant debate in '91 about those measures being inappropriate. In fact, all parties at the time -- including the Social Credit government of the day and the New Democrat opposition of the day -- agreed with each other that these provisions were necessary. So I am a bit surprised that I seem to detect people saying that they are somehow now inappropriate.
I would like to correct the member for Langley, who talked about expropriating processing facilities. I believe -- and perhaps it was a slip of the tongue -- there is nothing in the bill that remotely suggests that
[ Page 4939 ]
the Crown would have any ability to expropriate processing facilities. So I really would....
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Certainly the member made that statement -- if you check Hansard. It may be that it was a mistake and she might want to reconsider, but it's clearly not part of the bill.
We're entrenching provisions that have been there for the last two years. We have discovered through practice, through discussions with the job protection commissioner.... I would like to second the comments made by the Minister of Energy. On numerous occasions I have worked very closely with the job protection commissioner and his staff on some significant issues in this province that have led to protection being offered to workers and communities. I commend the office of the job protection commissioner for the good work that they've done and look forward to continuing to work with that commissioner and his staff to do what we can.
We're simply entrenching as permanent those provisions of the Forest Act that were introduced in 1991. We've discovered through practice that there are some deficiencies. We're hoping to correct those deficiencies and make it more effective. At the heart of this exercise -- and I want to repeat this -- is the right of the government to exercise some degree of influence when it comes to the resources of this province, under the strictures of the bill, to say to working people and communities in this province: "Under certain circumstances we're going to ensure that the forest resources that you own are going to be used for your benefit." I am somewhat dismayed by suggestions that it is somehow inappropriate for a government to exercise some influence over the people's resources that we collectively own to benefit people. I'm baffled, hon. Speaker.
With respect to the member for Richmond-Steveston, who referred to the Schwindt commission -- perhaps in committee we can have some reasoned debate about this -- I find it somewhat puzzling that one would mention the Schwindt commission with respect to this bill. They have absolutely no connection.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I am quite happy that I can induce such mirth in the opposition this early in the morning. But I'll repeat: they have no connection. Beyond that -- and going to the same point -- I am deeply puzzled why members of the opposition find it inappropriate that the government, which exercises control over these resources on behalf of the owners, the people, would undertake a study to determine what the proper form of compensation is if it is payable. I'm puzzled as to why we wouldn't do that. Are you telling me that if any one of you individually owned a tract of forest land, you would not try to determine on what basis compensation should be payable if it were taken; that you wouldn't exercise that prudence as a private owner? And you say it's inappropriate for the Crown to exercise that kind of prudence? It boggles the mind.
Nonetheless, I think the bill is clear. All the provisions have been debated before. I'm looking forward to that committee stage debate, and I would finally close by saying this: this bill is about giving government some ability to protect workers in communities in this province, and I fully expect the opposition parties will support it enthusiastically.
C. Serwa: This is one of those rewarding, fulfilling mornings, with fun-filled debate. It's a pleasure to listen to the Minister of Forests talk glowingly about the former administration and its wisdom, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources speaking so positively. What we have here is not a placebo; it is not a motherhood issue. What we have here is a sugar-coated, but very bitter pill. That's what's being sold here this morning.
[10:45]
Talking in second reading on the philosophy and principles of this, I completely believed in the Job Protection Act that was brought in. But why and when was it brought in? If the members opposite -- in government now -- recall, there was a worldwide recession. Our resource industry communities were suffering. Whether it was the forest industry or mining, single-industry towns had major problems. The timing of it was such that it was very important that we continue to try, through the government, to allow these one-industry communities to survive. The timing was appropriate; the actions -- as the government members have said -- were entirely appropriate as well. But why are we continuing on? We don't have a worldwide recession. As a matter of fact, the forestry industry is enjoying exceedingly buoyant times.
Hon. D. Miller: Good government.
C. Serwa: Yes, good government. This good government, the socialist government in British Columbia, is the tail wagging the dog of the world, I suppose. What marvellous changes a short time has wrought. The reality, hon. Speaker, is that the timing is incredibly important. The real reason that this motherhood Job Protection Amendment Act, 1993, is being brought forward is the forestry aspect -- and I'll be talking to that shortly, after the very interesting comments of the minister. But fundamentally, we have a recession in this province which has been deepened and lengthened by the government in power. You cannot convince me that the corporate capital tax hasn't dramatically hurt large industries. You can't convince me that the increase in the corporate tax and all of the permits and licensing fees hasn't hurt economic growth and development. We're not recovering as well as we should be recovering.
Just the other day I heard the Minister of Finance talk glowingly about the momentum we had developed that's carrying through and say that we're doing quite well. He indicated that we've had gross domestic product growth in the last year which has exceeded the national average growth, and projected growth this year of 3.5 percent, higher than any other jurisdiction in Canada. And yet we're carrying forward this bill. This
[ Page 4940 ]
government is saying one thing and doing quite another. It's clear that they don't understand what makes the B.C. economy, or any other economy, work. There's no left-wing economics and no right-wing economics; there's simple economics.
Every action that this government has taken was based on anger, envy and greed. We'll get the rich. We'll lift up the poor by pulling down the wealthy, those who have created work, those who have taken risks.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: I'm speaking to the philosophy and principles of the bill, and this is central to the actions of the current government. They have instituted and initiated legislation that has retarded the rebound of the B.C. economy. They have incorporated all sorts of regressive and punitive tax structures that have prevented the rebound, and at the same time they're going to use public funds to shore up some sort of do-gooder image, saying that they care. But do they really? If they really cared, they would acknowledge that the private sector can, if the climate is favourable, create employment opportunities. The only future is to build up a strong economy in the private sector. But no, we're bleeding off the private sector and expanding the public service sector, not only in the expansion of numbers of individuals employed, which takes the lifeblood and energy out of the province's economy....
Interjection.
C. Serwa: The minister indicates that I'm wandering or perhaps straying. But if the public is to be clearly aware of why the Job Protection Act will have to be continued for a period of time, it has to know what caused the need for the extension of the act. I agree that it will have to be carried on, and I will support this particular bill because of the motherhood issue. I say this because I care about the people of the province who have been shortchanged by our government. The reality, though, is that this government is creating a scenario where the amendment and the extension must be enabled and facilitated. That's what I deplore. The government has lost all touch; it never had any comprehensive realization of what it takes to make an economy tick. With this type of governance, the future of B.C. is not as rosy and optimistic or enthusiastic as it could be.
Forestry is where, fundamentally, I have severe problems and reservations. In spite of the protestations of the Minister of Forests, what is clearly evident here is the fine hand of Bob Williams, the author of this aspect of the bill. There was a great deal of adverse reaction by industry to the expropriation compensation act that the government wanted to bring in to expropriate natural resources without any compensation. In spite of what the minister talks about as public ownership, because of the strong market that we have and the levels presently being cut, when things tighten up -- and the forest industry is cyclical, as you well know -- volumes of production will go down, and the Minister of Forests can step in and take annual allowable cut. The responsibilities of the minister have been expanded greatly, and he can take that annual allowable cut.
Yes, there are the motherhood issues of community strength and secondary manufacturing of added-value products -- all of those wonderful things. What did the minister say -- workers' associations; you know, the working people of the province? All of us work in this province. The real reason for this is to build up a pool like they have done with fish and wildlife -- and now with forest resources -- a pool of resource aspects they can trade off with native land claims that they're working on. That's the real intent.
What they are looking for with this bit of legislation -- the sugar-coated pill with a bitter aftertaste -- is to provide the opportunity for the Minister of Forests and the current government to take assets from corporations without any compensation; otherwise, the timing of the introduction of the forest aspect of this would not take place. At this time, because of a strong market, we have the largest volume of timber being cut, and it provides every and ample excuse for that Minister of Forests to expropriate by simply taking away the licence. You will note that there is no sunset clause with that limitation, and that confirms my sincere suspicion. So, while I support the Minister of Economic Development in the job protection amendment, I will speak long and loud in Committee of the Whole and unveil the secret plan of the Minister of Forests.
E. Conroy: I rise to speak in favor of the Job Protection Commission. It's interesting to hear the hon. member for Okanagan West, who seems to be living in the past, speak of the B.C. economy. It appears as though there is no recognition of the dynamics of the twenty-first century. In fact, I think that if this was the age of the dinosaur, the member opposite would have taken the position that we've stabilized the dinosaur die-offs, so there's no reason to look to the future. I think we do have a dinosaur die-off in North America right now, and there is a need to look to the future in an even greater way. I don't think the Job Protection Commission is there simply to supply the material needed to keep the dinosaurs in the province, but also to move into a transitional period, which we all need.
The Job Protection Commission has provided service and balance to many communities in our province. Since it's inception there have been many instances where the Job Protection Commission has been the glue that's held the various components together. Pragmatic solutions have been sought -- and arrived at -- for many serious economic problems. The Job Protection Commission has been allowed to pay for the bulk of these through the contribution of the various people involved; there hasn't been a lot of government money going into this thing.
Not only have we achieved some tremendous results with the Job Protection Commission, we've done it out of the pocketbooks of the people who have been involved in the process. For example, take the first project undertaken by the Job Protection Commission, in Pemberton when the road was blocked. I won't delve into too many of the details fostered by the closure of the Duffey Lake Road, but I will say that the Job
[ Page 4941 ]
Protection Commission, in conjunction with small business and local people, went into that community and really worked wonders. The project by the Job Protection Commission has been a resounding success for the people of the province and for the small business people of the Pemberton area.
I believe that the Job Protection Commission has developed a chemistry that is unique in changing our world. Unlike the hon. member for Langley, referring to the situation in Trail, again I have to say that the Job Protection Commission has done a terrific job there. In conjunction with the Ministry of Economic Development, it has gone into a community and involved companies, unions and municipalities, and brought them all together to come to a solution that, I think, everybody is going to be happy with. We were faced with a situation where the largest city in the entire West Kootenay was in jeopardy of going into the tank. Again, it was the Job Protection Commission that was the glue that held everything together and has worked toward a meaningful solution. I might say that that meaningful solution came about after countless millions of government dollars had been dumped into a black hole to try and salvage something that I think, without the work of the Job Protection Commission, would have been unsalvageable. But we can begin to see some light at the end of the tunnel now.
As well, I think it's a testimony to the Job Protection Commission that they've maintained an arm's-length approach with government. They've fostered trust within the various communities that they've been in and have done a lot to help everyone involved.
Again, in my constituency, my personal experience with the Job Protection Commission has only been positive. I see them as being farsighted, not merely solving problems of the present but also looking toward problems of the future and toward how we're going to deal with many of our communities -- whether it be with regard to forestry or mining industries, or what have you -- that are faced with multiple changes and how these communities are going to adapt to these changes. Thus far they've done a very admirable job.
A. Cowie: It gives me pleasure to stand and talk about Bill 2, the Job Protection Amendment Act, 1993. I'll confine most of my comments to the forestry aspects of this bill.
This bill could hurt the forest industry dramatically. Forest industries, which have a long history in this province, cannot count on tenure or a continuous wood supply now. While I recognize that there has to be change -- and I personally agree with the 12 percent park and conservation provision that the province is working toward -- we have to deal with the problem of continuity. The forest companies deserve continuity.
Companies must be compensated for any loss they have when the government takes over forest lands, especially for the licences and long-term tenure that they thought they had. This bill means that the provincial forester can take away the annual allowable cuts. They can replace licences -- and licences are contracts, in my mind -- with agreements, and as you know, agreements can be loose or firm. It's a shame. I think that the implication of changing licences to agreements is harmful to the forest industry.
[11:00]
There are 36 TFLs and 130 forest licences of all types affected by this bill. Forest companies will have to reduce their annual cut in some instances, and that will affect the economy of the province. If they don't use their annual cut, then they'll lose it -- and it has been their practice over the years to not use it one year but to use it the following year if the economy is such.... The chief forester can simply take away that portion of the annual cut. What we're seeing here is the Forests ministry moving into the marketplace. Private industry takes that risk, but now the government is going to move into the marketplace. They're going to take away fibre or wood if it's not used on an annual basis, rather than allowing the forest companies to manage their own affairs on this aspect, according to recognized rules.
When you combine that unstable situation with the Schwindt recommendations, where there would be no compensation, then it further undermines the industry. Then when you add that to the additional corporation taxes that are coming on this year and to the additional capital corporation tax -- the corporation capital tax, rather.... We have so many taxes that I get confused which is which. I fear that many companies, especially those dealing with secondary manufacturing, are simply going to leave the province and move to the state of Washington, where they have set up plants or purchased companies in the last few years.
The intent of this bill should be to lead to a more stable situation and to establish working forests and long-term plans on a sound economic basis, with good forest management based on solid inventories. Maybe the qualified foresters -- I see this as one of the good points of this bill -- will have more say in managing the forests. Those forests have tended, in the past, to be managed by purely economic situations or by loggers. This does offer the opportunity for foresters to get back into managing the forests, rather than just growing the trees and going in afterward and re- establishing the forest.
The forest industry should have been more involved with this bill in order to ensure continuity. The industry needs long-term planning. After all, we all know that it takes between 50 and 150 years to grow a tree, depending on which part of the province it's in. Even working forests are subjected to secondary uses; we used to call them multiple uses. But if we recognize the working-forest principle, there are still going to be secondary uses such as hunting, sports, recreation, hiking and those sorts of things. I wouldn't want to suggest that large areas be exclusively for growing trees.
I have one warning for this government: you cannot simply assume that we can get more and more out of the forest industry without putting a great deal more back into it, which includes some continuity and confidence to the industries themselves. I know that there are alternatives in the building industry. When people think about building houses, they're thinking about building steel houses rather than wooden houses.
[ Page 4942 ]
They don't need 2-by-4s anymore. For instance, the "hardiboard" was established in Australia, using cement and wood fibre as 4-by-8 sheets or other forms. That can replace plywood. We're so confident that we can continue to manufacture products and sell them. Don't be too confident. There are replacements, and they are very competitive. Instead of using cedar shingles, you can use this "hardishingle," which will last for 50 years. You can still nail it on, and it's a darned good product. So don't be too confident that we can continue to shaft the forest industry without giving it some assurance and confidence. We need the forest industry in this province in order to keep our high standard of living. We have to work with it, not against it.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand in support of this legislation. Unfortunately, it is still very much needed in our province. It's impossible to correct the wrongs of the last 20 years in 16 months.
I have been listening to the opposition argue its case, and the contradictions are quite interesting. On the one hand, the member for Okanagan West argued that this legislation is no longer needed because the economy has recovered. Then he proceeds to argue about problems we have with the economy and how it's not recovering. We have Liberal and Socred members arguing that it's wrong for government to take action on this kind of thing in order to stabilize communities, change our forest industry, and make it more accountable and responsible to the people who own those trees. We hear them argue that it's wrong to do that, and in the next breath they're saying: "But you should fix it." It's full of contradictions; it makes no sense whatsoever.
I found it really interesting to listen to the last speaker, who argued that if we leave the control in the hands of the forest companies, and if we make this minor change to allow the government -- on behalf of the people who own the resource, I might add -- to reallocate the resource in perpetuity, and a facility that resource is tied to closes down or downsizes in a significant way, then the timber companies will leave the province. I have some news for the members opposite. Perhaps those seven companies will; perhaps they won't. I doubt it very much. I think that's an irrelevant argument. In any case, the trees will stay here and the people will stay here, so I don't see that as a major danger.
I listened to the member for Langley. Her arguments were somewhat specious, I'm sorry to say. She said that we on this side were driving a bus, and she wondered where we were taking that bus. I thought it was an interesting analogy.
An Hon. Member: The back roads.
J. Pullinger: No, we're taking it down the main streets for a change. If this side is driving a bus, I think it's really clear from the arguments coming from the other side today and almost every day that they are driving a two-seater Mercedes and there's no room for anybody in it but a very few of the most elite in this province.
When the Social Credit government brought in the original piece of legislation, we supported it because we -- like the Socreds, the defenders of free enterprise -- recognize that there are times when intervention is needed in the marketplace to make it responsible, to make it socially defendable and to make it do the kinds of things that we need. I think that we all agree that you don't want to do that any more than is necessary, but there are clearly times to do that. Suddenly, they are on the other side of the House, they've done a complete about-face and they are arguing that it's no longer necessary. I find that quite interesting.
Similarly, the Liberals, as I say, are driving a two-seater Mercedes-Benz, and I hope that public sector workers, health care workers, teachers and small business people -- who depend on those good paycheques that we're trying to protect, I'd like to add -- are all listening, because we're hearing again and again from the other side that they want to lay off people in this province, cut the wages from the people earning very modest wages and protect the wealthiest among us. In fact, they are arguing strongly that the taxpayers, the lower- and middle-income earners, should be providing subsidies to that top 5 or 10 percent. That is wrong, but it's no surprise coming from the Liberals. Again, we see precisely the same kinds of arguments today. They are arguing that the primary consideration should not be the people of British Columbia, the workers and the average person who owns the resource, but rather those large corporations who have very much reaped the benefit of that resource. I think that we all agree on this side that they certainly should be considered. We need a healthy economy and a healthy industry; but there needs to be some balance, and that is precisely what we're doing.
I want to briefly focus on what this piece of legislation does, what Bill 2 does, because it's important and people should know. The Job Protection Act of 1991 was created by the third party, the Socreds. Its mandate was to minimize or prevent job losses and potential destabilization in regional or local economies. We agreed; we supported that. It was a good piece of legislation. We had a few problems with it, but basically we supported it. We see that, unfortunately, there's a need for that kind of protection to continue as we make the transition to a forest industry that is more environmentally sound and more accountable to the people of British Columbia, and one that works better for the continuity of jobs and community stability.
So this amendment will extend the Job Protection Commission for a further two years, until April 1995. The Job Protection Commission has done an excellent job of dealing with 78 different cases and over 12,000 jobs. We've seen them look at special projects in Pemberton, Port Alberni, Cominco and the Elk Valley. I know some of my constituents have benefited from their work, I know a number of communities have, and I'm pleased to see it continue. But I think it's also important that until April 1995 the Minister of Forests will have, in an ongoing way, the option of exempting tenure transfers from the 5 percent takeback. In our
[ Page 4943 ]
community of Lake Cowichan we have seen what it can do to a community when that option to exempt the 5 percent takeback occurs in a tenure transfer. We've seen some of the problems that that can create, and I'm pleased that it's there.
There is an ongoing provision that gives the Ministry of Forests, as the agent of the people, a little more control. If a processing facility is closed or if it's downsized in a significant way, the minister now has the opportunity to take back that cut, or reduce that annual allowable cut and perhaps reallocate it so that it does work to support jobs and work to support the communities in this province that have been so badly hurt by the changes in the forest industry. I know my constituents will applaud these changes, as I'm sure will many around the province.
I hear the opposition arguing again for the very few. This bill certainly protects our communities and workers and is in the best interest of all of us around British Columbia. I'm pleased that we have moved to extend parts of the 1991 bill and to make permanent some of the powers that the Forest minister has. I hear the arguments against, and I will be most interested to see where the opposition votes on this piece of legislation.
[11:15]
D. Jarvis: I rise to make a few comments on Bill 2, the Job Protection Amendment Act. I find that the job protection commissioner has probably done a fine job in this province and I'm quite willing to support him. What really bothers me is the fact that this government doesn't have an economic strategy or any plan in the future to make this an ongoing job. I think we'll be renewing this Bill 2 for the next four or five years until such time as this government is removed from office, which will probably be in the next thousand days.
However, I find this bill is a very insidious type of bill in the sense that it's hiding two philosophies inside it: one is the job protection commissioner and the other is that they are going to change the cuts or try to change the agreements in the forest industry.
Section 3 says that they're going to strike out "a licence" and substitute the word "agreement." As you are all probably aware, a licence is a contract between two or more persons and is legally enforceable, whereas an agreement is an arrangement as to the course of action. And therein lies the rub: what is this government's course of action? Actually I shouldn't even be here talking to the people across the floor, because I don't think they know what is going on either.
It appears that rather than benefit workers, in essence this change in the job protection bill will weaken their position by weakening the industry itself. With this type of legislation, who in the world would want to invest their money in B.C.? It's quite obvious that the signals being sent out by this government are being adhered to, because we do not see investment or development coming into the province.
Section 3 of the bill is on the reduction of cut because of mill closures. We all know there are economic ups and downs, especially in this province. These economic ups and downs will no longer be valid if this section of the act is changed. When we have an economic slowdown, the bill will require the entrepreneur to keep the mill open, to keep jobs and to stockpile lumber until such time as he goes broke. Then the government will come in and reduce his cut or take it away completely. You're taking away the right of the entrepreneur, and it's the entrepreneur in this country who actually pays the bills, regardless of what the member for Nanaimo said.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Who do you think pays the bills in this province? It's not the government. It's the entrepreneur who provides the jobs so that people can work and pay taxes to the government. It's the entrepreneur who does the work, not the government. You're restricting the entrepreneur, preventing him from continuing the job that he should be doing in this province.
The most insidious thing about this bill is that.... As I've said before, why do I bother talking to the hon. members across the floor, because they don't really know what's going on. This appears to be the start of a long-range plan that was pushed out back in the late eighties by Gunton and Williams. They're the ones controlling this government. These people have nothing to do with it. They don't even know what's going on. They rubber-stamp everything that comes out of Williams's office. No economic plan is coming out of the government. The economic plan is coming out of the Williams-Gunton office. There's an old statement that the fate of all cannot be mortgaged for the comfort or ideology of a few. This is what's happening with the Gunton-Williams ideology that the party on the other side of this chamber is rubber-stamping.
I feel that the job protection commissioner's position is a valid section of this bill. The problem is that they're hiding things. They're not honest with the people of this province. Why don't they put this in the Forest Act or something like that? Why did they put the cuts into the Job Protection Act?
An Hon. Member: Read the bill.
D. Jarvis: That's what they're doing.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Address your remarks through the Chair, please.
D. Jarvis: In order to support the good half, you have to support the bad half. That's the problem with this province. The good half is the free market people sitting on this side of the floor, and then we have the bad half sitting on the far side. A soothsayer once said that the great vice of capitalism is an inequity of wealth, and the great virtue of socialism is the equity of misery. Part of the Gunton- Williams plan is to spread the misery across the province to all of us.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, please address your remarks to the philosophy of the bill and second reading debate.
D. Jarvis: That's what I did.
An Hon. Member: That comes directly to the philosophy.
[ Page 4944 ]
D. Jarvis: So, Mr. Speaker, that philosophy is directly applicable to this bill, and it's part of this bill and part of what's going on in this province. Thank you very much.
P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to rise in support of Bill 2, the Job Protection Amendment Act, for a couple of reasons -- first, because unfortunately I think its extension is necessary. We are going to be leading the way in this country, as a province, in economic growth in the coming year, and several people opposite have spoken to that. In spite of some of the opposition assertions about the effects of this government, we're going to have substantial investment. We're going to have 35,000 more jobs in this province next year, and I think a lot of the areas of this province are going to be in very, very good shape. But what needs to be recognized, hon. Speaker, is that this is not going to be equally distributed around this province. We still are affected in this province by what has been called by many "the two British Columbias" phenomenon, and I think the extension of the Job Protection Act to deal with the issues affecting resource-based communities is essential.
I was really amazed to hear the member for Okanagan West say that this act had been drafted by the fine hand of Bob Williams, since it's an extension of a 1991 act brought in by the previous administration. I was unaware that Bob Williams was the consultant to that government, but maybe he was.
I think the job protection commissioner has done an excellent job and will continue to. He has gained the respect of the private sector as he deals with difficult problems. He's established excellent relations with ministries and agencies of the Crown. Throughout the province his work has been applauded by communities, by owners, by entrepreneurs and by workers. So the extension of this act is, I believe, essential and an excellent move.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The other thing I wanted to talk about, though, is the provisions which affect the Forest Act here. I really think that some of the members of the Liberal opposition from Vancouver-based ridings should get out and get a little closer to the forest and maybe understand a bit more about the forest industry. I think their criticisms reveal a real lack of knowledge about current provisions of the Forest Act, the intent of those provisions and what these amendments to the Forest Act do. Essentially, there is no "new approach to the forest industry" in these amendments. There is no radical revision of what was contained before, but there is a consistent and clear approach to what tenure means in this province. It is consistent with the act which was brought in in 1978 and that has been amended several times since. Let me try to elucidate some of those.
Essentially, there are reasons for tenure in this province. I would say, and have said before in this House, that we, the government, give people licences to harvest Crown timber and hold licences for Crown timber for three reasons. First, obviously, we want economic activity. We want to enhance and preserve economy activity. Second, of course, we want the community stability that that activity brings. Finally, we want to ensure good forest management. That's why tenure is provided.
It seems to me that some members of the opposition feel a tenure is not a privilege that is licensed to a company; it's somehow an inalienable and unalterable right. I think that's absolutely wrong. We license companies with forest licences and tree-farm licences for very specific reasons. We ask them to engage in economic activity, to manage the land well and to provide stability for communities and workers. These amendments to the Forest Act say that when a company has failed in one of those obligations -- when the company has decided to shut down a processing facility and hurt community stability -- the Minister of Forests has a right, cautiously, to examine that and if, in his opinion, this closure will affect community stability, to modify the terms of that licence.
Interjection.
P. Ramsey: The member opposite says "Trust me!" When we get into committee stage on this, I would be very pleased to talk about how this section of the Forest Act has been administered to date. I think that the member opposite may see that this has not been something that the minister has acted precipitously on. He's acted cautiously and will continue to act cautiously. This is discretionary power. It's an appropriate discretionary power. It's not going to be used arbitrarily, nor should it be. It is a legitimate tool of government to say that when one of the reasons why a licence is granted is not adhered to, the government has a right to modify that licence.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to follow in debate the hon. member for Prince George North, who is also the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Forests. I certainly followed his comments with a great deal of interest. It's a little unfortunate that he wasn't able to attend the excellent briefing that was provided to members of both the third party and the opposition on this particular bill. We had an opportunity to ask some rather interesting questions, particularly about section 56.01, which, I might add, has absolutely nothing to do with the Job Protection Act. That has to be stated right off the top.
The job protection commissioner has a mandate to be a facilitator -- to look at community stability, to look at refinancing possibilities for small and medium-sized business and to recommend to government a way of rescuing companies, if indeed they can be rescued. And that's his total mandate. The suggestion by the government that the Minister of Forests needs additional powers under this act is an utter sham. The juxtaposition simply doesn't make any sense.
Let's talk frankly about what's happening today in the Ministry of Forests. We're talking about cut reductions in this province, totalling anywhere from 20 to 30 percent. Do you know that under section 56.01, as it currently reads, it would be possible for a company in
[ Page 4945 ]
this province to be affected by one of the cut reductions announced by the chief forester -- to have to curtail production and have the Minister of Forests come in and reduce its cut by an appropriate amount? That's the kind of authority granted under this particular section.
Did you know that with the price of logs in British Columbia today, if a small or medium-sized sawmill was unable to obtain supply and had to go down, had to curtail production, the minister could come in under this section of the act and reduce the cut of that company somewhere else in the province of British Columbia? What has that got to do with the mandate of the Job Protection Commission?
This particular section 56.01 of this particular act is exactly the same as the introduction of the Infants Act, which was introduced in the last section of a miscellaneous statutes bill. It's a red herring that bears no resemblance and has no relevance to the bill that we're debating in this House.
[11:30]
We're talking about a massive introduction by the Ministry of Forests into the movement of logs and into the operation of the private sector. It's a thinly disguised move under the job protection bill that bears no resemblance to the bill at hand. It's important for us to realize that the job protection commissioner has done a good job in this province. He's had a lot of work to do, particularly in the last year, but he's done a good job. It's logical to send his mandate down the road for a further two years, because the opposition is confident he'll have a lot more work to do, but introducing the most significant changes in the Forest Act since this government took office is absolutely outrageous. The opposition intends to move a number of amendments in committee stage which will plug some of the loopholes and some of the wide discretionary powers given to the minister under this particular act. We look forward to that debate with a great deal of interest.
It's interesting to examine these two sections of the act and to reflect upon the philosophy that this government takes towards mill owners, mill operators and companies in British Columbia. There's an assumption in this section that mills love to close down, to throw workers out of work and to destabilize communities, and that they really enjoy having to scramble to acquire logs when this government and its chief forester are reducing cuts throughout this province; and that because of that, the minister has to have the power to step in, not for the job protection commissioner or to help his work, but simply to step in and redirect the flow of logs, to insert himself into the private market process and to be the saviour of communities and to further this government's social agenda. That's what we're talking about here: a social agenda in British Columbia.
The opposition supports the work of Mr. Kerley. Having benefited from the excellent briefing by the Ministry of Economic Development about the work that's been done by Mr. Kerley over the past three years, we understand that his mandate runs out on April 12 and needs to be extended. But only a government that is afraid of the people of the province would introduce a section like 56.01 without any relevance to the job protection commission, or make significant Forest Act changes that only seek to undermine confidence in the forest industry of this province.
Let's consider, hon. Speaker, what impact this might have on a small or medium-sized mill that gets only 30 percent of its wood from quota and has to buy 70 percent on the open market. There are firms like that out there -- independent firms, not big, integrated giant corporations like the hon. members opposite are trying to suggest. These companies may not be able to acquire logs in the next two or three years, because of shrinking supplies, set-asides, log-arounds, aboriginal land claims and all the other disincentives to investment in this industry.
Under this section the minister can take their other 30 percent. He can say: "Hey, guys, you gave it a good try. You're not in a position to survive, so we're going to give your 30 percent to somebody else." These were the issues we raised when we had the briefing, and nobody denied them. Yes, it could happen.
F. Garden: What's the alternative?
W. Hurd: The member asks what the alternative is. The alternative is an industrial strategy for the forest industry that takes into account the kind of fibre we have, where it is, where the plants are and what they are manufacturing. We need some sort of direction from this government, not some changes to a bill that allow the Minister of Forests to say: "Well, guys, you gave it a good try. You're down for whatever reason. We're going to redirect your cut to somebody else."
That's the role of government in this province: to redirect the resources and for the minister to step in and make a decision as to where it should go and which companies have the right to close or to curtail production if they have to. Government knows best, and that's what we're going to do under section 56.01 of the act.
The logical question to ask the government is: why introduce major changes to the Forest Act under the job protection commissioner when it isn't part of his mandate? I've been trying to get an answer to that question for weeks, and I can't get a single response from the government. Why these changes? Bring them in as separate legislation, and we can debate them. To disguise this under the work of the job protection commissioner is the height of cynicism. It really underscores, in my opinion, the kind of legislative program we're dealing with in the province.
The cuts are coming down in British Columbia. The minister and the government have said that. There's no doubt that mills are going to close over the next two or three years in this province. Even the hon. member for Prince George North, the parliamentary secretary, is probably telling people in his own riding that there's an overcapacity in manufacturing in the forest sector in the province.
The last thing these firms need is legislation that says: "You're going down, boys, but we're going to act as vultures and take your cut, rather than acting as a responsible government that's going to assist you in dealing with your problems." There's nothing to prevent Mr. Kerley from moving into a situation in a timber
[ Page 4946 ]
supply area in this province and making his recommendations. He doesn't need these changes to the Forest Act; he has done an excellent job over the past three years without them. But here they are, buried in a bill that this government knows the opposition would be hard pressed to vote against.
The facts of the matter are these. The opposition supports the work of Mr. Kerley, because he's going to be needed. Lord knows, jobs in the forests are going, and they're not coming back. We understand that. But if the government is going to introduce major changes to the Forest Act -- the most significant changes since it took office -- under the guise of Mr. Kerley's commission, I don't know how much lower they can go.
It's just appalling that we can't deal with changes to the Forest Act with the Minister of Forests here to deal with them in committee and in second reading, instead of dealing with the Economic Development minister, who really is dealing with his own ministry, I would assume. I hope that when we get to committee stage, the Minister of Forests is here to answer some hard questions, which, I might add, his ministry staff were unable to provide answers on for the official opposition. I hope he will be here, and maybe we can deal with some of the ramifications of these particular changes.
When you consider what has occurred in the forest industry in this province in the past year and a half, it's almost unbelievable. If we don't get your licence because you have to reduce production, we're going to take it, with no compensation, under Bill 32 -- or whatever is upcoming in this session. With an attitude like that, where is the capital financing going to come from? You'd have to be out of your mind to invest money in a situation like that. People who own mills are not in the habit of throwing money into an uncertain scenario. Instead of working with business and working with mills, this government is saying to them: "We don't care if you have to close, but boy, if you do, we're going to bring the heavy hand of government to deal with you." That's not a sustainable industrial strategy for the future of this province. It's not going to protect communities; it's not going to save mills; it's only going to give the Forests minister the ability to bring the hammer down, and that's exactly what he's going to do. It's indicative of this government's adversarial approach to business, to the forest industry in particular, that the assumption is that mills are going to close first, throw workers out into the street and ask questions later. It's a fundamental difference in philosophy between this side of the House and that side, and the people will decide in the next election which approach they want.
J. Doyle: I'd like to speak in favour of second reading of this bill. It's an honour to follow the member for Surrey-White Rock, whose idea of a forest is, I'm sure, Stanley Park.
I feel that the amendment to the Job Protection Act is good. There are two economies in British Columbia: one in the lower mainland and another in the interior. The interior, with its resource-based economy, is still in recession. Some official opposition members don't seem to know that B.C. extends beyond the Fraser Valley. Possibly the job protection commissioner could have a look at the Liberal Party and sort out some of their problems. The commission has worked in my riding in the past, and I'm sure it will again in the future. The commissioner has worked with 78 firms and saved 12,000 jobs, affecting many small communities that in many cases are dependent on one employer.
This bill will strengthen the act by allowing the Minister of Forests the option to reduce the allowable annual cut if a licence- holder closes down a timberprocessing plant. This is good news for my riding and for B.C. It is, after all, a public resource that we're speaking about, and it affects people in communities. The official opposition forestry critic is on record as saying that MLAs should not have public hearings to decide if the people should have input on forestry matters. I feel they must believe in the old Liberal ways of smoke-filled back rooms; that's where the deals were made; that's what they'd like to do.
This is good legislation, hon. Speaker, and I ask that all members support it.
D. Fox: I rise to speak on the philosophies and principles of Bill 2, the Job Protection Amendment Act. On quick review, hon. Speaker, I look through this act and without a question give support to the idea of extending the actual function of job protection for two years. As many members have stated in the house already, it has fulfilled a very worthwhile and a very objective role, and I think Mr. Kerley has done a tremendous job in this particular role.
However, when we look at the forestry sector of this, one has to be really concerned about what the intent is. There is no doubt in my mind that the part of the industry that will be crippled the most in an economic slowdown within the forestry will be the independent sawmills. It will not be the integrated sawmills; it will not be the large corporations; it will be the smaller independent producers.
When we look at what this bill allows and apply it to the current situation in the Anahim Lake area, there has been a very difficult situation between a licensee and the Minister of Forests over the requirement of reforestation. That has been an ongoing process now for almost a year. And it's not a small licence, hon. Speaker; that licence is a million cubic metres per year and was for a ten-year period. We know that the Minister of Economic Development has suggested to his constituents -- and these people in the Anahim area are, indeed, his constituents -- that he is in a position of conflict and cannot deal with it.
[11:45]
But this particular amendment to this bill would allow the government and the minister to stop that process of negotiation with the licensee, because that mill has been shut down for more than 90 days. They would basically have him with a rope around his neck -- either comply or we yank your licence -- rather than going through the proper process with court appeals, and so on. That is a concern. The other part is that if that licensee was being unreasonable, the minister would have the opportunity to invoke the action, which in fact would have put those 300 people back to work. That
[ Page 4947 ]
would be the positive side of this legislation, and it's something that I read into it as well.
There's another thing that I read into this legislation. What comes to mind is a recent change of the Gregory forest licence in Fort St. James. This was a category 2 licence which, when it closed down and went bankrupt, provided an opportunity for the banking institutions that had financed it to request that the licence be put up for bid. That subsequently happened. Those particular financial institutions were able to get back a good portion of their investment.
This legislation, if literally taken the way it's written, would prevent that, because after 90 days the minister could revoke that licence, thereby negating the opportunity for any of the creditors to go after the bankrupt process -- which included the licence -- and recoup their investments. Those are some real concerns.
Another concern I have is with the 90-day clause. Any small business person who has been in financial difficulties will tell the government that it's not easy to get refinanced, particularily in a small sawmill operation. It is almost inconceivable that anybody could get a refinancing package put together in the 90-day period of time. I would request that the Minister of Economic Development give some thought to that time frame in light of the difficulties, particularily for small business, in refinancing a business. Someone may have worked a good part of their life to develop it, but they fall into a certain difficulty and could lose the whole opportunity to recoup their investment because their licence has been taken away within a 90-day period.
Those are some of the concerns that I would like to canvass at length. I see some positive aspects, particularly in the Anahim situation where those 300 people could have been back to work a lot sooner than what they are looking forward to at this time. But I will wait for that opportunity to canvass the minister and discuss those issues.
D. Mitchell: I rise to make a few comments with respect to Bill 2. I don't think it augurs well for this new session of the parliament that this is the first piece of legislation we're requested to deal with -- the first piece of legislation aside from the interim supply bill. It doesn't augur well, because it points to the problem that we're witnessing in the province of British Columbia, particularly in single-resource communities. It doesn't augur well, because I'm sure the job protection commissioner himself, Mr. Kerley -- who's done a very good job during his term -- was looking forward, as we all were, to the sunset clause of the existing piece of legislation being invoked. We all believed that the job protection commissioner was only appointed for a fixed period of office, similar to the critical industries commissioner that had been appointed by a previous administration. But we've got to the point where the job protection commissioner's office is now being extended, and that's what this bill seeks to do.
I know there's going to be significant debate on this bill in committee stage, so I won't belabour my comments. I wish it wasn't necessary for this bill to be brought forward. In an ideal world it would not be necessary to have an office of a job protection commissioner. In an ideal world elected representatives could deal with government in a less complex way. If government was simpler, if government hadn't grown so complex, if the problems that occur because of skewed taxation and skewed government policies hadn't occurred, elected representatives and elected governments could deal with the issues of the day without special offices and special commissioners appointed by government. Today we have a myriad of them. We have an ombudsman's office to deal with issues that elected representatives can't get at. We now have the consideration of the appointment of a privacy commissioner to deal with freedom-of-information legislation. We have a number of other special offices and commissioners in this province: a commissioner on resources and the environment, a number of special offices that are being appointed to deal with issues that in a perfect world we as elected representatives would be able to handle and elected government would be able to deal with. It's unfortunate that we require these offices.
Mr. Kerley has done a tremendous job. He's done very good work in my own constituency in the Pemberton Valley. His report of last year was very useful, so I would support the extension of his term of office with a new sunset clause for a new period of time.
I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour made a good point in his debate on this bill when he referred to the fact that there are actually two pieces of legislation here. Ideally the government should have brought in an extension of the mandate of the job protection commissioner and kept it at that in this bill, instead of hiding another bill within this bill. It should have been brought in as a separate amendment to the Forest Act, and then we could have dealt with it separately.
There are some important issues there, and we must have some concerns about the expansion of the mandate of the Minister of Forests under this bill. We must have some concerns -- they've been expressed today in debate on second reading -- about allowable annual cuts on forest licences and tree farm licences. These are serious issues. Again, in a perfect world we wouldn't have to deal with both in a single piece of legislation. We will be able to debate this in much more detail in committee stage. I believe that the government should consider some amendments in committee stage to the sections dealing with amendments to the Forest Act.
With those few comments, hon. Speaker, I reluctantly agree in principle to second reading of this bill, and I look forward to debate in committee.
K. Jones moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]