Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 3, Number 15

[ Page 2389 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

A. Sanders: I rise today to present my own private member's Bill. He's sitting in the gallery: Dr. Bill Sanders, my husband.

The Speaker: I'm glad we all held back on points of order.

V. Anderson: I rise to introduce 75 grade 11 students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in my constituency. They have with them today their teachers: Mr. Katsionis, Mr. Brian Sweeney -- brother of Neil Sweeney, one of our communications staff -- Ms. Lee and Mr. McLaughlin. I would ask the House to make these wonderful, intelligent and brilliant students welcome to our House.

Hon. D. Miller: As impossible as it might appear to some, I beg the indulgence of the House to announce that my daughter has delivered her second child, and I now have a granddaughter. She has no name at this point, but it just happened earlier today.

G. Plant: Seated in the gallery today are two people who are very important to my ability to discharge my duties as a member of this assembly: my legislative assistant, Daphne Armstrong, and my constituency assistant, Joan Dick. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

P. Reitsma: In concert with the previous speaker, two very important people, as all members can appreciate, are in the gallery today. Ms. Marilyn Hayden, our CA, is in the gallery to the left of Hansard, and Jas Gandhi, our legislative assistant -- people we cannot do without. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: In the House with us today are three members of the Victoria-Beacon Hill riding association of the PDA: Mr. Richard Fahl, Jesse Burnett and Paul Holmes. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Sihota: I am delighted to see that visiting us today is Bev Carey, a woman who has frequented the halls of this Legislature and served many in this administration. Would all members give her a warm welcome.

Also in the gallery is Dixie Pidgeon, someone who is well known to many of us on this side of the House and who once showed up at an airport in India expecting there to be a sort of Motel 8 just outside the door, and discovering that it's not easy get a hotel in the jurisdiction. She also worked closely with Mike Harcourt over the years.

I. Chong: I am pleased to introduce to the House today a student from Cedar Hill Junior Secondary, a school that I attended. Her name is Sarah Burgess. She is on a work experience, and I presume that's to pursue a career in politics. She is going to be joining us over a period of the next few weeks. But today is her first day here, and I'd like the House to please make her welcome.

I would also like to welcome Mr. Kelly Sundberg, who is in the House today as well. He is with the University of Victoria Students Society. I noticed that he was here on other occasions, but I have not been able to introduce him until now. Would the House please make him welcome.

K. Krueger: It's my pleasure today to introduce Diana Cabott to the House. Diana is from Kelowna, is an ICBC board member of fairly long service, and is here to see the Finance minister today. She happened to share a cab with me on the way over. So would the House please make Ms. Cabott welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I see in the gallery today a constituent from Chetwynd. Would the House please make Daniel Rothlisberger welcome.

G. Campbell: I thank members opposite for giving me the opportunity to raise this issue today.

If you look above an obscure doorway in the centre block of the parliament buildings in Ottawa you will see a four-letter word carved in the lintel. The four-letter word is "Vimy." It was carved by a stonemason 80 years ago today. According to the late B.C. author and journalist Bruce Hutchison, the humble stonemason carved that word on the day he knew that his son was fighting with the Canadians on Vimy Ridge. He carved it without instructions or permission, because he had to, and the architect left it there, understanding what it meant. The next day, the stonemason's son was killed at a place called Vimy.

It was Major-General George Pearkes, a future Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, who said in his maiden speech in the House of Commons: "I became a Canadian at Vimy Ridge." In a very real sense, we all became Canadians at Vimy Ridge.

Mr. Speaker, close to 100,000 Canadians fought at Vimy Ridge on April 9, 1917; 8,000 of those soldiers came from British Columbia. There were also B.C. women who joined as nursing sisters and who were present on all the battlefields of Europe. There was the 7th Battalion and the 16th Battalion of the Canadian Scottish. There was the 47th Battalion and the 29th Battalion, known as Tobin's Tigers, from Vancouver. There was the 54th Battalion from the Kootenays, the 72nd Battalion -- the Seaforth Higlanders -- from Vancouver, and the 102nd Battalion, known as Warden's Warriors, from northern B.C.

The British and the French tried to take Vimy Ridge, but failed. Yet the determination of the Canadian troops at Vimy Ridge ultimately prevailed. Canadians learned that they were as good as, if not better than, their allies on the battlefield. In fact, they were elite troops. Through them, Canada shed its colonial status. We took our place at the table at Versailles and a seat in the League of Nations.

I have a 17-year-old son. I can't imagine him chest-deep in the mud and the stink of the lines at Vimy. I can't imagine receiving notice that he would not return home.

These boys and men were honoured among their generation. They were the glory of their times. They left British Columbia and a Canada with dew still on it. Many are buried under rows of crosses, under the grass and dew of a distant land. Fifty-one of them are still alive today, and on this day I ask members of this House to join me in remembering them all.

[2:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for this timely and very thoughtful tribute. All of

[ Page 2390 ]

us can think of members of our extended families who have had experience with war. My own father, who died in 1937 -- probably because of the results of the First World War -- was in the European theatre at that time. All of us have those stories and those experiences. But I think we must ask ourselves what we, in our day, must and can do in order to honour that memory. And I think that that is to do our part to maintain the peace that they so valiantly strived for.

Introduction of Bills

FOOD DONOR ENCOURAGEMENT ACT

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Food Donor Encouragement Act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 10, the Food Donor Encouragement Act. The act is designed to increase food donations to those in need, and it is modelled on legislation in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.

The government of British Columbia is taking a comprehensive approach to address the economic issues at the root of poverty in our society. However, we realize that resolving these issues will take time and that in the meantime food banks and countless other distributors of donated food support people in need each day. The Vancouver and Victoria food banks alone expect food donations to double if the bill is passed. Food banks and non- profit organizations are struggling to keep their shelves stocked and to meet an ever- increasing demand. At the same time, tons of fresh food from restaurants, hospitals and food suppliers are going to waste.

In the face of this scenario, one is compelled to ask why perfectly good food is wasted when people are hungry, and how to redirect that food to those who need it. Many potential food donors state that the main reason they do not donate is fear of liability. We hope that by limiting the liability of food donors and distributors this legislation will quell those fears and encourage donations of food. Other provinces with similar legislation saw a distinct increase in the donation of food subsequent to legislation being introduced.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 10 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.

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, I would just like to say at this time that I would like to withdraw the notice on the order paper of the bill that I had.

Oral Questions

FOREST SECTOR JOBS

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the people of B.C.'s forest-dependent communities are in a state of siege. The government moves from crisis to crisis: first, Golden in the interior wetbelt, then Terrace and Smithers in the northwest. Last week we heard about the closure of the Canadian Chopstick factory in Fort Nelson, and today we've learned of Avenor's announcement of a layoff of 70 jobs in Gold River. Last year in British Columbia we lost 5,500 forest jobs in the forest sector. My question to the Minister of Forests is: when will the government act to stop the wholesale loss of jobs in B.C.'s forest-dependent communities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's clear from the record in the newspaper that we are acting now. We have examined the situation. We've recognized some struggles. The industry is suffering from what many are suggesting is structural change in world pulp markets. Industry understands that and admits that. They have come to government to see what government can do. We have said that the way we are going to resolve this is to increase the number of jobs per cubic metre in this province. We intend to do that by negotiating a deal with the partners in the forest sector and increase the number of jobs.

G. Campbell: The minister has got to stop practising ostrich economics and hiding his head in the sand. His government is increasing taxes. His government has increased regulation. His government has increased the costs of forestry in this province by 75 percent, and that means forest families are losing their jobs. The question to the minister is: when is he going to start caring for those families and act to protect forest-dependent communities and the mortgage-supporting jobs that are there for them?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure that the Leader of the Opposition understands the problem or the solution. There's not one positive suggestion, other than that we listen. What did he say about Golden? There were 600 jobs, with potentially 2,000 affected. What did he say? He wrote a letter saying: "Listen." What did we do? Hon. Speaker, I can tell you what we did.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I didn't go to Golden, because I stayed here, and the mayor knew that. The mayor of Golden and the people of Golden knew that we were working day and night down here -- two ministers, virtually full-time. The example of Golden and the example of the northwest with Repap have nothing to do with government policies, but I'll tell you what it has to do with. It has to do with years of neglect by the friends of those over there who were in power before we were.

G. Campbell: I agree that these problems have been caused by neglect -- six years of neglect by this government, which has ignored forest-dependent communities; six years of neglect, where every time a forest-dependent community comes and explains the problems, the government ignores them. The question to the minister is: when will he work 24 hours a day to solve the problems, instead of running from crisis to crisis to crisis?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, this Leader of the Opposition should read the press. He knows that we are in negotiations with the stakeholders to come up with an accord to fix it -- not just a quick fix.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That member over there doesn't even have a quick fix for Golden, except to relax all the regulations that protect our markets or to give huge stumpage breaks which would again have problems in the U.S. from countervail. They have no solutions over there. The record speaks for itself: 10,000 jobs since 1991 have been created in this province. Ten thousand jobs!

[ Page 2391 ]

There's one more point I have to make. In the two years after the Forest Practices Code was brought in -- the spirit and intent -- there was $1 billion in investment. And do I have to list the projects, hon. Speaker? One billion dollars in investment in 1995 and 1996.

T. Nebbeling: The announcement made this morning on the 70 job losses in Gold River is devastating for a small town such as Gold River. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we see a forest-dependent community with its forest workers facing hardship and uncertainty. Can the minister tell us why he and this government continue to ignore the horrors created by the job-killing forest policies of this government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've made the point that we have not ignored it. We have addressed the issues. We have ordered the background work necessary to make the fixes correctly. And if you speak to responsible owners of forest licences in this province, they will tell you that they are pleased.

An Hon. Member: They're terrified.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They are not terrified. They are pleased to be at a table where they can address all their issues comprehensively. And that's our record, hon. Speaker. We have encouraged them to come up with solutions, and we have come forward with some of our own. We don't have any announcement at this point, but it's coming. And I would like to see. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: But we must see some positive suggestions from that side -- and from that critic, who's got other things to do.

T. Nebbeling: Last Friday, KPMG released a study stating that logging costs have jumped by 75 percent since this NDP government took power. The study blames the NDP's job-killing forest policies as the reason behind the huge increase in costs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

T. Nebbeling: The Minister of Forests responded to this statement by KPMG with the words: "That's bull." Could the Forests minister then explain to the 70 Gold River workers and their families exactly which of the NDP forest policies are responsible for them losing their jobs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure what misquote from the newspaper he is using now, but I've been absolutely clear that I recognize the report -- in all its limitations. It was a hurried report. Sometimes data isn't collected that is auditable. We got the best information to verify where the problems lie. How much of it has to do. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have to remind the member that there are problems logging pulpwood. He's talking about Gold River. There are problems with the costs of logging pulpwood, but it's from years of neglect during which the easiest and the best logs have been logged. Hon. Speaker, that opposition doesn't understand the complexities of the trade issues, the resource management issues or the economic issues in the forest industry.

TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE FUNDING

FOR SCHOOLS

A. Sanders: On April 19 the North Vancouver school board will hold a referendum to put computers in the classrooms. In 1990 this Premier stood in the House and said that referendums lead to two-tiered education, for "the quality of our children's education varies according to the income of the homeowners." Could this Minister of Education tell the children in districts that cannot afford to pay higher property taxes how they will get their computers?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Obviously the introduction of new technology into schools is a high priority for this government, as it has been for several years. The budget for public schools this year includes the technology fund, untouched. It's $10 million this year; it was $10 million last year; it was $10 million the year before. It's a long-term commitment, which a great majority of school districts are solving within their budgets in a timely fashion, so that our kids do have access to the resources that they require.

A. Sanders: Despite a policy for computers in every classroom, the district has no money for upgrading technology. Can the minister explain why he has underfunded students so badly that school trustees have to go to referendum to get children the basic modern tools they need?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, they blow hot and they blow cold, but they sure do pass a lot of air here.

I've sat in this chamber during budget debate for the last week and heard member after member after member on the opposite side accuse this government of spending too much. Now here we are with the education budget increased for the sixth year in a row, the highest per capita funding per student of any province in Canada, and this member says that we should spend more. Hon. Speaker, they don't know where they stand; the people of the province don't know where they stand. That's why they're over there, and we're over here.

[2:30]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, members. I would like to recognize the next questioner, but I need quiet for that. Okanagan-Boundary.

PHOTO RADAR PROGRAM

B. Barisoff: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Photo radar is fast becoming the biggest joke in British Columbia. Despite the fact that the program has a 100 percent overrun and has been criticized as inept from every corner, the NDP continues to praise the program. Now we find out that the photo radar pictures development lab has gone belly up. It means that no pictures will be developed until the NDP finds another firm. Can the minister tell the House exactly when she expects these photo radar horror stories to end?

Interjections.

[ Page 2392 ]

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When some businesses fail, those are the vagaries of private business.

I am responsible for the enforcement of photo radar across this province, and I intend to make sure that we find an alternate processor and developer. We have been able to seize the undeveloped used film, and we will be presenting that to the alternate supplier and processor once we find an alternate supplier and processor. If we can't find one, we will obviously have to purchase our own equipment to do that, and we will do that.

Those are the two options. Let me just tell you, however, that I am prepared to follow either of those two options, whichever we can do at the earliest. It's important for us to enforce the law across this province to save lives across this province.

B. Barisoff: One hundred police officers have been hired to run this photo radar disaster. This means that we've got 100 police officers that aren't on the streets protecting our communities and our citizens. They're behind photo radar vans. Can the Minister of Transportation and Highways tell the victims of crime the NDP would rather have 100 officers on photo radar vans, instead of on the street protecting our communities?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The issue around the 100 police officers has come up before in this House. Let me remind the members of this House that those 100 police officers are paid for by ICBC as part of its traffic safety initiative, and that does not detract from the police agencies that enforce the law across the province in other aspects of their lives.

MINISTER'S APPROACH TO HEALTH CARE

S. Hawkins: Yesterday the medical staff at Lions Gate Hospital passed a vote of non-confidence in Ms. Inge Schamborzki, the CEO of the North Shore health board. In a memo to members of that health board, Ms. Schamborzki states that she notified the Ministry of Health and goes on to say: "I believe the ministry staff's immediate concern is to ensure that the Minister of Health is well-briefed for question period this afternoon." Why is this minister more concerned about how she does in question period than ensuring that patients in this province get the treatment they so desperately need?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have no idea what the hon. member is referring to in terms of the memo. Actually, I am very well informed about the health care system. I am very well informed about our commitment to this health care system. I am very well informed about the wonderful work that the North Shore regional health board is doing. I am very well informed as to what the volunteers are doing in that community. I am very well informed as to the ongoing, sustained commitment to our health care system that our government has, unlike the members opposite.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Evans: I have the honour to present the annual reports of the Ministry of Agriculture for '95-96 and the Agricultural Land Commission for 1995-96.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.

The Speaker: Members, before calling on the Clerk and going to standing orders, I wish to make a very brief statement.

I believe that the above guidelines will permit us to acknowledge the diversity of cultures in the province, while at the same time allowing the Speaker and Hansard staff to carry out their obligations under the standing orders. Copies of the guidelines will be provided to members for their information this afternoon.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 6.

JOB PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading)

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to move second reading of Bill 6, the Job Protection Amendment Act, 1997, which amends

section 20 of the Job Protection Act and consequently amends

section 50.2(12) of the Forest Act.

Bill 6 is necessary to extend the Job Protection Act and continue the activities of the Job Protection Commission beyond the currently legislated expiration date of April 12 of this year. The Job Protection Act was enacted on April 11, 1991, creating the office of the job protection commissioner to help reduce potential job losses in British Columbia, especially in resource-based communities. The act helps preserve businesses in our province by allowing firms to restructure rather than close their operations. The commissioner is empowered

[ Page 2393 ]

to provide counselling to businesses in trouble, and to mediate plans for reducing the impact of business downsizing and consequent destabilization of regional or local economies.

As undoubtedly all members of the House will agree, the Job Protection Commission has proven to be very effective in assisting to preserve, restore and enhance the competitiveness of many B.C. business enterprises. Even more importantly, the Job Protection Commission protects jobs, which in turn has a major impact on our economy and the quality of life enjoyed by thousands of people in this province.

Amendments to the Job Protection Act, and consequentially to the

section of the Forest Act, are required to extend the sunset date of the Job Protection Commission indefinitely -- at least until April 12, 1999, when the Job Protection Act could be repealed, if deemed necessary, by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council.

The consequential amendment to

section 50.2(12) of the Forest Act allows the Minister of Forests to continue to waive the 5 percent annual allowable cut reduction usually required for a transfer of timber tenure in cases where the waiver is an approved part of an economic plan established by the Job Protection Commission.

Just to wind up, since the Job Protection Commission began operations in 1991, up until March 31 of this year it has counselled businesses in British Columbia involving over 39,000 jobs, and has directly helped save almost 14,000 jobs.

If I could offer my personal observations, it's been my professional delight to work with Mr. Kerley and his staff in a variety of circumstances since I became a member of the executive council in 1991. I think that their professionalism, their knowledge and their understanding has been felt right across this province.

It's a commission that I have the utmost confidence in, and as I indicated in the introduction, I'm sure that members opposite will also want to give speedy passage to the bill to allow the Job Protection Commission to continue its very valuable work -- most notably now with respect to the very serious situation following Repap Pulp and Paper Inc.'s granting of protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

I should also close by saying that with respect to a number of the recent files it's very clear that the reason why companies find themselves in trouble at times is due to a variety of circumstances. Principally, in my experience -- again as a member of the executive council and as someone who has held the post of Minister of Forests and my current portfolio -- you can see even through downturns in the forest economy those companies that continue to do reasonably well and those companies that go close to the edge, and some that in fact go over the edge.

I guess if I were to offer any advice with respect to drawing conclusions about the business affairs of individual companies, regardless of which sector they're in, you are far better off looking more closely at the individual circumstance of the individual company as opposed to trying to draw broad conclusions about external factors. But that perhaps is leading into another debate, and I don't wish to do that in second reading. So I move second reading of Bill 6.

C. Hansen: It is our intention in the official opposition to support this bill, and in doing so I want to spell out what we are supporting. We are supporting the very good work that has been done over these past few years by Doug Kerley, who is a very competent job protection commissioner, and on this side of the House we believe that that mandate should be extended to allow him to continue the work in which he has so admirably served the province over these past few years.

[2:45]

In the past year, since I have been elected to this House, I have listened to many people talk about the work that Doug Kerley is doing, and I must say that I have yet to hear anyone give substantial criticism to the work that he is doing. I think it's clear that when he goes in to try to negotiate a resolution to very difficult situations he doesn't always come out with all those around the table being his friends, because it's true that he has to make some very hard-nosed decisions, and there is a lot of arm-twisting that goes on.

But certainly he does it in a way that is very professional and capable, and I firmly believe that this province is very well served by the service that we are given by Mr. Doug Kerley.

But I think what is important for us to address is the context in which Doug Kerley has to operate as the job protection commissioner, because what we have seen from this government over the last six years is a government that has no economic development strategy. There is no substantial job creation strategy that has any real effect on creating jobs in this province.

Those who know how to create jobs in this province are being driven out. By some of the rhetoric that comes from the government benches, it is obvious that individuals who know how to create jobs are made to feel unwelcome in this province. The sole economic strategy that we can identify coming from the government side is one of watching crisis by crisis, community by community, across this province. And their answer to that is not to address the fundamental causes of those crises but rather to refer them to Doug Kerley and get Doug Kerley and his staff to fly into these various communities to deal with the latest crisis of the week.

Three weeks ago we were in the northwest of the province, on the minister's turf. We were in Terrace shortly after the Repap situation became a crisis. The one thing that was able to give them some hope was the fact that Doug Kerley would be coming in to try to resolve. . .to try to negotiate a solution that would protect some of the interests, protect the workers, protect the jobs and protect the small contractors that are there. At a time when everything else was quite gloomy, the one ray of hope they had was the reputation of Doug Kerley and the authority and power that he had to bring to that situation.

From there, we travelled community by community. We heard the same story at Carnaby, where some of the people are looking at very dire financial straits because of the Repap situation. Again, there was some hope because Doug Kerley might be able to work his magic.

We were in Prince George, where we met with workers from PG Specialty Wood Products. Again the same situation: as a result of policies of this government, companies are laying people off -- substantial job losses -- and the only ray of hope is not that they have a government that's listening; their only ray of hope is that they have Doug Kerley, who is prepared to fly in to see what can be done, what can be negotiated, what kind of deal can be struck.

I'm told that there are three fundamentals to job strategy in British Columbia -- or in any jurisdiction, for that matter. One is job protection, the second is job expansion and the third is job attraction. Thanks to the work of Doug Kerley, I would say that this government at least has the ability to

[ Page 2394 ]

respond partially to one of those measures, and that is job protection. But what we really need to protect jobs in this province is a fundamental change in the economic direction that this party has brought to government.

I like to think of the Premier of this province as the Monty Hall of British Columbia. You know, Monty Hall was the. . ."Let's Make a Deal." We have these three fundamentals of a job strategy, and we look at the way the Premier approaches this. He's the barker on the television show. Do you want door No. 1? Door No. 1 is job attraction. How do we get new industries to come into British Columbia? The Premier, as we know, is prepared to sit down; he's going to cut a deal: "Well, okay, how much do you want for a kilowatt-hour of electricity? We'll see what we can do on that front.

Let's see what kind of land we can get. Maybe we can throw in some timber rights. We'll see if we can negotiate a deal that allows you to create 40, 50 jobs."

What we see in case after case is this Premier being the deal-maker when it comes to trying to attract new companies to British Columbia. Instead of changing the fundamental basis of our economy, instead of addressing our tax policies, instead of addressing our regulatory environment, this Premier wants to go in and cut a deal.

Behind door No. 2, we've got job expansion. How do we take existing companies in British Columbia and allow them to create more jobs for British Columbians? Again, we've got the deal-maker. We've got the Premier, who is prepared to have a jobs and timber accord. I'm sure he's got his sleeves rolled up, he's got his gambler's hat on and he's saying: "Okay, if we give you these timber rights, how many jobs are you going to give me in return?" That's not the way to build an economy. It's not the way to create jobs in this province.

The third door. Of course, behind door No. 3 we have job protection, and there is Doug Kerley, a solid, capable individual.

If you look at investment that's coming into Canada to create jobs, investment that's coming into British Columbia to create jobs. . . . We have numbers from Investment Canada, where they monitor major new investment coming into this country, and between 1991 and 1995 there was $68 billion of new investment that investors were prepared to bring to this country to create jobs for Canadians. But how much of that money actually came to British Columbia? It was 6.8 percent. Contrast that to Alberta, which attracted 27 percent of all the new investment coming into Canada.

I ask the minister: how many of the 166,000 unemployed in British Columbia would be employed today if we had even our fair share of that $69 billion that has come in over that five-year period? If we had our fair share of that investment money. . . . How much lighter would Doug Kerley's load be today if we had investors who were prepared to come into this province and support local industry, support jobs that are here? Instead, we have a government that is bringing in policies that are driving jobs out of this province.

I want to go back to the very first annual report that the job protection commissioner put out. There's a very important quote in here, and it says, in Doug Kerley's words: "The commission is designed to help viable businesses solve problems created by recessionary pressures." When this legislation was introduced, it was meant to be temporary legislation. The role of the job protection commissioner was meant to be a temporary one, because we were trying to deal with recessionary pressures of that day. Now, with this bill that is here before us, this government is asking us to make that position permanent.

Why is it necessary to have that permanent position? It's because the policies of this government have made those recessionary pressures in British Columbia permanent pressures. If you go back to the original debate, when the Job Protection Act was passed. . . . I would like to quote from the second member for Vancouver East of that day, who is currently our Premier. He said this about the Job Protection Act: "This is a temporary bill; it has a sunset clause, which I support, and it deals with short-term help for problems which hopefully are short-term. . .we also need medium- and long-term solutions, which we haven't seen from this administration." Those words are very true today.

I'd like to give you a couple of other quotes from members from the opposite side. I'm glad to see that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is here, because these are some of the words that she said on that day: "We who live beyond Hope literally find that hope is not there. . . . We must have decisions made in our regions, not here in Victoria. . . . We all know that our forest industry is in a sad state. . . ." Those words ring very true today.

I'd like to quote from the Minister of Employment and Investment, who was an opposition member at the time: ". . .there was no industrial strategy within the Ministry of Forests. . . . We can see it in the disparity between the timber supply and the capacity, which sometimes reaches 40 percent. We can see communities desperate for timber supplies. . . . I should also point out that there are about 10,000 people in the forest industry who are currently out of work." Words that ring so true today, now that that member has the ability to do something about it.

I would like to quote from the Minister of Forests.

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

Hon. Speaker, I urge the members who are now on government benches to go back and read the words that they said when they were in opposition and, for God's sake, to start to do something about it today, so that we don't have these problems continuing into the next century.

I trust Doug Kerley; as I've said before, this province has been served well by him. But I don't trust this government. If I knew today that Doug Kerley were to stay in this position as job protection commissioner for as long as that position existed, I would certainly feel much better about the blank cheque that is being asked for in this legislation. But quite frankly, I do not trust this government to choose a successor to Doug Kerley, when that time should ever come.

We need to support the work of the job protection commissioner, but we also need a government that will address the fundamental problem of restructuring our economy. Instead, we have a government that's making it worse. I would feel much better if we instead saw action on the part of the government that was working to put the job protection commissioner out of work. If we had policies coming from this government that meant that the role of the job protection commissioner was going to be redundant in years to come, then I would feel much better about supporting this legislation. But what we see instead are government policies that are adding to his workload every single day.

With that, I would like to summarize that we will support the legislation. We certainly have a lot more questions that we'd like to ask during committee stage. With that, I will turn it over to the next speaker.

[ Page 2395 ]

G. Wilson: This bill, Job Protection Amendment Act, 1997 -- I guess, as the previous speaker has just said -- provides for an opportunity to remove the sunset date that was in the previous act in terms of the Job Protection Act and to substitute provision for giving the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to repeal those provisions by regulation at any time after April 12, 1999.

We could. . . . I don't intend to speak a long time on this particular bill, because I support the work of the job protection commissioner. But I, like the previous speaker -- and, I'm sure, all members in the opposition -- am concerned that we need a job protection commissioner in this province, given the tremendous opportunities that should be available to all of us.

We are headed into some extremely turbulent times -- some very stormy waters indeed. I think that what we have to do as a province -- and as a nation, I would argue, although certainly that's not our purview within this chamber to talk on the national issue -- is to focus in on some of the realities of the new globalization of our economy, of the continentalization of it in North America, and of the impact that that's going to have on our ability to continue to have the tools, provincially, to do what needs to be done.

I would say about Bill 6 that this is a time when all of us -- regardless of our political stripe or of where we may feel that we stand with respect to the kind of job strategies that this government has put forward -- must recognize that there is a reality out here that is going on within the continental and international marketplace that is going to make it increasingly difficult for us to put in place, domestically and provincially, protections that we need for our jobs.

[3:00]

Yesterday I raised the spectre of this new multilateral agreement with respect to investment, the MAI. I characterized it as a part of a trade trilogy: first FTA, then NAFTA, and now the MAI. This MAI -- and I raise it now only because it will have a direct effect on our ability to continue to protect jobs -- is something that I think we need to take very seriously.

In fact, I have put forward a motion for this House to thoroughly debate this issue at an appropriate time, because it strikes me that when you have negotiations underway that will provide protection to foreign investors who come into our country, protection that eliminates the opportunity for provincial governments to be able to -- through either its Crown corporations, through the FRBC model, through job protection commissioners and strategies related, as we see in Bill 6. . . .

The moment we allow those agreements to remove our ability to protect British Columbia jobs first, for British Columbians first, we're in serious trouble.

I would say also that the reason this Job Protection Amendment Act is timely is because all of us are facing the impact of a very significant change in the manner in which corporations are investing and are starting to access our resource base -- and in the degree to which there is mobility within the international market place in terms of the movement of production from areas of reasonably high labour to areas of reasonably low labour.

I take what the Minister of Forests said earlier today to heart, when he talked about the problem with woodchips and the harvest of timber -- which is low grade, largely -- paying high stumpage that you can't realize back at market, because if you're paying $105 per cubic metre to harvest and you're getting $78 in the market, then clearly you're losing money. The small operators -- wherever they are -- are affected by that, and that means the reality of the international marketplace. . . .

As much as it might be politically expedient to lay it all at the feet of this government, I think that realistically we can't, because there is an international marketplace out there, and we are affected by international prices, and we are having to deal with a very competitive and very quickly changing economic community.

We have to have the tools available -- whether it's through this kind of a strategy or through other kinds of initiatives that the government may undertake -- to be able to put into place the protection that we need for workers in this province, for Canadian investors, and for small business entrepreneurs who are trying to become owners of our economy and not simply tenants in our own province.

I will support this bill, because as unsavory as it may be for us to have to have a job protection commissioner, that is the reality of the times in which we live. It is important for all of us -- regardless of where we're coming from politically -- to unite with a single cause: that is, to make sure that British Columbians are protected, and that our investors and those who live within our communities are protected, and to provide an opportunity for British Columbians to continue to be owners in our province and not become tenants in our own land.

That is the trend that is taking place now: for large, multinational corporate interests to come into this province and to be able to have within this province protections such as those that are being outlined in this most offensive piece of treaty negotiation called the MAI and to have provided for them a charter of rights, if you want, that will protect their abilities as international investors to be able to take from our resource base without any kind of guarantees that we'll be able to maintain the level of employment that is needed in this province.

Having said that, let me add one further comment in support of this bill. I think that we must all recognize that as we start to look at the job protection commissioner -- and much of the work that is being done is being done in the forest sector -- there is a time, a needed time now, to change the manner in which we assign forest tenures. I put to this government three solutions to our malaise, at least in part. Firstly, forest tenure reform is urgently needed.

We must break the vertical integration that exists between the major forest companies and the mill owners and operators to provide greater job opportunities in the small communities. Secondly, we must take those moneys that are currently being raised through the 12 percent on FRBC stumpage and put that money directly on deposit in our local communities, so that those communities have an opportunity to directly benefit from those resources, and those jobs then can be maintained within the community.

Thirdly, we must put a greater percentage of the timber that we are harvesting in our province into a competitive open market for British Columbians to be able to access, so that more of it can go into value-added production to create a greater degree of security within that sector by having a greater degree of certainty of supply of timber.

I look forward to the day when we don't need a job protection commissioner. That day is not upon us because of the international concerns I've already spoken of and the international agreements I've already alluded to, and because the government has not yet understood, in my judgment, that what we have to do is implement some fundamental changes in the most basic and most important aspect of our economy -- that is, the forest sector.

I look forward to the day we don't need a commissioner, because that will be the day British Columbians will find that their jobs are well protected through sound economic opportunity and not through government intervention. That's the

[ Page 2396 ]

day we must all work for. But until that time comes, we have no choice but to make sure that the work of this commissioner is unimpeded and that the government continues to have the tools necessary to protect British Columbians in their jobs.

J. Weisgerber: I too rise to speak in support of Bill 6, the Job Protection Amendment Act. I was a member of the government in 1991 when the position was reintroduced in British Columbia. It wasn't a new idea in 1991. There had been a job protection commissioner in the 1980s. That position had expired, and there was a period of time when there wasn't a job protection commissioner. Subsequent to the 1991 reappointment of a job protection commissioner, Doug Kerley came in and took that position, and he has served very well in that position ever since.

I'm a bit concerned that we personalize the position to too great a degree. Mr. Kerley does an outstanding job, and I'm the first to acknowledge that. The important role, though, is that of the job protection commissioner. It is the tools and the authority that the job brings from government that ensure the successes. We have to make sure that we not only have provision for a job protection commissioner but that the commissioner has the necessary tools, the necessary authority and the necessary clout to go out and seek solutions to the problems.

I'm not going to be tempted either to fall into the partisan kind of debate that took place in 1991 or to fall into the second temptation, which is to read the quotes back -- something I very much enjoy doing, but it has already been done. These things that go around, come around. What I want to recognize, first of all, is that we need to have the amendment, which we have in front of us, to give some permanency to the job protection commissioner as part of our process, but I do agree that we also need to address economic issues.

My sense is that over the last six and a half years, most of the challenges faced by the job protection commissioner have been in resource industries. I wouldn't go so far as to say that every task they've undertaken was, but for the most part. It has been a mill closure, a mine closure or a crisis in a resource-based industry. We need to find some better mechanisms to deal with those as well. It has been noted in debate that two of the most recent challenges for Mr. Kerley have been the Repap situation in the northwest and the chopstick plant closure in the northeast.

It underlines, for me at least, the need to look at the way our forest industry interacts with our resource-dependent communities, the way communities such as Tumbler Ridge are able to focus on the challenges that face the coalmining industry today and the issues that face metallurgical mines in the various communities around the province. I look at the throne speech, and I see there a commitment to a northern job strategy. I think that's a proper and prudent step toward less reliance on the work that the job protection commissioner will have to do, and it's a longer-term approach to some of the solutions.

I recognize, particularly in the northern parts of this province and in the resource-dependent areas, the need to develop a longer-term strategy. Without quoting the minister's words in 1991, in fact, there was no job strategy, no investment strategy, in 1991. Unfortunately, there still isn't today.

There wasn't one in 1981. In 1981 I was working as an economic development commissioner, and I wanted to develop an economic strategy for the northeast region. I thought that the best way to do that would be to look at the province's economic and job strategy and pull from it those things that would best serve us in the northeast. As someone new to that business, I was surprised and disappointed to find that there was no provincial job strategy. Then I thought I would look at the national economic and job strategy, and I found there that our country had no strategy -- at least no published strategy.

I looked then to the United States and found that the United States didn't either. In fact, what I found in 1981 was that the only two countries at the time that had a comprehensive economic and job strategy were Germany and Japan. They were doing very well at the time, and that continues today. I think it underlines the need for us to develop these kinds of strategies and to put some thought, time and effort into them. I look forward to the government moving on the northern economic and job protection strategy as a start down that road.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I don't think there's any doubt that as long as British Columbia continues to depend on resource industries -- and that will occur as far into the future as I can see -- there's going to be a need for someone to come in and deal with crisis situations that arise. Quite candidly, I don't think it matters who sits on what side of the House. There are going to be industries that get into trouble and individual businesses and corporations that get into trouble.

That's going to cause crises, particularly for small communities, and the job protection commissioner is an appropriate role to move in to deal with those. So I support the notion of a more permanent position.

Again, I hope Mr. Kerley is able to serve in that position for a considerable period of time. But I am a bit concerned that it becomes the Doug Kerley commission, because that is not what any of these positions should be. It should be the position itself, the authority and the leverage that this position brings to a particular challenge. I wish Mr. Kerley all the best in the work he's currently undertaking.

[3:15]

On the situation in Fort Nelson, it's tragic that my colleague the member for Peace River North is actually in Fort Nelson trying to work with the community and with Mr. Kerley and other related industries to deal with that issue, because I know he would want to speak to the impact of the loss of 175 jobs in a community of 5,000 people. If you take that and apply it to a metropolitan area, it would be like losing 40,000 good-paying jobs in Vancouver in one day. Imagine the implications. Imagine the repercussions for our province and for a metropolitan area too, if 5 percent of its population were losing their jobs on a given date.

That's what happened in Fort Nelson on April 1 -- April Fools' Day -- and it was no April Fools' joke. It was a very serious event in that community. The repercussions will be felt for a long period of time down the road, and the best chance of that having a good resolution is the fact that Mr. Kerley is there. He was able to be there within a matter of two or three days. He is able to sit down and look at issues such as manpower costs, timber supply, hydro costs, rail costs, all the things that together allow a business either to succeed or force them to close their doors.

I don't think anybody could go to the chopstick plant in Fort Nelson or to a mill closure in the northwest or in Golden or anywhere else and point to a single issue that caused that business to fail where others succeeded. It is normally a series of circumstances and economic events that occur to cause a business to fail.

The ability to go and address each of those, to get some concession from each of the players. . . . One looks at govern-

[ Page 2397 ]

ment agencies such as Hydro and B.C. Rail, at stumpage, at timber supply, at all of those areas, and there is opportunity for some movement. Is B.C. Rail, for example, better to take a marginally smaller freight rate or to have no freight at all? It's a very real issue, one that perhaps they are unwilling to address on their own.

I don't even know whether that's an issue that's been put forward, but I suggest and suspect that when we are looking at it, at the cost of hydroelectricity, the remote location of Fort Nelson and the transportation costs associated with it will all prove to be contributing factors to the closure. Again, it comes back to a mechanism that I've seen work as well under the Job Protection Commission as any other vehicle I've seen to date. So I'm pleased to close, again indicating my support for the amendment to the Job Protection Commission.

F. Gingell: I was most interested in the speech of the member for Peace River South. He described to us how the federal government, when he looked, had no job creation strategy and the province did, and how it was his responsibility to think about those issues in the northeast of the province. I was hoping that he was going to let us know -- particularly while the minister was here -- what the job creation strategy was that he came up with at that time.

It's fascinating, because there isn't any discussion about that. This government legislates things. They legislate issues around the health accord and around the fair-wage policy. They create threatening noises about the relationship between timber cutting rights and jobs. This government continually points its fingers across this Legislature and says: "What are your ideas?" I don't blame them, because they are bereft of them. We've talked about them before, and before I finish today I will make some concrete suggestions that I hope the government will take up.

I personally would have preferred to have seen Bill 6 extend the mandate of the job protection commissioner for two more years rather than allowing it to run on, subsequently to be cancelled by order-in-council. That's not because I am optimistic that if this government is still in office in two years' time -- heaven forbid! -- the job won't be necessary and still a requirement, but I think it is important to give both sides of the House the opportunity to speak to this critically important issue on a periodic basis. The sunsetting of the mandate of the job protection commissioner gives us that opportunity, and I would have preferred if that had been the case.

Today is a normal day in this House. What have we talked about? Well, earlier on, the Attorney General of the province tabled a bill called the Food Donor Encouragement Act and stated that the demand is ever-increasing. The demand on our food banks by people who are poor and living on the streets of this province is greater now than it ever has been. That is the result of this government's policies. There were 5,500 jobs lost in the forest industry last year. What are we going to do about it? We're going to threaten the forest companies.

We're going to threaten the forest companies that we'll take away their cutting rights unless they do something about it. What can they do about it? Well, they can make their mills more inefficient, or less efficient, by requiring more man-hours to do a particular job. Or we can encourage value-added. That's the role of Forest Renewal.

Mr. Speaker, after all that is said and all the words are bandied around, we support reinvesting funds that can be spared from stumpage rates in the forests of British Columbia. That, to us, is good common sense. There may be other alternatives, other ways of doing that, other ways of encouraging that, and I did speak to that issue briefly during the budget debate.

What else has happened today? Well, we heard an advisory that photo radar is going through another of its problems, because the company that was doing the work has gone into receivership. It seems to me that we hear more and more about receiverships, more and more about bankruptcies, more and more about issues for Repap or Evans Forest Products. And now Gold River.

I had the privilege of attending the opening of the Gold River Inn many years ago, after the mill had been built, and spending some time in that community -- a community with a bright future, it seemed then. It was upbeat. People liked to live there. It was going to be a community in which they could see, and hope, they would be able to raise their children, living in an environment in the forests that is a sportsman's paradise. All that would seem to be dissolving before their eyes now.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: The minister just now suggested that the member for Vancouver-. . .

C. Hansen: Quilchena.

F. Gingell: . . .Quilchena -- I knew I'd remember the name of that golf course -- must have had a breakfast of platitudes. But that's all that businesses and people in trouble ever get from this government: platitudes. No real action; nothing but platitudes.

I've spoken before in this House about what you do about job creation, how you get the economy going, and it's all to do with climate. It's all to do with what is in people's minds. You have to create a climate that encourages investment and entrepreneurial spirit in this province. We have lots of things going for us: a wonderful environment, safe streets, an education system that -- poor as it is at the moment from this government -- stands up well against its competitors.

We in British Columbia believe that we have sufficient natural attributes to encourage businesses to settle here on the Pacific Rim, with the opportunities in this market, rather than in Washington State or in Oregon or California or Alberta.

So why doesn't that happen? I would just like to focus on three of the issues. The first is taxes. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how to keep saying this so many times. Mr. Harcourt, when he was Premier of this province, recognized that expanding the corporation capital tax from financial institutions to other businesses sent a negative message that would do far greater damage to potential investors than the amount of money that would be raised. When he realized what they had done wrong and the uproar that happened, he made the commitment that the corporation capital tax would be cancelled. Then it got changed to: "Well, we'll cancel it as soon as the budget has been balanced."

Mr. Speaker, we won't get into issues about whether or not the budget has been balanced -- that's a subject you and I don't seem to see eye to eye on -- but we don't even get an indication that this government recognizes the damage that the corporation capital tax does. If only this government would make a new commitment and say, "We're not going to do it this year, but we'll drop it by one-third in three successive years," we would be able to live with that. It will cost them about $130 million a year, and it will bring far, far more revenues to the government through personal income taxes

[ Page 2398 ]

that will be paid by people at work, by reduced welfare rolls, by people who are off welfare and into good jobs. It will reduce our health care costs. It will have all kinds of benefits.

We also have to ensure that British Columbia does not have the highest marginal tax rate. I know that this government has brought taxes down for middle-income earners, and that's good. But what we need are more middle-income earners; what we need are more high-income earners. That's what will get the economy going. You discourage the entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurs from coming to this province, because they don't want to pay a tax that is in excess of 50 percent. Everyone tends to think that the maximum tax rate any personal income should be subject to for the. . . .

The attitude that one has towards taxes is somewhere around 45 to 48 percent. The top marginal rate in this province is, I think, 54.16 percent -- it's a number somewhat like that. That does not encourage entrepreneurial spirit and investment in this province.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

There's also the issue of a sales tax on manufacturing inputs, manufacturing equipment. I appreciate that at this moment in time, with the way this government has looked after the finances of this province, they are not in any position to -- and probably won't -- reduce those taxes, which raise, I believe, somewhere in the region of $600 million. But there isn't any message from this government that says: "We know what we're doing wrong. We know what we don't want, and we're going to start to put things right. We know that the burden of regulation that we lay on small business is too great.

We are going to try and change it, over a reasonably short period of time, to be descriptive rather than proscriptive."

[3:30]

"And we also recognize," this government should be saying, "that another issue is security of tenure." Businesses, the mining industry particularly, do not feel comfortable that security of tenure in this province is a guarantee that this government is strong about making. There is a series of things that this government can do to improve the economic climate, to encourage investment and to create the right solution for job creation. Have a real job creation strategy -- one that will work and is not a hammer hanging over someone's head but a carrot.

In the meantime, of course, we need to continue the mandate of the job protection commissioner. It's a shame. It's a shame that he's got so much work. The work in his office never seems to end. His annual reports make interesting reading, and they make worrisome reading, because behind every single business failure are broken lives and families that no longer have jobs. And that has all kinds of consequences -- consequences that are basic to the quality of life of British Columbians.

So I will end with that: supportive of this bill, but pleading with this government to start doing tangible things to come up with a real job creation strategy and give British Columbians and our children and our grandchildren hope that in the future things will get better rather than, as it seems at the moment, get worse.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to the job protection commissioner's act.

I want to take the opportunity to explore an area that I don't believe I've heard dealt with so far in this debate, and that's to pay tribute to Mr. Doug Kerley, who, by virtue of his personality, I think, has been able to take this office and turn it into perhaps the most influential and instrumental policy vehicle in the province today to save jobs and the economy. Certainly Mr. Kerley's role in bringing the parties together in Trail to preserve the jobs of some 3,000 British Columbians at the Trail smelter was well remembered in that community.

He has that remarkable ability to cut through the red tape, bring the warring parties together, get them reading off the same song sheet and get the jobs saved. That's a remarkable role that he's been able to play and one that, with the support of this bill, I'm delighted to say he will continue to play.

But you know, there's no doubt that Mr. Kerley will be a busy man in the years ahead. You have to appreciate, hon. Speaker, the nature of the economy of British Columbia. I think there's a misconception out there about what has happened in the provincial economy and where we're headed. In 1996 B.C. Stats released statistics comparing provincial economies across Canada, and it was noted that British Columbia is still the most dependent of all Canadian provinces on the export of energy, forest and mineral products.

Fully 71 percent of B.C.'s exports are accounted for in those three categories, which was by far the highest total in Canada. Clearly, although there have been a lot of press reports and information about the diversification of the B.C. economy, the fact is that we're still largely dependent on those three natural resources for our economic livelihood and for our prosperity.

It's also a fact of life that many of those enterprises, those activities, take place in single-industry communities in British Columbia. So when there is a failure out there, it's far more catastrophic than it would be on the lower mainland -- where you do literally have the entire future of communities tied up in the activity that is being threatened.

Just last week, the Minister of Forests released a study about the increase in costs for delivering a raw log to a sawmill in British Columbia during the tenure of the current government. As we heard today during question period, Peat Marwick Thorne has found that the log costs to a sawmill have gone up in the province by 75 percent in the course of five years.

There isn't an industry in North America, I would argue, that can sustain that kind of increase in its raw material costs and remain competitive. I'll say it again: there's not an industry in North America -- a car-maker, anyone -- that could sustain that kind of increase in its raw material costs and possibly protect jobs. It just can't be done.

We're now treated to the spectacle of the current government discussing the future of this industry with a group of chief executive officers in the industry and others. As the Minister of Forests well knows, there's great fear in this province about the future of that industry, which employs so many British Columbians.

I can recall very well, during debate in this House with the previous Minister of Forests, that he displayed almost an unwillingness to concede that there was any need to talk to the industry at that time -- that somehow these charges and regulations could be levied on the industry at will without any repercussions in terms of their ability to not only create employment but secure the employment that's already here.

I think Mr. Kerley will have his work cut out for him in the years ahead. There's no question that as the costs of production rise astronomically, mills that are on the bubble, so to speak, that already are experiencing high fibre costs and

[ Page 2399 ]

perhaps difficult geographic locations -- located in areas where they have high costs of shipment to the coast. . . . There's no doubt that those mills are going to be forced to make some difficult choices about their future. And it's also a sad fact of life that many of them are located in communities where they are literally the biggest single employer and often the only employer.

I am pleased to support Bill 6, the job protection commissioner's act, and to recognize today the remarkable job that Mr. Kerley has done for British Columbians in his ability -- as I said earlier in my remarks -- to bring the force of his personality to bear on these very complex discussions surrounding the imminent demise of some of these plants. But again, there will be a lot of work for him, and I think he'll be very challenged to deal with some of the fundamental realities that this industry is facing.

I guess if I have one other lament, it's that Mr. Kerley's involvement in a business failure often comes as a last resort. And it often comes after those businesses and enterprises have come to Victoria to make representations to the Minister of Forests, to the Minister of Employment and Investment, and have tried to tell these ministers the reality that they are facing. It's only after a catastrophe like the situation in Golden, or like the minister's former employer, Repap, up in his neck of the woods. . . . I know that he worked for the plant up there for many years and is as concerned as anyone about the situation it's facing today.

I just lament the fact that it is Mr. Kerley who is the architect of last resort and not the government, because clearly a government that decides that an industry can sustain a 75 percent increase in its raw material costs has lost the ability to listen -- to seriously listen -- to an industry and to one-industry towns.

When I was the critic for Forests, I often had occasion to travel throughout forest-dependent communities in our province, attending rallies and talking to people on the mill floor. The one lament that I heard out there was that they felt strongly that government didn't understand anymore where the forest industry jobs were located in British Columbia. I think the first Minister of Forests -- and we've had many since -- seemed to understand that.

He actually seemed to know that the industry was changing, that even though the advent of high technology reduced employment on the sawmill floor, there were a lot of peripheral businesses that took shape in communities that were equally dependent on that major employer. They didn't show up in the job statistics as being forest-dependent jobs, yet they were real; they were out there. Of course, Mr. Kerley never really has the opportunity to deal with some of those peripheral failures that occur as a result of the collapse of the major employer.

I know that the current Minister of Employment and Investment, in his constituency office, is probably dealing with this issue on a daily basis. The number of suppliers and small firms that have been left vulnerable as a result of the collapse of Repap is the part of the story that we don't hear about, even when it comes to Mr. Kerley's office, because he usually goes in and deals with the major employer -- the Comincos, in the case of Trail -- and, you know, some of the major forest products restructuring. I know he was active with Avenor up in Gold River, with the plant there.

But it's in the small and intermediate-sized firms that depend on these sawmills that the real tragedy occurs. I often was struck by the fact that people in small communities felt strongly that the government didn't know they were a forest-dependent employee. It wasn't aware of the fact that the small enterprise of 15 people who were perhaps millwrights, and perhaps the local tire company that sold tires for skidders or other logging equipment operators, were just as dependent on the resource and on that sawmill as the people who worked on the plant floor -- and yet they didn't show up in the government's assessment of statistics.

I really am concerned about the future of the province. As I said when I started my remarks, British Columbia is the most dependent province in the country on those major commodities: energy, forests and mineral resources. There's no question that this act is timely, that it extends the mandate of the job protection commissioner. I take great satisfaction in congratulating Mr. Kerley on the job he's done for the people of the province to date, and I certainly look forward to receiving his reports in the future about his activities around British Columbia.

G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to rise today, Madam Speaker, to give my support to this bill. I had kind of a unique experience as a rookie member in actually getting some firsthand experience with the job protection commissioner as a result of the crisis at Evans Forest Products in the community of Malakwa -- which of course is in my riding of Shuswap -- and, secondarily, in the community of Golden, which is in Columbia River-Revelstoke.

I certainly hope that I don't have to have too many more experiences with the job protection commissioner, although I was very much impressed with everything I saw about the job protection commissioner. For those reasons, I very much support what's being proposed here today. Obviously it was a very difficult and unhappy time for the communities of Malakwa and Golden particularly, but also for the whole region. Sicamous and Revelstoke were very much affected by this crisis.

So I do hope that I don't have to experience that again. Unfortunately, it may perhaps be inevitable that we will face something like this again. I think there are some problems that have been occasioned by some of the policies of this government, and unfortunately, we may have to deal with it. I hope I don't have to, but it's important that we have a job protection commissioner in place to deal with these issues when they emerge.

[3:45]

The Evans Forest Products closure was the result of some very severe financial problems which emerged in that company and came to a peak, I guess, in early October of last year.

I first visited the community of Golden in mid-October, after the plant there had been closed down for about a week, and the Malakwa plant at that point had been closed down for a little bit less than that. I met at that time with the council of the town of Golden, met with community leaders from the Golden area, met with IWA officials and met with Evans Forest Products management.

The government response at that time -- and this was mid-October -- was that Evans Forest Products was entirely the author of its own misfortunes and its own economic difficulties and that the government had done all it could or should do in trying to preserve the 700 or so jobs associated with Evans Forest Products.

After the discussions I had in Golden and Malakwa at that time, there were several things which very much struck me about the crisis that those communities were experiencing.

[ Page 2400 ]

For example, at one meeting in Golden the absolute, fundamental importance of that company in that single-resource town came home to roost when a lady told me: "I have a ladies' clothing store. Since Evans Forest Products closed a week ago, I've done less than $50 worth of business in my store."

Her experience was not unusual in the town of Golden at that time. Just a walk up and down the main street in Golden confirmed that if Evans Forest Products was going to be down on a permanent basis, this whole town was going to be down on a permanent basis. We heard the same stories over and over again from retailers and business people in the community: the survival of Evans Forest Products was absolutely critical to their own survival.

The second thing that struck me very, very forcefully during my visits to Malakwa and Golden at that time was that the government was prepared to offer them transitional training allowances; they were prepared to offer them relocation allowances; they were prepared to offer them unemployment insurance; and they were prepared to offer them social assistance. There was no end of lines which people could get into to access transitional assistance as a result of this crisis.

One of the most striking things -- I'm sure it will impress me forever -- was the response that people had to those offers. They said: "We don't want transitional training allowances; we don't want relocation allowances; we don't want unemployment insurance; and we don't want social assistance. We want to work at jobs we like, and we want to work in the community that we've chosen to spend the rest of our lives in."

It was a very, very emotional time for the people there -- and certainly for me, as well. People felt that their whole lives had been turned upside down, and they clearly expected and had every reason to expect that government should do something about the most unfortunate situation that they were in.

The third thing that very much struck me, particularly after meeting the management of Evans Forest Products, was that there had been no real attempt by government -- and this is ten days into the closure -- to try to save the 700 jobs at Evans Forest Products in Golden and Malakwa. Certainly there had been an exchange of correspondence, which I was offered the opportunity to have a look at, but there had been no face-to-face discussions between the government, the job protection commissioner and the company or the union. None of that had happened.

It seemed absolutely remarkable to me that 700 jobs and, really, two communities could be, I guess, relegated to this unfortunate position without any serious face-to-face discussion or negotiation between the critical parties here -- government, job protection commissioner, company, union.

After my visits to Golden and Malakwa, among the phone calls I made subsequent to that was one to the job protection commissioner to try to understand where the situation was going from his perspective. I must say that the job protection commissioner was very honest, very candid, very straightforward, very non-partisan in the way in which he dealt with the issue with me. I also talked to the owner of Evans Forest Products about his concerns with respect to his company's viability, given the economic and regulatory environment which he faced in British Columbia.

The conclusion I formed after discussing the situation with those gentlemen and a number of other people was that the only way in which we were going to get movement on Evans Forest Products would be to bring a lot more public attention to this very critical issue in those communities and to bring about further political pressure, which might bring about some movement from the government and, I suppose, the company and the union's perspective.

One of the things which I asked my leader to do was to come and visit the communities of Malakwa and Golden as quickly as he could. I know I was delighted, and I know the communities were delighted, that the Leader of the Official Opposition was able to come and visit the communities of Malakwa and Golden on very short notice -- just after a couple of days, on less than 24 hours notice. Again, what I'm trying to do here is underline the very critical importance of this company and these jobs to the communities.

Without any kind of advertisements in the newspaper or anything else -- it was all by word of mouth -- less than 24 hours after I let one of the people in the community know that my leader was coming, almost 200 people came out to see us at a meeting in Malakwa. Malakwa is not a large community, and I think it really underlined how critical these jobs were to this community.

In Golden we met with lots of residents, people very much concerned with what was happening to their community, and again with business people who felt entirely desperate about their situation. When a company closes down which is as important to a community as Evans is to Golden, people don't buy anything. Retailers very quickly get into problems, so obviously they were very, very concerned. We met with union representatives, workers, management and community leaders. All of these meetings reinforced the urgency of working towards a solution which would get these people back to work.

One of the things which we urged the Golden council and community leaders in Golden to do was get on a plane as soon as possible and meet with the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Employment and Investment in Victoria. We felt that it was critical that they press their case as quickly as possible.

We were very much delighted when, after a few days, it appeared that their visit to Victoria was going to bear fruit. What happened at that time -- and I guess now we're about three weeks into the crisis; it's around October 20 or 21 -- was that the government finally acknowledged that there was a crisis at Golden and Malakwa that had to be addressed. Further, the government acknowledged that they were prepared to use their resources, including the job protection commissioner and Forest Renewal B.C., to try to find solutions to the very fundamental problems which underlie this crisis.

The agreement which ultimately resulted from this initiative took several weeks, and it certainly took a lot of hard work by a lot of people, including the job protection commissioner. But ultimately a restructure agreement was reached, which allowed those jobs and that industry, Evans Forest Products, to continue. I know, as very much an interested participant in those weeks, that the job protection commissioner did an excellent job of putting the restructure agreement together. It's a complex agreement. There are over a hundred sections, as I recall, in the restructure agreement.

I'm sure that each of those sections involved a lot of hard work on his part and on the part of government ministers, as well. I commend them for doing that.

I think one of the reasons the job protection commissioner was successful in this initiative is that he commands enormous respect because of his knowledge, experience and integrity. Again, I was very much struck, even early in the crisis when the job protection commissioner was not yet involved, that he seemed to me pretty much the unanimous -- not pretty much. . . . He did have the unanimous respect of the

[ Page 2401 ]

industry, of the union, of all the officials involved, of local government. Everyone respected Doug Kerley. I think that for that reason he was able to do the very good work that he was able to do. That respect, I think, was necessary, because there were some enormous problems that had to be overcome in order to see the Evans agreement come to fruition.

The most striking problem, I guess, that is faced by Evans Forest Products. . . . Perhaps it's not unique to them, but I think there are some very striking issues that are present in Golden particularly, and to a lesser extent in Malakwa, with Evans Forest Products. That's first and foremost the high cost of extracting timber in the Golden TSA. As I recall, about 80 percent of logging in the Golden TSA involves either high-lead or helicopter logging, so it's much more expensive than conventional ground-skid types of operations.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

One of the consequences in the case of Evans Forest Products, which had to deal with roughly 80 percent high-lead or helicopter logging, was that the Forest Practices Code had a particularly devastating effect on their economic position. Roadbuilding costs are much higher there -- a consequence, in part, of the terrain. But, again, the application of the code made it much more difficult for the company as well. The impact of the Mica Dam pondage is certainly a big issue as well.

That company faces some very unique problems that other forest companies in the interior, or indeed anywhere else in British Columbia, don't have to face. In combination with low pulp prices and, in my view, an insensitive revenue-driven stumpage system, the consequences for this company's bottom line -- I guess, at the time, it would be difficult to use the term "profitability" because that doesn't quite do it -- and the consequences of all that on the company's economic position were horrendous.

[4:00]

As well, there were other regulatory and taxation issues that came into play with respect to Evans Forest Products. Our Finance critic has mentioned the impact of the corporate capital tax, and certainly that is a background issue here, as it is with every other enterprise in this province. Super-stumpage is an issue as well. All of these things contributed in some measure to the very difficult position which Evans Forest Products found itself in.

There was mention earlier on today about the recent report on the high logging costs in British Columbia -- an increase of 75 percent in log extraction costs in this province in the past few years. Again, I hope the Minister of Forests will follow through on his commitment to try to deal with this very significant problem.

Logging and forestry are going to be, for a long, long time -- and perhaps forever, I don't know -- the backbone of the provincial economy, in my view. It's absolutely critical that we ensure that the industry continues to invest, continues to grow and not suffer declines as a consequence of a loss in faith in this province as a place to invest.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted, and I know that all members on this side of the House were delighted, with the efforts of the job protection commissioner and others -- and I'll generously include the Minister of Forests here -- in bringing this restructure agreement to fruition. It was a wonderful day in my hometown of Sicamous and, I know, in Malakwa and Golden and everywhere, when the people went back to work there. So I think we want to support this bill. I think the experience with Evans Forest Products is a good example of why we need it.

A. Sanders: I rise in second reading of Bill 6, Job Protection Amendment Act. I, too, wish to congratulate Mr. Doug Kerley for his knowledge, experience and the integrity he has brought to the job of the official job protection commissioner for British Columbia.

I think that what we are looking at in British Columbia right now is a circumstance, from an employment point of view, where there is concern over the climate for job creation. Sometimes I wonder, when looking at the position of job protection commissioner, whether we are in a situation where our government does have a vision for job creation.

I think we need to be looking at those criteria that would provide for stabilization in the job market and for stability in the jobs that have been created in British Columbia. I'm hoping that we will not be relying on Mr. Kerley to come to community after community to put out fires that have been necessitated by things that are job-killing in terms of government regulations and rules.

It's really important for all of us to remember, Mr. Speaker, that it is not government that creates jobs. In fact, it is government that creates the climate in which jobs can occur. We've been with a job protection commissioner, starting this with a sunset clause in '93, then prolonged to '95, then to '97. . . . Now, again, we're on the brink of requiring new legislation in order for this position to be re-created with potentially no sunset clause.

What we need to look at in that big picture are the issues that are considerably needed in terms of British Columbia, and these are the issues of job attraction and job expansion as well as job protection. In many ways, when we are looking at the work we ask Mr. Kerley to do, sometimes we're asking at the death throes of jobs for large numbers of people. Really, if we were looking at the attraction and expansion areas, we would have a much more stable job creation and maintenance environment.

I have heard in the past about the issue of Golden and Malakwa, where the potential was for 700 jobs to be lost. I congratulate the member for Shuswap, as well as the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, who did go up with the job protection commissioner and work with him and the union and the company in the riding of Shuswap to give stabilization to a community that at that time would really have been decimated.

One of the things that many people in the lower mainland and on the Island may not be as aware of as those of us who come from the interior parts of the province is that when jobs, especially in forestry, are lost -- we are looking, for example, at 70 jobs in Gold River -- this decimates the entire community. It decimates families. It puts the resources of the community into a situation of lacking tenability. And it creates circumstances where people are unable to work and have no vision for the future in terms of their families.

We are living in a province with a government that has told us that we will be creating 21,000 jobs in the forestry industry over the next while. I'm having some problem having a vision of how that is going to occur, when we're looking at 70 jobs in Gold River that we heard of today being potentially lost, the potential of 700 jobs in Malakwa and Golden and the 400 jobs in Fort Nelson, a chopstick factory -- again, all of these positions affecting the forest industry.

[ Page 2402 ]

When we are looking at the increase in log extraction costs of 75 percent, this is really the factor that is of critical importance. There is a concern about the correlation of the increased log extraction costs and the absolute need for a job protection commissioner. I think what we need to be doing is putting those two facts together and seeing how they relate to each other, and whether or not this is a tenable circumstance for us to look at as elected members of this House.

There are other areas that the job commissioner may have to deal with in the near future, hon. Speaker. I'm very concerned about the potential for education in British Columbia and whether this will again be an area where the job protection commissioner will have to do extraordinary work, as we hear about potential layoffs and cutbacks within our school districts. I'm hoping that forestry won't be followed by education, in terms of jobs that once existed in British Columbia and now must be subject to the job protection commissioner's strategies of putting out fires in communities on a community-by-community basis.

In committee stage, I would like to speak specifically to the education issues. At this point, I would very much like to speak in support of Mr. Kerley and his continual service in this job and to thank the member for Shuswap for sharing with us the details of the incident at Golden. I'm very proud of his ability to help that community.

C. Clark: I rise with my colleagues to also support the bill, the Job Protection Amendment Act. I do that because, of all the things that government does, creating and protecting jobs and ensuring that there is work for British Columbians to go to is the most important thing. If people don't have jobs, they don't pay taxes. They don't give government any revenue, which means government can't provide schools and hospitals and social services.

Essentially, without jobs there is nothing else, because every cent of government revenue comes from taxes, and every cent of tax comes from people who are employed somewhere in this province. So I can rise quite enthusiastically and say yes, I strongly support the job protection commissioner.

I think what the job protection commissioner has accomplished over the last many months has been really quite extraordinary. He has saved, I think, hundreds of jobs in this province.

He has really brought together some very diverse and sometimes fractious interests and helped people see where they can commonly find some cause. It's probably a debate for another day, but I will note here that it is something we should all be looking toward. I think that's probably the way we should be encouraging industry and business and unions and working people and communities across this province to operate -- to bring people together in that manner rather than to be constantly working at odds with each other.

So the principle on which this bill is premised is a worthy one. I guess we have to congratulate the government that first came up with the idea -- and I imagine that would be the previous government or the previous, previous government -- and that first introduced the idea of a job protection commissioner, and congratulate this government for carrying on in that tradition. It's certainly something that's needed.

My quibble with the bill, however, is the fact that it removes the sunset clause from the legislation. I think that in doing this, there's an admission -- if we're making this a permanent position rather than a temporary position -- that the government expects to be stumbling from crisis to crisis in jobs across the province. What we need to be working for instead of that is a situation where we don't require someone to go and be constantly solving crisis after crisis after crisis.

What we need to address are those fundamental problems in the economy and in government policy, and the negative impacts that they have had on the economy, so we can cut back on the number of crises that occur out there.

Clearly there will always be some problems in our economic situation in British Columbia. There will always be a business or two that perhaps require some assistance from government. But I suggest that the number of businesses whose existence has been threatened, and the number of jobs, and the number of individuals whose livelihoods have been threatened over the last few years have gone up dramatically, as we see job loss in British Columbia, and as we see business after business affected and thousands of jobs affected by the policies that this government is pursuing.

Really, as legislators we need to remember why government exists in the first place. It's not our job as legislators to create jobs, because that's a tough thing to do. It's our job as legislators to provide people with as many opportunities as we can, to provide British Columbians with all the opportunities that they need in order to fulfil their potential, to some extent to create the environment that business needs in order to grow, and to step out of the way and let individuals fulfil their potential in that environment. I'd suggest that this government's policies have, in many respects, done the exact opposite on both counts.

This should be a short-term, temporary position, which I think is what the current Premier previously suggested in the House, and I know he has been quoted extensively by my colleagues in the debate over the last several hours. It should not be a long-term, permanent position.

When I was travelling around the north, we talked to people in communities from Terrace and Kitimat -- all the way across into Alberta, even. What they told us was that they see that the problems in our economy are not short-term anymore. They've become chronic. They've become chronic to the extent that once those jobs go, we can't necessarily expect to get them back.

Once the high-cost forest policies drive those jobs out of our province, it's going to be tough to get them back; once the high-cost mining policies drive those jobs out of British Columbia, it is going to take years to get those jobs back; once the enormous regulatory burden drives small business out of this province, shuts down all the mom-and-pop operations in the small towns in British Columbia, it's going to be hard to get those back.

[4:15]

I think one of the things that this government is recognizing as it scrambles to find new revenue is the fact that if

[ Page 2403 ]

people aren't working -- and there are more people in the province to support -- they can't provide the same number of services that they used to. So unemployment, like debt, eats away at our ability to pay for essential social programs, which I know are so important to my colleagues on this side of the House.

We can look at some of the wrongheaded policies of this government. One of them, which I have spoken about a fair amount in this House already, is the impact on the fishing industry that this government's policies have had. We've talked a fair amount about the latest policies on the freshwater fishery and the impacts that those new policies have had on northwestern British Columbia. I want to quote from the job protection commissioner's report called "Fishing for Answers," in which the commissioner talks about the problems in the saltwater fishery.

Some of the things that the commission addresses in that report are a lack of planning on the part of the federal government -- which is true. They talk about a lack of notice that's given to the industry on the part of the federal government, which is true. He talks about how the industry needs to be managed better; otherwise, it is going to continue to decline. In fact, the job protection commissioner talked about how our saltwater fishery in British Columbia is in dire straits. It is in desperate condition. That's because of poor management and poor policies on the part of the government.

Now, when it comes to the saltwater fishery, I know the province is very fond of pointing to the federal government and saying: "They're doing everything wrong." But, you know, the things that the commission referred to in the "Fishing for Answers" report are exactly the kinds of problems that will be occurring in the freshwater fishery in a few years' time if the government doesn't do something about it now. There is no better example, no more current example, and there is no better time for the government to try and address this problem before it gets any worse. We do not want the freshwater fishery in British Columbia to go the same way that the saltwater fishery has.

By not managing the industry properly -- by overtaxing it, by overregulating it, by regulating it poorly and putting in regulations that can't be managed, by cutting back on those areas of government that are so essential to preserving that resource, so that we can continue to support those jobs that depend on that resource. . . . By failing to do that, government is failing in its most essential and fundamental responsibility, which is to protect and create and expand the number of jobs in our province.

I want to quote the report, where he said: "Many business interests commented to us that DFO does not appear to have a long-term vision for the industry, and this omission is an impediment to business planning. DFO should provide this vision to industry." Well, that's certainly something that the government should think about with the freshwater industry, as well. "To restore confidence among the angling public and to restore the economic base of the business community, DFO needs to make a timely announcement of the sport fishing regulations. . . ." That certainly is something that could apply to the freshwater industry as well.

My point is that while we certainly do need a job protection commissioner in British Columbia, it is regrettable that we need one. It is regrettable that we need a perennial, unending time line for the position. It's regrettable, too, of course, that this individual would have been so busy as a result of the government's policies.

What I would like to suggest at this point to the government is that they look at some of those very necessary changes that they need to make to their policies in order to ensure that, one of these days, we can come back and change the legislation to get rid of the job protection commissioner, because hopefully one day our economy will be in such a state that we don't require it. You know, I'd suggest, as well, that British Columbia has all the elements necessary to have a healthy economy, a really growing economy based on sound principles. We have those elements there.

But government policy appears to be doing as much to inhibit that potential as it can.

I'll end by saying that we do support the job protection commissioner's position. But we would like to see this government, as part of their commitment to protecting jobs, change some of those policies they have implemented, which have so clearly undermined our ability to compete in the long term in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: Before I launch into this sterling debate, might I seek leave to make an introduction?

The Speaker: I think you jeopardized the opportunity with that comment. Nevertheless, shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: I'm happy to see in the gallery this afternoon representatives of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board and the British Columbia Real Estate Association -- and one of them from the area I call home, Larry Luchak. If members could make him feel welcome today. . . .

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that opportunity. I am going to begin by promising to keep my remarks brief and then spend the rest of my time disproving that offer. But I will try to keep my remarks brief.

There are a couple of things that I do want to say about the bill. They relate to trends that I have seen develop in the very short time I have been involved in the provincial political scene. It's probably not surprising, and it's probably trite to say, but all politicians love to take credit for things. Government members love to take credit for cutting ribbons on buildings and for spending in certain areas. Opposition MLAs love to take credit when it can be demonstrated that they've changed -- or at least appear to have changed -- the mind of government.

It's not something that happens often, but opposition MLAs are quick to jump in and take the credit when that appears to have taken place.

I can't help but come to the conclusion that a lot of it is unwarranted, because politicians, for all their desire to take the credit when something is presented as being positive and good for society, are quick to run for cover when something bad has happened or when the indicators aren't nearly as positive.

The government, for example, will talk -- as the Education minister did today -- about the money that is being spent on education. He will do so, Mr. Speaker, pointing to the numbers. I think $10 million was the number he repeated several times today. But government does so without addressing its mind. . . . The numbers are fine. It's an easy figure; it rolls off the tongue: $10 million. It sounds, in isolation, to be quite impressive. But it begs the real question: what is the impact? What's the actual result? What is happening?

We heard earlier today in question period what $10 million doesn't do for students in British Columbia. So I think that's significant: the result, the impact of the money that's being spent.

[ Page 2404 ]

Government likes, in the same vein, to talk about creating jobs. The figures, now, that we hear from this government vary anywhere from 2,000 to 40,000, and they're repeated sort of on a yearly basis. It's difficult to take them seriously -- partly, of course, because even by the government's own measurement, they aren't objectives; they aren't numbers that are met.

But I also can't help but offer the observation that they are artificial. The numbers, when they are offered, are artificial. And the results, on those rare occasions when they are presented, are equally artificial. I think that if the minister were being. . . . I was going to say, "If the minister were being honest," but I don't mean that in the pejorative way it might sound. If the minister was sincere in looking at what some of these numbers mean when we talk about retraining. . . .

I have heard about some of the "retraining schemes" that are offered by government -- a four-week course to learn how to write a r�sum� that extends to an eight-week course on how to write a r�sum�. These are presented as job retraining schemes, and of course they aren't. But again the numbers make for compelling copy; they are rolled out by the government, on and on ad nauseam. But they are artificial.

I don't know how many times over the course of the past couple of years I have sat in this place and read the newspaper and listened to government tout its job creation figures as if the government itself were responsible for the creation of jobs. It is something, I have to tell you, that people in my riding -- and I think ridings right across the province -- are becoming tired of hearing. You hear the government talk about its job creation record; forget for the moment that it is not a record to be proud of. But when a new job is created, the government takes credit.

When hundreds or even thousands of jobs are lost, it is the result of market conditions that are beyond government's control. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest and submit to you that the honest answer lies in acknowledging and recognizing the fact that at best this Legislature and this government can create conditions in which the private sector, as the engine that drives the economy, can flourish. Refusing to acknowledge that fact does amount to ostrich economics. It does represent an unwillingness on the part of government, this government in particular, to recognize its own limitations. Those are real limitations. It does no one any good to delude ourselves into thinking that government has the power to create long-lasting, permanent, family-supporting jobs. It just ain't so.

For the people listening in this gallery, for the people watching at home. . . . And if they're home. . . . In many cases, many of those people are home because they don't have a job. Many of them have had what the government might term a job of note, but they have been short-term, they have disappeared and they have not been the kind of jobs that allow for those individuals to properly support their families on a long-term and ongoing basis.

So as we address our mind to the bill that is before the House and to the continuing requirement for this position and for this individual whom others have endorsed as an individual doing a very difficult job, I think we need to acknowledge that his presence, his existence, is symptomatic of a problem. This is not something to be celebrating today. We haven't heard from a lot of government speakers. I suppose, on the positive side of the ledger, that represents an acknowledgment on the part of government members that this is not something we should be celebrating.

I hope the minister, in wrapping up debate, will address a point that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena raised, when he drew that phrase, that passage from the original annual report, that said: "We are responding to recessionary conditions." That's why the position was created. It is a position designed to respond to recessionary pressures.

Now, is the minister telling us today, by virtue of the need to introduce this bill, that we are in the midst of ongoing recessionary conditions? Is that what he's saying? If it is -- if that was the original intent, the original impetus for the creation of the position -- and if that's changed, then let him say that. It has to be one or the other. We either remain in the midst of recessionary conditions, or something else has changed. I think the minister needs to confront that and address it.

[4:30]

Hon. D. Miller: I'll respond to that.

M. de Jong: He assures me that he will, and I've never known this minister to back down from an invitation to address a specific point. So I look forward to hearing from him on that issue.

There are two other points that I wish to make about the legislation itself, which. . . . Look, the legislation is going to pass. The opposition is. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: It's taking a long time to do it.

M. de Jong: The minister appears troubled by the fact that there are speakers on this side of the House that wish to draw attention to some of the conditions that have created the need for this ongoing position. I say to that that it's early in the session, and there is still a certain enthusiasm for engaging in debate that may not exist four or five months from now.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I know that makes the Minister of Education happy.

But here's the observation: government, and this government in particular, doesn't like deadlines. It doesn't like legislative deadlines that require the state to do certain things by a certain date. It's curious, because all the people watching these debates will know that when it is government imposing deadlines on the people, there's no hesitation. There are all sorts of them, from income tax to the payment of fines, to the filing of applications. You can look at it on a personal basis or on a corporate basis, but government loves to impose deadlines on others. But when it comes to abiding by deadlines itself, there's a real reluctance.

An Hon. Member: Government can do anything.

M. de Jong: One of my colleagues reminds us of that now oft-quoted phrase from the Minister of Forests that government can do anything. That is the impression that is left, by this government in particular, by a trend that we see developing over and over again.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the government would approach this on the basis of reversing the onus -- to go from having a fixed term to having an indefinite term, unless the government decides by order-in-council to do something different. I don't understand. The minister, I presume, will address that point.

Now, I suppose the government is uncomfortable having to come before the House on a regular basis to seek the

[ Page 2405 ]

permission of the House for the job protection commissioner to continue, because when you do that you invite comment and scrutiny. Members are compelled to ask themselves: well, why do we need this person in the first place? The answer, of course, is because the economy has stagnated, because -- for all its talk -- the job creation that this government continuously promises simply isn't materializing. But that's no excuse. I think it is a function of this Legislature to have that power of endorsement. I'm curious to know on what basis the government wishes to dispense with the need to review on an annual or biannual basis -- on some basis. It is troubling, Mr. Speaker.

I know the government has had a spate of bad luck. I see the Attorney General is in his seat. Of course, we've had the recent experience of the government missing a deadline. We've got the experience of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. Of course, the government didn't meet the deadline requirement there. But that's no excuse for dispensing with the need for the deadline. All of us have to abide by certain time requirements, but the government doesn't like to do that. When there's a statutory requirement. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: You know, the Education minister calls it a tedious debate. I hardly think. . . .

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: He's the expert on tedium. He'd know tedium.

M. de Jong: You know, Mr. Speaker, when I was quite young my mother said to me that God placed certain limits on intelligence, but He placed no similar limitation on lack of intelligence. Until this very moment I didn't know what she meant. Fortunately, that matter has been clarified.

The Education minister has diverted my attention from an issue that I do think is serious. I've tried to address the topic in the serious vein that I think it deserves. God and the Education minister willing, I'll return to the serious vein that I think this subject warrants.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that this government not lose sight of the fact that deadlines and statutory requirements are there for a purpose and are not simply a mechanism or a tool to be imposed on others. Government shouldn't have the hesitation that apparently this NDP government has about abiding by those legislative restrictions. So as we move through this and. . . .

I. Waddell: Your time's up, though.

M. de Jong: The member for Vancouver-Fraserview, I know, would be here all day if he knew that I could speak that long.

Some Hon. Members: More, more!

M. de Jong: But sadly, Mr. Speaker, I have said and tried to impart to the minister and this government those thoughts and those submissions that I have on this subject.

I would like to know from the minister what the purpose is in eliminating the fixed term. I think it's a very relevant question, because that's the essence of the bill. The minister knows the bill is going to pass. But will he address in his comments the reasoning behind eliminating the fixed term, which I think sends entirely the wrong message to the people of British Columbia?

J. van Dongen: Hon. Speaker, I would like to address some comments to this second reading of Bill 6, the Job Protection Amendment Act. Those comments will be in two areas, the first being the agricultural food-processing sector; I want to make some comments about that industry. Then I also want to make some comments in terms of the recommendations that the job protection commissioner had made in some recent reports and how those recommendations had been followed or used by the government.

The food-processing sector, I think, is a strategic industry in British Columbia, and I'm concerned that possibly the job protection commissioner has not been brought into play in terms of the rationalization that has taken place in that industry, particularly in the last five years or so. There has been major job loss. Good union jobs, good-paying jobs that support families, have left this province, gone to Alberta, to Washington. It's certainly something that I've been raising in the last year or so.

I'm concerned the job protection commissioner has not been brought in by the government to look at that overall sector. Possibly the role of the commissioner needs to be defined to include that industry. I would say there's something like 2,000 or 3,000 jobs in the last five years that have left this province.

I just want to highlight some of the plant closures that have taken place that would have been well served with the involvement of the job protection commissioner. In September of 1993 we had a fruit and vegetable processing plant, involving 360 workers -- union jobs -- shut down in Chilliwack. In July '94 we had a bread-making plant, with 89 workers, and that plant was shut down. That product is now coming from outside the province. In December of 1995, another fruit and vegetable processing plant in the Fraser Valley, 500 employees there, also shut down -- no replacement within B.C.

We've seen a couple of milk plants shut down, one in May of '96 and one more recently. We've seen an egg-grading station shut down in August of '96 -- actually, there were two egg-grading stations in the last year and a half; a jam and jelly plant, 80 employees, September of '96; October of '96, an ice cream plant employing 17 people; and one month later, the largest ice cream plant in British Columbia shut down, with 64 people out of work. Those ice cream plants both went to the Prairies, one to Edmonton and one to Winnipeg.

We've also seen a meat-packing plant shut down in the last six months, involving about 300 employees, and just very recently, as I mentioned, a milk-processing plant. In my experience in the agricultural industry, this has been a massive downsizing in a critical industry.

I'm pleased to support the bill for an extension of the job protection commissioner's mandate. But I think it would be very appropriate that the government and the minister consider getting him involved in the food-processing sector -- as I said, 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in the last five years.

Now I also want to address some comments to the issue raised by my colleague from Port Moody -- that is, to cite the example of the job protection commissioner's report that was done, mainly focusing on the performance of the federal government in dealing with issues revolving around the sport fishing sector and the commercial fishing sector on the salt water. But we've seen an example just recently by the provincial government, by this government, that flies in the face of

[ Page 2406 ]

recommendations that the job protection commissioner made in this recent report, of which the provincial government was very well aware. I'm referring to the increases in sport fishing licence fees.

It's a fact that there was no consultation with people involved, whether it's recreational anglers, organizations that represent them or organizations that represent commercial businesses that make their living providing services to the whole sport fishing sector. There was no consultation with their own field staff in the Ministry of Environment, people who are knowledgable about that sector, about the revenue, the dollars -- very often dollars from out of the province and the country -- that come into the B.C. economy as a result of our sport fishing sector. There was no consultation with their own staff.

What consultation there was with senior staff in the Ministry of Environment was ignored.

There was no economic analysis done by the government before these very substantial increases were put in place. That was a criticism our provincial government had of the federal government in the past year, in terms of the impacts in the fishing sector of federal policy changes. So these increases were put in with no analysis of their impacts. It's the timing and the size of the increase that have had a very severe impact.

[4:45]

I might just mention that the Ministry of Environment did a study in 1989 of the whole sport fishing sector, which states that the freshwater fishery brings $500 million a year into our economy and employs 4,000 to 5,000 people. Now, I'm concerned that responsible organizations like the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Sport Fishing Advisory Board, who should have been consulted in the first place, are now trying to play catch-up and trying to get the government to take a second look at this issue.

I just want to cite a letter from one lodge operator who is very seriously impacted by these changes. He makes reference to three concerns about how this was done. That is, there was no notification of this proposal in any sort of timely manner. The increases will more than double their licence costs, from $27,000 to $57,000 in a year. The third problem is that they have marketed their packages; these are presold. They've even received deposits on fishing trips in good faith. These have all been. . . . Decisions have been made and now are subject to review and to cancellation.

Again, just one final comment, in terms of the evidence, comes from an owner of the largest fly-fishing travel agency in the United States. He says that with the sudden fee hikes, the B.C. government has really blown it with that decision. He says he's absolutely amazed that Vancouver and British Columbia claim to be tourist-oriented and then, at the same time, they take actions like this which are diametrically opposed to that position.

Now, I don't want to belabour the point, but it's of great concern to me when we have competent work done by the job protection commissioner and it's ignored by the government, particularly by a government that has been very critical of decisions made by the federal government which did not always have a very positive impact on the sport fishing sector. I think it's important that if we as a government hire competent people, we take their advice and heed it in subsequent actions. It's certainly clear that the government hasn't done that in terms of the licence fee increases.

With that, I'm pleased to support this bill and ask the government and the minister to address the two issues that I've raised: the trends in the food-processing sector, and doing a more proactive, consultative, timely approach to issues in the sport fishing sector.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his comments and recognize now the Minister of Employment and Investment, whose remarks will close second reading debate.

Hon. D. Miller: I've listened with fascination to the statements from members opposite. I figure -- in light of my circumstances today, becoming a grandparent for the second time -- with the advancement of age and these kinds of things, that people become more contemplative, more sanguine. I must say that after listening to some of the speeches opposite, I have to respond briefly as I wrap up debate in second reading on this bill.

First of all, I want to start by congratulating the member for Peace River South, who, of all of the speakers today, I think got it right. He understands the origins of the job protection commissioner, why we have him. He understands why it's important to maintain that office and clearly understood why the thrust of this bill today is to maintain the office -- not in an absolute sense because of this bill, but to maintain the office. I want to address that particular point.

To listen to members opposite, people in British Columbia who were watching. . . . And I hope they weren't, because they would have gone away with nasty headaches and a feeling that the world is falling apart here in British Columbia -- indeed, hon. Speaker, that to some degree we represent a Third World status with respect to issues like employment and the buoyancy of our economy.

I want to recite a few brief statistics, but not in an argumentative way. These are facts. I know that all members in the House are interested in facts, even if those facts contradict arguments they've just made. So I know that they will listen in hushed silence as I illustrate, for example, the sector-by-sector employment changes in British Columbia from 1991 to 1995, and talk about the 10,000 additional jobs in forestry, the 9,000 additional jobs in manufacturing, 16,000 in construction, 2,000 in transportation and com