1991 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11671 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 11671

Tabling Documents –– 11671

Oral Questions

Pension plan for doctors. Mr. Harcourt –– 11671

Forestry memorandum of understanding. Mr. Crandall –– 11672

Pension plan for doctors. Mr. Harcourt –– 11673

Women's services. Ms. Marzari –– 11673

Ministerial Statement

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

Mr. Sihota

Job Protection Act (Bill 83). Second reading

Mr. Brummet –– 11675

Mr. Barlee –– 11677

Mr. Long –– 11678

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 11679

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 11680

Mr. Cashore –– 11681

Mr. Reynolds –– 11682

Mr. Lovick –– 11683

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 11684

Mr. G. Janssen –– 11685

Hon. Mr. Serwa –– 11686

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 11687

Mr. Clark –– 11690

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11691

Hon. J. Jansen –– 11693

Mr. Peterson –– 11694

Ms. Smallwood –– 11694

Mr. Reid –– 11695

Mr. D'Arcy –– 11695

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 11696

The House met at 2.04 p.m.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

APPROVAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Constitutional Amendment Approval Act.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to institute a requirement

that the government conduct a referendum under the Referendum Act

before introducing a motion to amend the constitution of Canada. This

act will allow public participation to the extent we think necessary.

It hopefully will deal with a situation such as we have heard of from

Ottawa today, where, as I understand it, the suggestion was being made

that Ottawa could somehow meet with Quebec and deal with constitutional

issues unilaterally and that somehow we, British Columbia and the

provinces, would agree. Not only will we not agree with that, not only

is it our position and will it continue to be that we must always be

involved in that constitutional process, but we wish to go beyond that

and say that all the people of the province must be given the

opportunity to be involved In the process.

This bill is a

first in the country, and I'm sure it will be followed by other

provinces as they see the value of such legislation. All people,

regardless of where they live in this province, will be given ample

opportunity to voice their views and to decide how we proceed when

amending the constitution. Obviously, too, it will send a clear message

to Ottawa, which we understand to be necessary now, that B.C. will

insist on being involved in the process and that they can't make

unilateral deals with Quebec; we the province, we the people will be

involved. This legislation is one more move towards that involvement.

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

Bill

81 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon.

Mr. Messmer tabled the annual report of the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia for the 12 months ending December 31, 1990.

Hon.

Mrs. Gran tabled the thirty-fifth annual report of the Legislative

Assembly Allowances and Pension Act,

part 2, and the fourteenth annual

report of the business done in pursuance of the Public Service Benefit

Plan Act.

Oral Questions

PENSION PLAN FOR DOCTORS

MR. HARCOURT :

There isn't a single reason why the taxpayers of British Columbia

should trust this government with their tax dollars. I'll give you an

example. The Premier announced that he had negotiated a 100 percent

taxpayer-funded pension deal for doctors. The Premier said that it war,

a good deal for British Columbia. Does the Minister of Finance agree

that the doctors' pension, negotiated by the Premier, is a good deal

for taxpayers?

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I think we're all aware that the negotiations with the

doctors were protracted. They certainly involved many hours by many in

attempting to find a resolution. Generally speaking, I think the

populace throughout the province wanted to see this issue resolved in a

non-confrontational way.

We sought a way to resolve this,

but at the same time, as well, I think most members are aware that we

were in the midst of discussing the possibility of a deferred income

opportunity for doctors in the province. This deferred income

had to be, in fact, agreed to prior to some date this month. So the

talks we were involved in involved not only increases to fees but also

the opportunity for providing a deferred income in place of increasing

fees. Frankly, there is a considerable advantage to having a deferred

income as opposed to increasing fees, for a number of reasons. One, Mr.

Leader of the Opposition, is that if you increase the fees, then that

increase is compounded and grows year after year, and the cost to the

taxpayers is considerably more than a flat sum of $25 million for a

deferred income plan. These increases that were being sought were not

only far in excess of the $25 million we're talking about here but

would have been ongoing forever, and certainly, as the number of

doctors in the system grew, so would the cost to the taxpayers.

Similarly....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I believe

the answer is getting beyond the scope of the question. The question

was somewhat open-ended. No one is calling for order, but we do have

standing orders which the Chair is bound to enforce. We have a limited

time-frame. If the questions can be framed so that briefer answers can

be given, then we'll have an opportunity for more members to ask

questions. This is getting into the kind of debate we would expect

either during estimates or in the committee period.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I'll be brief, Mr. Speaker. We found that the influx of people into the

province — they're coming in very large numbers from other parts of

Canada and elsewhere — was

[ Page 11672 ]

adding

to the cost of health care. Therefore a flat sum is much cheaper than

increasing the fees. I appreciate that everyone might not fully

understand that. I'd be glad to explain it further in greater detail. I

should mention, though, that the Health critic for the NDP went on

radio the following day and was extremely supportive of the approach we

have taken.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Premier, when I saw

you negotiating the Expo land sale I never thought I could see you

negotiate a worse business deal. You just did it. You just topped

yourself on that.

I'd like to get back to the member who is

supposed to be in charge of the province's finances. The Premier just

said that it was a package deal, that the doctors took a retirement

plan in lieu of higher fees. Does the Minister of Finance agree that

the pension plan for doctors is part of a package deal?

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

HON. J. JANSEN :

I guess if you want to sit on the fence, two things happen. One, you

irritate parts of your body; but secondly, and perhaps most important

for this House, you forget what you said.

When the deferred

income plan first came into being, the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey indicated in a radio broadcast that he supported

it. But more important and more fundamental was that the Leader of the

Opposition, in discussion with the president of the BCMA, indicated

that in fact he supported this deferred income benefit plan. That was

the understanding that he gave her.

The Premier has

indicated that the deferred income benefit plan, because of its lump

sum entitlement, is in fact a good deal for both the taxpayers of the

province and the physicians and surgeons. I'm pleased to hear that the

Leader of the Opposition also agrees with this deal.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT :

I'd like to know how the Minister of Health was listening in on that

conversation I was having with the head of the B.C. Medical Association.

can see that the previous Minister of Finance thinks so much of this

deal that he couldn't even stomach being here today. He has left his

seat. The minister's predecessor said. "By virtue of this being a

package deal, National Revenue will have to revisit its advance ruling.

Therefore there is no deal." Does it remain the policy of your ministry

that Revenue Canada should investigate this deal for compliance with

Canadian tax law?

HON. MR. VEITCH : I appreciate the question from the hon. Leader of the

Opposition. I believe it's important that the Leader of the Opposition and

others realize that, due to the fact that we have had excellent fiscal management

in the face of falling revenues in this province, we have been able to afford

to maintain education, health and social services.

was just looking over some of the quotes from my critic, your aspiring

Minister of Finance — God forbid he should ever become it. He said:

"It's my view that politicians can play around with taxes; that's what

we're elected to do." We have no intention of playing around with

taxes. And I will leave Revenue Canada's business up to Revenue Canada,

where it rightly belongs.

MR. HARCOURT : With the

former minister's resignation, is there nobody over there that's

willing to stand up for the taxpayers? Has the Minister of Finance then

transmitted this change in policy to Revenue Canada? Has he told them

he likes the deal? Has he no concern for the tax implications? Has he

no concern that the provincial government — the taxpayers — are paying

100 percent of this doctors' pension scheme?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

First of all, the Leader of the Opposition is making many assumptions.

He's wrong, as he was wrong before. He asked if we had no concern for

the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. I can tell you, hon.

Leader of the Opposition, it was on television the other evening that

the House Leader of the Opposition — Rose — was saying that he supports

the Ontario model. The model you purport to support, sir, has no

thought whatsoever for the taxpayers of any jurisdiction. You think you

know how to spend your way out of a recession, but you really have no

comprehension whatsoever.

I can tell you, we have absolute

concern for the taxpayers of this province. That's why we've brought in

the 12-point taxpayer protection program. That's why we're bringing in

the type of legislation we're bringing into this House now. That's why

we are curbing public sector spending.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. The minister knows very well it's inappropriate to

discuss legislation that's before the House. I'll accept the next

question.

FORESTRY MEMORANDUM

OF UNDERSTANDING

MR. CRANDALL :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Forests. My question has

to do with the current combination of low market prices for lumber and

higher stumpage prices. I know the memorandum of understanding that was

signed between our country and the United States in 1986 was in

response to serious mill closures in the forest industry in the United

States. It was not a simplistic response, but rather an attempt to

retain our share of the American market. Notwithstanding those facts,

however, a return to pre-MOU days would be beneficial to our forest

industry. I'd like to know if the minister would advise the House what

he has decided to do to have the MOU removed.

[ Page

11673 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I thank the member for his question. The

memorandum of understanding that he refers to is an agreement between

our two countries — between Canada and the United States. It is not

simply an agreement between British Columbia and the United States. To

that end, we have been urging Ottawa — specifically the minister, John

Crosbie — to get down to Washington as quickly as possible to make our

case regarding the MOU. Its not quite as simple as that, because first

of all we have to have all the provinces in Canada — or the affected

provinces — on side and agreeing to start down the negotiation path to

rid ourselves of this offensive agreement.

It was never

intended to be a permanent agreement, and 1 report to this House that

conditions have changed dramatically since the agreement was put in

place. We feel that we now have a good case to make. Mr. Crosbie has

been out and has met with the Premier and me, as well as with the

Premiers and ministers of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, and he is now

ready to go to his cabinet to make the case for negotiating our way out

of the memorandum of understanding with the Americans.

will not be an easy negotiation. I caution everyone that it's in a

delicate position at this time. I think that the less said about it

publicly is probably better, because the Americans have every intention

of keeping the agreement in place. So I just leave the House and the

members with the caution that it will not be an easy negotiation.

PENSION PLAN FOR DOCTORS

MR. HARCOURT :

The Minister of Health and the doctors' pension deal led us to believe

that the deal would cost the taxpayers $25 million over three years.

Can the Minister of Finance confirm that this deal will actually cost

the taxpayers $25 million per year forever?

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

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, the question of compensation in the doctors' benefit plan

was that $25 million was the cost over three years for this particular

plan. That's correct. The contribution thereafter will be part of

negotiations in future years with physicians and surgeons, but it is

mandated that $25 million will come out of the negotiation package in

future years. That's correct.

WOMEN'S SERVICES

MS. MARZARI : A question to the Minister Responsible for Women's

Programs. Madam Minister, one in three women suffer physical violence in their

lives, and the government's commitment to combating this violence is comprised

of a task force and an advertising campaign. There's a problem here. It's

called "rising expectations" and increasing women's expectations

that there will be someone to answer the phone when that crucial call is made.

Why is the minister advertising services that are not available in many communities

throughout this province?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, it's not true that there are not services in place. In

fact, there is currently $8 million being spent on transition houses in

the Ministry of Social Services and on programs in the Ministry of the

Attorney-General and the Ministry of the Solicitor-General. It's true

that there are probably not these kinds of services in every community

throughout this province. But it's important first of all for the

public to understand and become aware of what violence means in the

lives of women and children. I don't believe that the critic on the

opposition side is saying that the violence campaign is not a good one.

What you are saying has some merit, but surely you're not telling me to

pull the ad campaign, which tells women that violence is not a family

matter, that it is a crime and that there is help available.

is our intention in every ministry affected to make certain that those

services are available in those communities. We're now doing an

analysis of what has gone on in the last few weeks, and we'll be acting

accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, this morning

a number of you have sent notes to the Chair about housekeeping

matters. Some of you may have noticed we have made some changes to the

arrangements in the House. For those of you who have been adversely

affected, you might let me know if the improvements made during the

lunch hour by the staff have been adequate.

Ministerial Statement

VERSATILE PACIFIC COURT DECISION

HON. MR. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a brief ministerial statement respecting

Versatile Pacific Shipyards. When I came in, I gave to the member for

Prince George North a note that I would be doing this, but I wasn't

able to give her the details of what I was going to be talking about

because they have just come to me from Mr. justice Maczko's decision

which was rendered today.

In September 1990, the government

announced it would be awarding to Versatile the contract for

construction of a superferry. In October 1990, a formal contract was

entered into between the Ferry Corporation and Integrated Ferry

Constructors, which was a newly formed affiliate of Versatile. That

contract was entered into with the expectation that Versatile would be

the major subcontractor for construction of the superferry.

December of 1990 the Hongkong Bank of Canada provided Versatile with a

loan of $7.5 million. That loan was guaranteed first by Versatile's

parent corporation, Shieldings Inc., and secondly by the province of

British Columbia. The principal security

[ Page 11674 ]

for

the loan is what's called a Panamax drydock — a floating drydock in

North Vancouver. At the time of the loan, Versatile stated that all

overdue accounts payable in December 1991 would be paid, and that

sufficient net revenue would be generated from then on to enable the

company to continue its operations and prepare for superferry

construction.

In February of 1991, the Industry, Science

and Technology industry of Canada responded to Versatile's request to

support the 1991 phase of their restructuring plan. However, Versatile

is of the view that the federal offer of assistance is — and will

continue to be — insufficient for it to continue its operations.

Accordingly, the company has today obtained court protection under the

Companies Creditors Arrangement Act and is now seeking support from

this ministry to persuade the Hongkong Bank not to call their $7.5

million loan. The company has requested 120 days to restructure its

financing, during which time, under this provision of the law,

creditors cannot take action against the company. The company hopes to

refinance itself by selling some of its assets, by negotiating a

greater contribution from Canada and by realizing some profits from the

superferry.

When the loan guarantee war, authorized, Mr.

Speaker, it was anticipated that this would enable Versatile, which is

a British Columbia company, to participate in superferry construction,

and that this would provide the company with a volume of work

sufficient to sustain its transition to a more efficient long-term

operation.

The company is not bankrupt, but it is seeking

to reorganize its finances. This action that it has taken today and

that has been granted by Mr. Justice Maczko was precipitated by an

unforeseen cost overrun on the construction of two search-and-rescue

vessels for the federal government and by a federal government

assistance offer that turned out to be too little, too late.

Even

with this development, the guarantee advanced by the province continues

to be worthwhile for the following reasons: it bought time to prepare

for superferry construction; the ferry contractors' group cart now step

in and proceed with Versatile's share of the superferry work, using

Versatile's workforce, particularly in Esquimalt; it is well brought up

to current status — the employee pension fund contributions that were

required to be brought up — and it supported trade creditors and

brought them into a position where they could be available to advance

their expertise for superferry construction.

As well, the

possibility of a full-service ship repair capacity for the port of

Vancouver was also preserved by the action that was taken in January.

I want to confirm that at this point in time the province does not expect to

have to pay out any money under the guarantee. The maximum amount of the guarantee

is, as I said, $7.5 million. In the event that the province's guarantee

is exercised, which would require the bank to call its loan, as well as Shieldings

to default on their own guarantee, full recovery of our guarantee would be expected

because it is secured against the Panamax drydock in Vancouver, which has a

value, conservatively, of $15 million.

I've

been asked what would happen to the superferry work that is to be done

by Versatile in Esquimalt. The answer is this. The ferry contractor's

group is positioned to assume Versatile's share of the superferry

contract, using Versatile's current labour force. The

schedule and cost

of the superferry project will not be affected in any significant way

by these events.

With respect to the North Vancouver

operation, the yard will be closed and the Panamax drydock will remain

in place for the time being until further work for it can be obtained

through the restructuring of the shipyard industry in British Columbia

that is going on or through other measures that are being contemplated

right now.

[2:30]

With respect to

indicated that it is willing to consider a contribution to finance

preparations required in Esquimalt to proceed with the superferry

construction, and I had a conversation with Mr. Benoit Bouchard with

respect to that just a few days ago.

Versatile and the

federal government will have to resolve their financing funding dispute

with respect to possible federal assistance, and this will not directly

involve the province at this time.

In conclusion, the

province's guarantee remains in place. It is well secured. Its

fundamental purpose continues, and the superferry for B.C. Ferries will

be built at the Esquimalt drydock, whichever company ultimately manages

the project.

Our loan guarantee still will lever $50

million worth of work for the people who need jobs in Esquimalt. We

will continue between now and July 15 of this year to support the

workers in Esquimalt by working with all the partners who are involved

in constructing this ship to see that it takes place on time, on budget

and under the conditions that were originally agreed to.

MR. SIHOTA :

This morning there was a rumour throughout Esquimalt that led people to

believe that Versatile was going bankrupt. I can tell members of this

House that that rumour sent a chill through the community of Esquimalt.

However, I think a number of points have to be made at this time.

First,

people have to understand that the company is not declaring bankruptcy.

Rather, this is an application under the provisions of the Companies

Creditors Arrangement Act to forestall action by creditors until July

15 to allow Versatile to rearrange its affairs.

The second

thing that I think people within the community of Esquimalt and the

greater Victoria area have to understand is that the work on the

superferry will proceed and that the contract to build the superferry

is predominantly with the company known as IFC, not with Versatile.

Albeit Versatile may be threatened in terms of its own financial

underpinnings, that is not the case in the case of IFC, the company

contracted to perform the work on the construction of the superferry.

Therefore the work

[ Page

11675 ]

force should be reassured that that work will be proceeding.

Third,

I would have hoped that the minister would have said — and I am sure

that he intended to say this — that all of us in this House are

committed to seeing a viable shipyard remain here on the west coast.

That is absolutely essential to this country.

Fourth, it

seems to me that the message has to be made loud and clear to the

federal government that we are not prepared to see the abandonment of

our shipyard on the west coast. In particular, this government and this

House should be calling upon the federal government to live up to its

obligations in some of the decisions and contracts entered into with

Versatile. Specifically, there was an understanding between Versatile

Pacific and the federal government that for every dollar Versatile put

into the shipyard the federal government would match that money. That

obligation should be maintained, and this government and this House

should resolve to make sure that the federal government fulfils that

obligation.

Secondly, and with respect to the federal

government, there should be a strong message sent by this House and by

the government that the money set aside under an agreement which

predated the loss of the Polar 8 ought to be forwarded to Versatile to

allow it to rearrange its affairs quickly. By taking these actions and

by making the assurance to the workforce of Esquimalt that there is no

bankruptcy and that the superferry will proceed, we'll be laying the

foundation toward maintaining a viable shipyard in British Columbia and

going a long way toward protecting jobs and paycheques of working

families in the Esquimalt area.

Orders of the Day

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

JOB PROTECTION ACT

(continued)

MR. BRUMMET :

This legislation provides a commissioner and a vehicle and a real

opportunity to keep in operation some of the industries that can be

kept operating — those that can be kept operating rationally, logically

and for the long-term benefit of the people of this province. That

means saving jobs — not all jobs — based on successful experience in

the mid-eighties. So it's a tried-and-true approach. It cannot save all

jobs, but it certainly can save many jobs. Previous legislation saved

hundreds of jobs in this province that are still ongoing, and this bill

has the opportunity to do that as well.

So I would

challenge the opposition to set aside their partisan inclination to

automatically reject anything that this government tries to put into

legislation and to support this bill. If in fact they are interested,

as they say, in protecting the jobs of workers in this province, then

they should support this bill before us. I would challenge them to do

so.

Mr. Speaker, in larger communities or areas the

obfuscation tactics and rhetoric of the socialists can perhaps be

accepted, because they're lost in the morass of other industrial

activity and other things that are going on. In smaller communities the

effects of socialism and socialistic policies become very evident, very

readily apparent and very much detested, because they mean the

destruction of jobs.

You see, socialist philosophy in

itself may not be that harmful, and it has a certain appeal to it. But

we had the experience once in this province when that philosophy was

translated into policy and action. It had a very damaging effect. As a

matter of fact, you could say that it is hazardous to the health of

economic activity. That is why the people in my area are not supportive

of socialism. As a matter of fact, I know they are even in favour of

Site C, because they see the benefits of it. It is reusing water that

is already stored, and so it is a more efficient use.

know that during the '79 campaign, the '83 campaign, the '86 campaign

and even recently the NDP members from down south have come to my

riding to speak against Site C. My majority went up, because I was in

favour of Site C and still am, because Site C generates electricity.

Electricity in this province generates economic activity, and economic

activity in this province generates jobs. That's why I'm in favour of

Site C. As a matter of fact, I know that the member for Kootenay, as

Environment critic, came up to my constituency earlier this year for a

meeting to speak very much against Site C. I am happy to report that

she was able to draw to that meeting all 23 socialists who still exist

in the North Peace River.

Speaking of socialism and this

bill, Mr. Speaker, let me use the example of Petro-Canada that was

raised this morning. I'm certainly happy to hear the political

platitudes being expressed by some members on the socialist side, but I

would like to ask what they have actually done to try to keep the

refinery in British Columbia. They still attack the oil companies. They

still attack all of these people, and they say: "Vote for us." Its no

wonder that one of the people on an open-line radio show in my riding

last Friday phoned in when the Premier was on the open-line and said:

"Mr. Premier, I'm not a Social Crediter. I don't support you

personally. But, Mr. Premier, voting for the NDP is voting for

unemployment."

Petro-Canada was a socialist creation,

albeit by the Liberal government in Ottawa. Taxpayers' dollars were

generously used to buy a refinery at Taylor that had been developed by

private enterprise and had been operating successfully and serving the

area well for many years. They also spent a lot of money buying up

service stations, and that was with taxpayers' dollars.

Since

then Petro-Canada has taken a lot of tax write-offs in order to do some

fixing of the refinery at Taylor. Despite that fixing — and it would

appear that it was only an illusion that they were trying to create —

for some time now Petro-Canada has been setting the stage for saying

that the refinery is not economical, that it can't handle it, etc. I do

know that recently there was a report that Petro-Canada made more

[ Page 11676 ]

money

from refineries last year than they ever have in the past. It was in

the paper just the other day. I'm sorry I don't have the figures with

me. But PetroCanada has been trying to phase out the refinery in Taylor

for some time.

[2:45]

I think it goes to show you that

when you have a government-run conglomerate, such as the socialists are

for, it disregards the wishes of the people in the area. They have seen

fit to use all those tax dollars over the years and now turn around and

say: "We're going to pull that refinery operation into our bigger

centres — Port Moody and Alberta. We can refine the oil there cheaper

and ship it back."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let

me talk about the environmental effects of shipping that oil from the

region to Port Moody. Right now the petroleum products are trucked up

the Alaska Highway, some three tanker trucks every day to Whitehorse

alone, plus the tankers on B.C. Rail going to Fort Nelson and all of

the highways operation. Also, the gasoline is trucked from some parts

of Alberta to Prince George, to Tumbler Ridge and that whole area. If

that oil is refined at Port Moody, the trucking industry will not be

hauling it to Whitehorse; it will go by barge up the coast. So that is

an environmental concern. It will also increase the size of the

operation of the Port Moody refinery. So some of the opposition members

might give some thought to objecting to taking the oil from the Peace

River country and refining it in Port Moody and creating all those

environmental concerns, They seem to object to so many things, except

when it would help.

The other oil may go to Alberta; I very

much object and I am working with the minister to say that the oil in

British Columbia should be processed in British Columbia. So we are

working hard.

I just got a note today at noon hour.... We

have been working through the National Energy Board, which does not

have jurisdiction over whether or not refineries close, but they do

have jurisdiction over whether or not the plant is transferred to

Westcoast Transmission. I have no problem with Westcoast Transmission.

Natural gas sales and the processing plant are expanding and growing,

but Petro-Canada — this federal conglomerate that used our taxpayers'

dollars to buy that refinery — is now going to give it, in effect, to

Westcoast Transmission. They say they're charging $13 million on paper

for it, but before they charge the $13 million, they are going to be

putting $7 million into fix-up of the parts that Westcoast gets. Now

you really can't blame Westcoast for taking that deal. They're

expanding anyway, and it's a wonderful deal. I don't know how many

people in this province know that Petro-Canada owns a controlling

interest in Westcoast.

I have tried to say to the National Energy Board that since that refinery was

not put on the market, and since no effort was made to ask anyone else to operate

that refinery, it has to be an insider deal, and the National Energy Board should

at least give the people in the area an opportunity to be heard.

Today

I heard their answer. They say they don't intend to have any meetings

here. They're going to decide it down east, probably on Thursday.

It's

a good example of when socialism gets into taking over Industries that

were operating successfully. So you have a federal conglomerate that is

serving its own interests despite the fact that it used taxpayers'

dollars in order to do that.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to

continue to fight for that refinery and for the value added to the

products in British Columbia instead of, as 1 said, the political

rhetoric and me-too....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET :

Yes, I care too. Maybe some of the socialists could get in touch with

some of their socialist friends in Petro-Canada and privately try to

assist us.

Mr. Speaker, this morning some of the opposition

members were saying that this bill is in order to benefit our Social

Credit friends and Social Credit ridings. I note the second member for

Victoria applauds that statement. Obviously he was either not here or

again not listening this morning when I pointed out the facts. The

allegation is that we favour Social Credit ridings and our friends, I

noticed that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who this morning

talked about pork-barrelling and about all of this, did not mention

anything about pork-barrelling this afternoon when he found out that

this government assistance had made possible the shipbuilding industry

in his riding. This government puts financial assistance where it makes

sense — not on a partisan basis.

Now contrast that with the

socialist position, where they have already promised special favours to

practically all of the special interest friends of theirs in this

province. What chance do they have to deliver? Obviously the socialists

in Ontario made a lot of promises, and their leader now has to retract

many of those promises and even then go into $6 billion and $8 billion

debt a year. So that's really going to help the people in Ontario. One

of the reasons we do not have enough jobs in British Columbia is that

these people from Ontario are moving here to get better opportunities

in British Columbia. So let's put to rest some of these allegations.

The

socialists have made an allegation that we favour our friends and our

Social Credit ridings. It is a fact, despite the fact that there are

only half as many socialist ridings in this province as Social Credit

ridings, that $300 million went to the Social Credit ridings over the

last four and a half years and $283 million went to the NDP ridings. So

on a proportional basis the NDP ridings have received a lot more.

Interjection.

[ Page

11677 ]

MR. BRUMMET : That second member for Victoria keeps saying:

"Call an election." That member would very much like to have an

election before the people find out the facts.

This Social

Credit government provides help on the basis of merit and where the

benefits will accrue to the workers and to the people in British

Columbia. As I say, contrast that to the socialist position of

promising each one of their friends: go with us and we will get you

more; go with us and we'll get you more wages, more benefits and more

government spending.

I suggested this morning and I repeat

that I think their philosophy should be "go down with us, ” rather than

"go with us, ” because that's exactly what's going to happen to many of

the people in this province and the workers if we ever have the

misfortune to again elect a socialist government. I think it's probably

indicative that in any province or country which has experienced the

socialist system for any period of time, they are working their butts

off to get out of it.

So the NDP philosophy — go after the

companies despite the fact that if you take down the companies you take

the jobs away with them.... They don't seem to understand that. They

said they were very interested in keeping the forest jobs in this

province. They're against the MOU, but they did speak for higher

stumpage we've — got to get more, get those companies that are logging

and that are creating those jobs to pay a great deal more.

I've

mentioned that they are against Site C, against generating electricity

from a renewable resource. Yet they say that they're in favour of jobs.

They're against any land development, even in my constituency where a

few hundred acres wouldn't even be noticed out of the millions of acres

for farming activity. Yet they support keeping all of that land tied

up-don't do any development, don't provide power, don't provide land

and don't provide trees.

Any movement in this province that

says "save the trees" immediately gets the support of the socialists.

The Carmanah example is probably a good one, where this government said

half and half — the key parts for preservation, the other parts for

logging. What did they do? They were against that. Save them all,

everywhere. 1 would think that it is far better to compromise in the

interests of jobs as well as the environment, than to simply say:

"Forget about the jobs. We're going to get onto that bandwagon at this

particular time."

I think that the members on this side of

the House will have absolutely no trouble supporting this legislation.

I challenge the socialists to, for a change, set aside their natural

inclination to attack this government and to vote in favour of this Job

Protection Act in British Columbia.

MR. BARLEE : I

see that the usually rational member for North Peace River has departed

somewhat from his usual style. I think we concur in principle, but

there are some fatal flaws, some weaknesses in the provisions of the

bill.

The minister in introducing Bill 83 emphasized the

impact of the economic downturn on one-industry towns. That's all very

well, but he forgot about some other towns, too. I think there are some

general flaws in this overview.

Firstly, the bill does not

really address the problems of most of the towns of the interior of

British Columbia, because most of those towns are not one-industry

towns. Most of them have a more diverse economic base. Some of these

towns, members will be interested to know, never really recovered from

the downturn of the 1980s, which was introduced by this government. The

unemployment rates are still unusually high, almost Draconian.

these towns are not one-industry towns; they are multifaceted towns.

Many depend upon various parts of the economy for their well-being.

There are many small businesses, and they have been hit very hard in my

particular area by the free trade agreement, which this government has

endorsed. I think they should go around and ask some of their former

supporters in places like Oliver and Osoyoos and Grand Forks what they

think of the free trade agreement now, a few years after it was

inaugurated by this government.

The cross-border traffic

figures will indicate something there. In Grand Forks, the cross-border

traffic figures are up 820 percent in one year. Those are one-way

dollars. Those dollars leave B.C., and essentially they leave forever.

they haven't done a very good job on them. Some of the small businesses

in my area are also closing down the secondary industries because of

the impact of the free trade agreement, which was endorsed by this

government.

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

HON. MR. RABBITT : Mining.

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

The

agricultural business is still in disarray. Five thousand jobs depend

upon it, and this government really hasn't done much yet. Nor do I

expect them to.

With tourism, which I think is the great

wave of the future, there has been no strategic economic policy from

this government for the last decade. There really has not been any

strategic policy at all. What's the result of this? In our area, 16

percent unemployed — an army of unemployed in the Okanagan. There are

20,000 people out of work, and 20,000 people is quite a bit. It's been

historically that way, probably only exceeded by the number out of work

in Kamloops, which is the minister's own constituency.

The

member for Yale-Lillooet was talking about myths, and I find these

myths very interesting. He said that this government has been very kind

to mining. We both have a little background in mining. I've a

background in lode mining and in placer mining. When you study the

record, it is rather interesting. For instance, free miners have been

in this province since 1858. As the member may or may

[ Page 11678 ]

not

know, you used to pay $5 a year. This government jacked that up to $25.

That's only a 500 percent increase. That's not too bad. There are other

increases which are rather interesting, too.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE : Yes, 1858.

That's

not too bad; it was all in the last ten years, Some of the other

increases.... We have a small mining company that used to pay $50 a

year. Now it's $500. That's 1,000 percent. So you guys have done very

well.

Talking about myths, the member for North Peace River

talked about unemployment. I would suggest to the members on the

opposite side that they take a look at page 41 of the budget of last

year. Take a look at the real unemployment figures over the last 20

years.

The lowest unemployment figure in the last 20 years

was a 7.4 percent average between 1972 and 1975. That's the lowest in

20 years, and the highest in 20 years was about 16 percent in the early

eighties. Some of our towns are still experiencing 16 percent.

[3:00]

You

really don't handle the economy too well. You have perpetuated the

myths brilliantly, but your handling of the economy.... And you can go

right down the line from the overrun on Coquihalla: $500 million there.

Over $700 million on SkyTrain. A billion on northeast coal. And that

wonderful deal on Expo. Oh, man! It's astonishing — Li Ka-shing will

probably walk away with a billion dollars net on that. Absolutely

amazing!

The member for Yale-Lillooet also mentioned wining

— how they've come to the aid of all these small mining companies. I

was thinking about it, and I listened to him and said: "You know

something? He's missed a few." I've got a little mining company in my

area — it's called Highland Bell; it was in Beaverdell. It was the

oldest continuously operating silver mine in Canada for almost 100

years. It produced 40 million ounces of silver — that's a lot. That

company has operated continuously, but as all mines will eventually do,

it closed down. Who owned that mine? Teck Corp.

Well, let's

examine Teck Corp. It probably had more capital than arty other mining

corporation in Canada. Some of those miners — and I'm sure the member

for Yale-Lillooet will be interested — worked for this mining company

for 20 years. And do you know what their severance package included? It

was really very generous of Teck — one week for every year. So some of

those guys worked a lifetime for Highland Bell producing their share of

40 million ounces. They got one week for a year — 2 percent. You've

really taken care of the mining fraternity — a marvellous job.

The member for North Peace River waxed rather eloquent about a number of things,

and he came to the defence of the oil companies. Man, did he defend the oil

companies! And you know, they really need it too. I'll tell you why. They

need it because in Washington State the average price of their low-grade gas

is 32 cents — we've researched it — and in other parts of the state it's

much less than that. Here it's about 60 cents. How does that come about?

You guys haven't done the job for the consumers of British Columbia. You

simply haven't done the job — as usual.

Let's

talk about taxation. I just looked at the taxation on fuel the other

day. We have the second highest taxes on fuel in the country, after

Quebec. British Columbia and Quebec are hand in hand on that. We're

even higher than Newfoundland. It's astonishing. The average tax

increase is 12 percent per year. In fact, in a couple of weeks we're

putting the tax up again - another blow to the consumers of British

Columbia.

And what else happens to these oil companies

you're defending all the time? Well, if you watched CBC about a week

ago you will find that they have downgraded their gas. The octane

rating isn't what it was, and his government doesn't protect the

consumer again.

In any other civilized jurisdiction — and I

say, "civilized" jurisdiction — they protect the consumers. They make

these oil companies put the octane rating right on the tanks that they

get the gas from. Oh no, not in British Columbia — not a chance.

This

particular bill is flawed. And by the way, I don't mind a company

making a profit; it doesn't offend me at all. But I hate a company

making a profit that I consider gouging, and some of these companies

made 760 percent last year over the year before. That is not protection

of the consumer, for heaven's sake.

So this particular bill

is flawed. It should go back to the drawing-board again. We really

don't need a czar to tell the small towns in British Columbia what to

do — who deserves to get a grant and who doesn't. That should be placed

back in the hands of the communities concerned.

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

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

guess we have to ask ourselves: what does the act do? Well, it protects

jobs throughout British Columbia to start with, especially those in the

small one-industry towns. Secondly, it protects the companies that

provide these jobs, and each of them work together, hand in hand, to

make our country work and our province survive.

I guess we

ask: where are these jobs? They are throughout the province, but most

of these jobs are out in the hinterlands, so to speak, and in a lot of

the NDP ridings: Alberni, Nanaimo, pulp-mill towns, North Island, and

on the Sunshine Coast-Powell River and down in Port Mellon.

good example of our government working with industry, is Port Mellon

and Howe Sound Pulp — a pulp mill that was beyond repair at one point

and

[ Page

11679 ]

was going to be shut down, with 450 jobs lost. With

the cooperation of this government and a Japanese company, Howe Sound

Pulp put in the cleanest mill in Canada for our environment and secured

450 jobs for the people of the Sunshine Coast. That's right in my

riding; that's what I know about. This is something that I haven't

heard the opposition bring up — securing those 450 pulp-mill jobs right

here in British Columbia.

At this time we have a major

problem in Powell River with jobs. We have MacMillan Bloedel, a big

company, shutting down for a week; 1,800 employees will be out of work

for a week. With the multiplier, with their families, it turns into

7,200, and in a town of 12,000, the remaining 4,800 people depend on

the other 7,200. This is disastrous for a small-industry town.

what's causing this? Markets? Yes, markets are causing it in the United

States and across the world, but these people understand that and are

willing to take that downtime to make it work. I can see where this act

can help them and other industries that are affected in the future.

times the NDP raises issues of pork-barrelling — that the Social Credit

government just protects insiders. I'd like to draw something to the

attention of the NDP. I have in my hand right now a grant that has been

given to a Mr. Howard White, president of Harbour Publishing in Madeira

Park. I have to ask who is Mr. Howard White? Well, he is a book

publisher of.... Well, anyway, it's for $39,740. Mr. Speaker, I've got

to tell you now: this person is the NDP candidate for the Sunshine

Coast. It's ironic. I imagine that's what the NDP are clapping about.

This pork-barrel they talk about must be big enough, because they're

all in it.

Mr. Speaker, I back this bill. It's good for our

small-industry towns. It makes all the people on the Sunshine Coast

feel a lot better that our government is willing to put up for the

people who work in these pulp mills. I, for one, say that it's about

time we got job protection in British Columbia for the people and the

industries that are the driving system that make this country work.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of the principle behind

this bill. As the previous speaker on this side of the House mentioned,

there are some flaws. However, it is our role to criticize — ultimately

to improve — legislation and to be supportive of our communities and of

initiatives that would benefit all of us back home.

One thing that is noticeably missing in this act is community vitality. This

bill does not establish in its principle that community vitality is essential.

Saving individual industries does not result in complete community vitality.

When we reflect on the loss of some 1,500 jobs in the Cariboo over the last

ten years.... It doesn't help people who are already laid off. It doesn't

help all the people who will lose their jobs in the future because of adjustments

in the industry. I think that

an act like this ought to go a bit further in

developing an economic plan for these one-industry, or predominantly one-industry,

towns.

Really,

what this act does is provide for a financial plan, a business plan,

for a particular industry. I think what is needed is a land use

strategy that provides some security of supply of the raw resources

that go into creating the vitality in the industry it is trying to

save. In fact, what we've seen recently are destabilizing effects on

the forest industry — in particular in the Cariboo — as a result of

there not being secure resource management plans. For example, the

Minister of Native Affairs said as recently as yesterday that we need

to establish arrangements so that the province can exercise its

responsibility to protect native interests, and so that when we plan

for resources, we have accounted for all the interests that could

displace those that are vital to the lifeblood of the forest industry.

must say that mill closures are something we're very concerned about in

Quesnel, Williams Lake, Clinton and 100 Mile House. They've all

suffered somewhat from lines going down and from some mills being

threatened. My colleague from the north coast has alluded to the

problem of the link that's necessary between the access to the

resources, the tenures, and some responsibility to the local

communities to provide ongoing employment and make adjustments to

replace those jobs that have been lost over time through technical

change and modernization of industry.

The threats that we

have seen recently and that have been fulfilled in the loss of 1,500

jobs have been replaced in part by value-added jobs, but we have not

seen sufficient attempts made to withstand the potential effects of

return to the pre-beetle-kill cut in the Cariboo. When that happens

there will be some need to retrain people.

The planning for

that retraining has to happen now, and it isn't happening. I think that

part and parcel with job protection is future job protection, which

will involve training, incentives and continued moral suasion and, if

necessary, legislation that will insist that jobs need to be replaced

if jobs are planned out of existence. I see nothing in here that will

do that.

May I summarize that point by saying that we need

to plan for the orderly transition through manpower planning so that

the locally based economy has some time to adjust rather than just wait

until the effects are there, the layoffs are there, when you end the

overcutting or when a mill closes down. As we saw in the case of

Quesnel, the value-added jobs didn't add up to more than about 25

percent of the jobs lost. We saw 300 people recently being thrown out

of jobs, and they have nowhere to turn. They don't have the skills. All

of that could have been prevented.

We see a similar

situation a year down the road where there is the possibility of ending

the 50 percent lift in the cut due to the beetle-kill cut. We could see

a downturn there. We have a couple of industries — the fibreboard plant

and the co-generation and possibly others — that could take up some of

the slack. Only

[ Page 11680 ]

one

of those is certain. The others look promising but not enough to be the

only eggs in the basket. We really have to provide other alternatives.

Instead

of the top-down solution on a firm-by-firm basis, we need more

bottom-up planning and more coordination of the efforts at

community-based planning, which will help people to be part of the

decision-making about their own future.

We know that the

public understands that the New Democrats are the ones who can deal

effectively with the native issues, who can integrate planning and deal

with their needs in the context of all other needs. I believe it. We

will protect jobs and paycheques. We will protect the environment, and

we will ensure that large companies, small companies and government

will be responsive to the needs of local employment.

would ensure this by instituting a procedure where there could be

public hearings to establish accountability when we examine measures

that will alter the allocation of resources. Rather than just throwing

the money to larger and larger companies, we need to ensure that the

timber goes to produce a diversity in the companies, from the very

smallest business right up to the larger integrated ones. We are the

political party that will correct the past failures of this government

with respect to what has happened to community stability.

[3:15]

seems to me that when we are dealing with this bill, we are really

dealing with what has been called a motherhood idea. We're all in

favour of it. But I think we should be reminded that it's a bit like

the father on his deathbed when he asks forgiveness from his sons for

the abuse during their lifetime. It's a little too late. A lot of

damage has been done, and that is what's going to hang this government.

You mark my words.

Should I remind you of the statement of

one of your former premiers when he said that the forest industry is a

sunset industry? What a cynical comment. I think it is and will remain

a sunrise industry when we start with the communities and fully involve

all sectors of those communities before the closures take place, not

when they're imminent.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Before I

get into the details of Bill 83, I would like to make a couple of

comments about a statement of the second member for

Boundary-Similkameen. He mentioned in his address that this government

had no strategy regarding tourism.

I think that the

citizens of British Columbia would do well to reflect on the actions of

the leader of the NDP when he was the mayor of Vancouver and sent that

famous telegram to the Expo selection committee that said that Expo 86

was not wanted in the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : The member opposite has said that we're still

paying for it. The people of the province of British Columbia have gained immensely

from Expo 86. Tourism increased. Between 1985 and 1986 it increased in excess

of one billion dollars, and the member opposite says that the people of British

Columbia are still paying for Expo. As a result of Expo 86, tourism has continued

to grow. It is not $3.5 billion anymore, Mr. Member. Tourism today is a $5 billion-a-year

industry in British Columbia.

Perhaps

we should remind the members of the opposition about some of the things

that have happened in this province as a result of government actions

and government partnership with the private sector. We can look to the

length and breadth of this province and see tremendous strides,

tremendous improvements, in the development of ski resorts. We can see

some of the world's best golf courses and destination resorts in all

regions of the province. Saltwater fishing, heliskiing, the Theatre in

the Sky at the top of Grouse Mountain, the Three Valley Gap resort, the

Enchanted Forest, Beardale Castle, the hotsprings developments

throughout the Kootenays, the freshwater fishing opportunities — second

to none anywhere in this country.

Along with the

infrastructure, look at the facts, members. Look at the facts of the

infrastructure that has been built by this government. Look at the B.C.

Ferry Corporation. Look at the modern fleet that has been developed as

a result of the actions taken by this government. Look at the

Coquihalla Highway, opening up the avenues of opportunity to the

interior regions of this province. Look at the airport infrastructure;

look at the tremendous job that this government has done over the years

in developing airports in small communities throughout the length and

breadth of this province. Look at the development of the hospitality

industry through the SuperHost program led by the Ministry of Tourism,

the information networks and the information centres. Look at the

development of Accommodations B.C. Tremendous strides in developing an

infrastructure for tourism.

Mr. Speaker, the members

opposite will hear, as will all of the citizens, much more about Music

'91, indeed one of the greatest musical extravaganzas ever held

anywhere in North America. We will see entertainers coming to this

province, entertainers like Ray Charles, Rita MacNeil, Tom Jones, Harry

Belafonte — the list goes on and on. Infrastructure — tourism

development to bring tourists into this province from all over the

world. We'll see tremendous success, tremendous growth, as a result of

the initiatives of this government.

The second member for

Boundary-Similkameen dares make a statement in this House about tourism

growth, tourism strategy and tourism development. The only province in

this country to show any growth in tourism in 1990 was British Columbia

— 5 percentage points in real growth. The only other province in the

entire country which had any growth whatsoever was Alberta, at 1

percent. All other provinces in the country had flat growth or negative

growth, and we in this province had a growth of 5 percentage points.

[ Page

11681 ]

I compare that with the NDP performance in tourism in 1972-75. 1 can

only recall one statement by the then Minister of Highways, Graham Lea,

when he said: "The tourists are clogging the highways of this province.

Will they please go home." That was the NDP approach to tourism. That

was their strategy.

Perhaps we would all do well to look at

the province of Manitoba during the NDP rule there. Let's look at

Manitoba and look at tourism growth and what they did for that

province. Indeed, the NDP were not only defeated in Manitoba; they were

kicked right down to third position at the bottom of the heap in the

last election held in that province.

Perhaps we should now

look at the projections of tourism in the great province of Ontario

under NDP rule. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you talk to anybody

from Ontario in the tourist industry, they will tell you what their

projections are for 1991. 1 can tell you, It's gloom and doom and

devastation. It's bad news.

Look at the results, folks.

Compare the performance of this government. Compare it with Manitoba.

Compare it with what's going to happen in Ontario in 1991. I think that

the facts and the record speak for themselves. We have done a very good

job in this province, and I'm very proud indeed to be a part of this

government and the success that we have had.

Just in

closing, I want to congratulate the Minister of Regional and Economic

Development. I think Bill 83 is indeed very timely. We know we've had

success on previous occasions under Art Phillips, the industrial

inquiry commissioner. We know how well Bill 83 fits in with the

Premier's 12-point program. I am convinced that we will see every bit

as much success with this bill and with this program as we had back in

'85-86. 1 know that this is just another spoke in the wheel of the

overall development, the initiative of creating jobs in which this

government has been very successful. Indeed, I don't know how many

people in the province are aware that we have created 50 percent of all

the new jobs in Canada right here in British Columbia. I think that

speaks well for government programs.

I know that many

programs that have been brought forward.... I think of the programs of

the Minister of Forests, the small business program. Plants have been

developed and expanded in such communities as Armstrong, Notch Hill,

Chase, Tappen, Grindrod — the list goes on and on. Hundreds of

employees are working in my constituency as a result of the initiatives

of the Minister of Forests. I think that Bill 83 is just one more spoke

in the wheel of good government, good management and good initiatives

for creating jobs in this province.

MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome today 110 grade 11 students

from Howe Sound Secondary School in Squamish, and also Mr. Alger, their

leader.

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

Leave granted.

MR. JONES :

I'd like to introduce a member of the political science faculty from

Simon Fraser University, Mr. Paddy Smith. Would members of both sides

of the House make him feel very welcome.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, there's no question that there's a need to protect jobs in

this province; nobody is debating that fact. The question is: where has

this government been in the intervening years since the last time in

1983 when you applied a band-aid approach to deal with this situation?

The

fact is that this government thrives on a boom-and-bust style of

economy. This is what fuels this government, and this is what fails to

serve the people of this province.

This government's

incompetence has resulted in more pain for our resource communities, So

here we are; again your band-aid measures were not followed up with

measures to strengthen local economies. So here we are again, boom and

bust.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Do you know

what you're doing? You're taking an initiative that should protect

single-industry towns, and you're using it for the politics of

desperation because you desperately need an issue. This bill, which has

potential were it drafted as our leader and my colleague from Prince

George North have advised, would be worthwhile were you to take their

advice.

But what we have here is a Social Credit Trojan

horse. Now what's inside that Trojan horse? Well, we have a regional

and economic development minister; he's in there with his barrel of

pork. It's not an arm's-length process; it's hands-on for that

minister. We have someone who has a free rein to reward Social Credit

friends and insiders. Inside that Trojan horse we have a Forests

minister who can also reward friends and insiders by waiving penalties

for overharvesting, by allowing carte blanche for the overcutting of

our forests and by being a handmaid to expanded corporate control.

Also

there's a Minister of Environment who sits in. that Trojan horse. He

sits there in silence. His eyes, his ears and his mouth are covered —

hearing nothing, seeing nothing and saying nothing. He's not standing

up for the environment, and he's not concerned with overcutting. That

minister is powerless in this cabinet. Why is he not here today

standing up to protect the forests from overcutting?

Mr.

Speaker, why does he not stand up for the environment when the Minister

of Forests has been given carte blanche in this legislation? This bill

is a deathbed attempt by the Minister of Regional and Economic

Development to allow him to wield even more power to hand out pork than

he already has in that pathetic, demoralized cabinet.

know what to expect, Mr. Speaker. Cabinet will not stand up to him.

Perhaps others will follow the former Minister of Finance to a safer

haven. There's

[ Page 11682 ]

question that the fox is among the chickens in this cabinet, and you

know who the fox is and who the chickens are. British Columbians don't

want to pay for pork for Socred friends and insiders. They are not

comforted by the use of the term "arm’s length"; that's simply

rhetoric. The simple fact is that the legislation gives the Minister of

Regional and Economic Development too much power to hand out favours to

the friends of this government. The bill is not about jobs, and it's

not about paycheques. It's about their special interest in trying

desperately to achieve an election issue.

Mr. Speaker, I

have recently visited communities in this province beyond Hope. I've

travelled throughout the area of Highway 16, and last week I was in

Terrace, Telkwa, Houston, Kitwanga and Burns Lake. We've found out

there that the people of this province want to have a say in the

decision-making on resource extraction that affects their lives.

[3:30]

They

want to have a say in developing greater value-added for their areas.

They want to be in a position where they're not subject to the kind of

process that leaves them at the whims of a boom-and-bust approach.

while I stand before you today to say that I’ll be voting in favour of

this legislation, I do so in the very sincere hope that the

commissioner will be empowered to fulfil his mandate in an appropriate

manner, and that the political interference which we fear is contained

in this bill will not be seen.

MR. REYNOLDS : I

hadn't planned to get up and speak on this bill, because it's such a

good bill I didn't think anybody would want to delay it. But listening

to that man of the cloth over there - my former critic on the

environment - get up and say everything he said, then that he's going

to vote for it, made me want to jump to my feet and make a few comments.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP say: "Where have you been?" I'll tell you

where we've been. We've been creating more jobs in British Columbia

than all the rest of Canada put together. That's where this party has been;

that's where this government has been. The NDP over there, after a speech

like that.... I'm so glad it's on television, with everybody listening,

because they'll see what the difference is between the Social Credit Party

and the socialists across the hall.

They

talk about a boom-and-bust economy. Why don't they look at provinces

like Ontario, which now has a socialist government? It has a $3 billion

deficit this year and a projection for an $8 billion deficit next year.

That's the boom and bust of the socialists, not the good government of

Social Credit.

The member talked about the Minister of Forests. I want to quote him, so I'll

read my notes. He said: "Hearing nothing, saying nothing and doing nothing."

I thought he was starting to lead into a speech about the Leader of the Opposition,

because there's the man and the party that are hearing nothing, saying nothing

and doing nothing, sitting back and Saying: "When are we going to get a

chance to form a government?"

I've said many times before, Mr. Speaker, they get right up to the

crest.... They always think they're going to win, and then after the

election, I enjoy sitting on this side of the House and seeing the

people of British Columbia voting Social Credit, voting for good

government.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS :

The member who's their critic for finance says: "Way back on the back

bench." I'll tell you, second member for Vancouver East, I'd rather be

on the back bench in this party than in any part of that party over

there, because this party has good government. There are also people in

this party who have a little principle, something those members know

nothing about. There are members who have a little bit of parliamentary

tradition, something those members know nothing about; nor do they have

any respect for it.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the B.C.

job protection commission and what it's doing for British Columbia. The

member over there talks about the environment. Where was he when this

party was creating jobs in a de-inking plant? Sitting in a press

conference with one of their candidates in the next election, telling

the people of British Columbia it shouldn't go ahead. A real crazy, by

the way — a man who doesn't want anything to happen.

MR. CLARK : Order!

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

Mr.

Speaker, where were they when this project was going to create 200 jobs

and recycle all the newspapers in this province? On television, saying:

"Don't let it happen." By God, if the next day I didn't read in the

paper that Greenpeace supported me on the issue. I thought I must be

wrong, but even they couldn't support the NDP environment critic on

that issue. That was creating jobs in the province. Where was that

member? Not congratulating us, but knocking us again.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm proud to say that the commissioner is up in Pemberton

trying to solve a very serious problem there with jobs. I respect the

job that the commissioner has done, and I know that he's going to make

sure that people in this province — people in Pemberton — get their

city and community working in a better way.

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

MR. REYNOLDS :

Oh, I would love to talk about that, but it isn't in the bill. When we

get on the issue of going to Ottawa, I'll be very happy....

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

[ Page

11683 ]

niency — in fact, a lot of leniency — this

afternoon, but I must remind members.... I shouldn't think it would be

difficult to remind the member who once held this chair about the rules

in second reading of debate. Perhaps, since others have strayed, you

might stray to the same parameters as they have. But if we widen the

parameters, this debate might last longer than it might otherwise

normally last.

MR. REYNOLDS . Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for those comments.

I'm sure you appreciate more than anyone that it's very difficult to

stick to your speech when they're interjecting from the other side. I hope

they won't interject, and I'll stick to my speech.

The

reason we have the B.C. job protection commission is that we want to

make sure that we have the lowest debt in Canada and that we continue

to have the lowest debt in Canada. The reason we want this bill is that

we want to make sure that tourism keeps on continuing to rise in this

province more than in any other province. The reason we want this bill

is to make sure that our exports, which are up 10 percent over than any

other province in Canada, continue to go up. That's the reason this

side proposed this excellent legislation; that's why I'm going to

support it. That's why the members on that side will spend and waste

the taxpayers' money by speaking against the bill; but when it comes to

voting, they'll vote for it.

MR. LOVICK : Mr.

Speaker, I take some delight in participating in this debate. It's

interesting that all members on both sides of the chamber are going to

support this measure. We on this side, however, feel the need to

express some reservations about it.

I can't help but note

with some interest that when the minister introduced the measure, he

had to make the point that some people would be, sadly, as he

suggested, political. Indeed, he suggested that we on this side would

use this as a political opportunity. How interesting that we have just

listened to the most partisan, arm-waving, rambunctious, passionate

speech yet in this chamber from the former Minister of Environment

being slightly political. I'm not going to be political; I'm going to

be rather whimsical.

I'm intrigued especially by the fact

that this blatant effort to intervene in the workings of the economy,

this particular measure that looks like macroeconomics 200 revisited,

this particular good and desirable measure, comes to us from a

government that nevertheless continues to prate and to prattle and to

pontificate about the workings of the free market left entirely to its

own devices.

We on this side find that passing strange. On

the one hand, we hear all these utterances about free enterprise that

must be allowed to exist unfettered and unhindered, yet this particular

measure demonstrably is an admission that the market isn't working all

the time, doesn't function perfectly well left to its own devices and

that there is a need for government to take that kind of

interventionist position.

I'm pleased to see that the

government in its actions is prepared to accept that simple economic

truth, even if for ideological purposes they like to say all that other

stuff about the marketplace and the primacy of the marketplace. I'm

intrigued, too, by the title of this measure. It's called Job

Protection Act. To be sure, it takes steps to protect jobs and that is

good and desirable. But I think it's worth noting that this measure

doesn't have the impact and influence of preserving only jobs. It also

— and this I think is its ever-principal claim to be defended — does

something about preserving the integrity of communities.

I'm

not just talking about protecting jobs and paycheques, however

necessary and desirable that may be. We're also talking about

maintaining a community infrastructure. We're talking about maintaining

a tax base in given communities, and that too is certainly good and

desirable. Indeed, that's precisely what we on this side of the House,

traditionally as social democrats, have argued is a role and a

responsibility of government.

I would challenge this

government, by the way, to reconcile this measure and what is said in

defence of this measure with various statements they have made about

the marketplace and about what we on this side advocate by way of

intervention.

The objects of the measure are quite

laudable. I think everybody on both sides of the House has indeed

acknowledged that. We recognize that we have a crisis in various

single-industry towns — a crisis that is going to get larger. There's

no doubt then that we ought to be doing something about that.

have some difficulty, and I think we can be forgiven for being a

little, dare I say, partisan political, when we listen to that

particular minister telling us about the principle of equal sacrifice

defining and animating the entire bill. It is that particular minister,

let us not forget, who was quite happy to grant his former executive

assistant a salary increase of some 19 percent and, at the same time,

zealously defend legislation now on the order paper that's going to

limit the salary increases of people like nurses, teachers and other

public servants.

The point I am making is that that

particular minister by his conduct, it seems to me, is contradicting

the main defence of this particular measure. I stand by that.

also have a concern because this measure, like so many other measures

introduced by this government, has a wonderful idea and concept. But it

is a concept and idea that seems to be perverted; perverted only

insofar as they haven't had the courage to stick with the principles

enunciated in the measure. You'll recall that the minister, in

introducing and defending the bill, talked about the arm’s-length

relationship between government and the commissioner. Well and good. We

all accept that premise and we indeed defend that particular

contention, that case.

The problem, however, is that there

is a piece of this bill that effectively gives the lie to that entire

concept of arm’s-length relationship. I'm referring to

section 4.1 —

strategic industries — where we dis-

[ Page 11684 ]

cover,

in effect, that strategic industries no longer have to be defined or

explained in any serious way. As long as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council deems something will be a strategic

industry, it will be. In short, it's unanswerable. There is no longer

any definition, no longer any due process involved in determining what

industry ought to be supported; rather, it's purely a cabinet decision.

That,

Mr. Speaker — I think you would agree with me, and I'm sure most of

those people who are watching there proceedings on television would

agree — is investing too much power in the hands of a single cabinet

minister and in the hands of cabinet. Our experience tells us again and

again that this government has to carry with it the appearance in the

eyes of many people in the public of being less concerned with the

public good than with protecting the interest of its own friends and

those who have the inside track.

If the government wants to

show that our fears are unfounded in that regard, I would suggest there

is an easy way to do so. All they have to do is take out the particular

section of the bill I referred to. Don't give the cabinet minister that

kind of unlimited power if you don't want to be accused of using it for

your own selfish political purposes.

I would also point out

that we have a couple of other concerns. The power this commissioner

has — and indirectly then the ministry has — is also one that sends out

rather bad or at least negative signals to industry, most notably to

the forest industry. What will happen here with the bill....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

The Minister of Finance, I'm glad to see, is awake and paying

attention. The Minister of Finance says that I don't support the bill.

As I made very clear, I do support the bill. We on this side do support

the bill, but we have drawn to your attention some ways in which this

bill could be improved. I hope you are listening and will take some of

those suggestions.

Part of the predicament, as I was about

to say, is just that. With this measure, what we effectively do is call

upon the Ministry of Forests to ignore much of its own legislation. It

is built into this that we will have to ignore the existing Ministry of

Forests Act.

I suggest to you that this sends out bad

signals. I would suggest to you that this is the kind of thing that

Mike Apsey, who recently gave a talk to the Vancouver Board of Trade on

behalf of the Council of Forest Industries, was referring to when he

made the following statement. He talked about "the reality of a policy

environment characterized by ad hockery." That's the predicament

outlined by the most senior representative of the forest industry in

this province. I submit to you that this measure, given its impact,

will do nothing to dispel that air of ad hockery which seems to define

this government's approach.

[3:45]

Again, my colleagues on this side have made the point that we accept the premise

of the bill. We're happy to see that this government does indeed believe

in recycling. We know that this is a recycled 1983. We wonder, however, where

it was in 1986 when communities were literally falling like ten pins around

the province for want of the kind of attention that is enunciated in this particular

measure. We also wonder where the government had been when it talked about B.C.'s

economy having diversified and having become a mature economy so that it was

no longer so susceptible to boom-and-bust and the problem of single-industry

commodities. We wonder where all that went, given now this admission that things

are not quite as they ought to be and that therefore we must take this kind

of interventionist measure.

With

those comments I would again emphasize that we support the bill, but I

sincerely hope this government will recognize there is a fundamental

flaw in this legislation-at least one. I would suggest that for its own

political survival, if nothing else — and I offer this free, gratis,

for nothing — it might want to consider taking the error out of the

bill of doing favours for friends and insiders.

HON. MR. MESSMER :

In response to the last member who started off his speech by saying

this is a whimsy bill, I guess on this side of the House we refer to it

as being a very serious bill. However, I'm pleased to rise today to

speak in favour of Bill 83, the Job Protection Act.

The

Critical Industries Act in the early eighties worked, and saved

some-not all-commercial businesses. The main thing that it did was to

save 13 companies and roughly 2,900 employees within British Columbia.

They are still with us today, and I'm sure if they are listening to

this debate after that many years, they will be pleased that we had an

act in those days that helped us to put people back to work and save

those jobs. Art Phillips said:

"We start with

a hard-nosed assessment of the company. If it is potentially viable, we

attempt to get as many parties as possible to contribute to the

solution. Government contributions have been modest. In fact, every

case has immediately been profitable to the provincial government in

terms of direct income versus direct expenditure."

And

that, Mr. Speaker, says it all. It says that if you put a little effort

into it, the rewards you get will be worthwhile to the people of

British Columbia.

I'm pleased that the minister has

introduced a new act which takes the proven parts of the Critical

Industries Act and adds them to the provisions of this new act to

protect the jobs and the paycheques of people in British Columbia.

in British Columbia have not felt the same economic downside that has

occurred in the balance of Canada. However, we have people working in

industries that are the main employers within that area; communities

that have small businesses always dependent upon the larger industry,

industries that may have, because of external events like high interest

rates and markets, the ability to be competitive in the world market

but find themselves no longer viable; businesses that have been good

corporate

[ Page

11685 ]

citizens, that have been supporters of events over

the years, that have helped social and recreational needs within those

communities, that have employed fathers and sons, daughters and mothers

within the community and that have played a major role in everything

that went on in that area — and, I might add, were probably major

taxpayers when it came to education in the province of British

Columbia. However, things have turned the other way. At this particular

time, they have had to make a choice — whether or not they are a viable

company, whether or not they can support their creditors and whether or

not they can exist in a climate that is not in their favour during this

particular time. That's why the commission will work with all of the

parties involved — the employers, the employees and the creditors — to

make sure that the industry can afford to operate in that community,

not on a short-term basis but on a long-term basis.

The

Minister of Regional and Economic Development has outlined that the job

protection commission will be an independent agency. It will be at

arm's length from government, yet it provides the commissioner with the

power to authorize economic plans which will include extraordinary

assistance from the province. This applies to an industry which

hopefully will be one of those industries from the early eighties that

we've just talked about that is still in operation in British Columbia

today.

It's very easy for us to sit back and turn our backs

on those industries that have been viable within those communities. I

have heard great remarks today about how we should have public hearings

in all our communities to discuss what's going to happen with

economics. Public hearings are a good thing, but unfortunately we need

people to invest their dollars in order to hire the people who are

going to work within our small communities. In doing so, these people

must have some long-term investment needs.

In most of the

communities in British Columbia today the chambers of commerce are

going out and trying to entice businesses to come to their communities

We had a plan that was put on by the provincial government a few years

ago. I forget what it was called. It was the provincial

partnership-in-enterprise plan, and it worked extremely well during

that time.

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

HON. MR. MESSMER :

We have so many good programs. I'm not too sure, but I think the second

member for Victoria was the opposition critic of that program during

that period of time and disapproved of it. But I can tell you that a

lot of industries located in small towns in British Columbia took

advantage of that particular program.

In the early days we

also had DREE, which encouraged industry to settle in certain parts of

British Columbia to help in the areas we talked about that have a high

interest rate.

Mr. Speaker, our government strongly supports the belief that industry must

be within our communities. It is those industries that employ the people, and

it's those people who make the communities of British Columbia. If you have

never been in business, it's easy to sit and condemn those who are in trouble

today. But I think most of us know — certainly on this side of the House — that

if you're in business, there are good times and there are bad times. The

most important part of the whole thing is that you have to write a cheque, and

those cheques are the payrolls for the women and men who live in our communities.

Without those we have nothing.

say that we would turn our backs on those industries that are trying to

survive is completely wrong. Therefore I support this bill, and I would

hope that both sides of the House support it also.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

The member from Penticton just mentioned that they have businessmen

over there who know how to write cheques. Well, I happen to know a

little something about that myself — having been in business all my

life, having taken over a family business and knowing what it's like to

struggle during hard economic times.

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

MR. G. JANSSEN :

It's doing fine, Mr. Finance Minister — without the help of the

provincial government and their devastating policies of taking

paycheques out of people's pockets by devastating the economy by having

over 750 tax and fee increases since this government took office in

1986, by increasing the cost of doing business to every business in

British Columbia, by increasing the paper burden to every business in

British Columbia, by increasing taxes to those very people who would go

in and spend their dollars in those businesses and by reaching into

those wallets and those paycheques before they have a chance to make

those businesses viable, to create that economic activity and to create

those spinoff dollars that are so vital to staying in business.

The

cost of doing business in British Columbia, particularly small

business, has gotten higher and higher — thanks to this government —

while at the same time their friends in big business have been given

tax breaks time and time again. The taxation burden has been taken off

the backs of large corporations and shifted to taxpayers and small

businesses. Yet they call this a job protection plan.

This

is recycled legislation, Mr. Speaker. It's legislation that was enacted

during the last recession. We proposed a paycheque protection plan.

After reading our legislation and our proposals, this government woke

up and said: "Yes, this is what we must do because we can see that the

New Democratic Party — the party of new ideas, not recycled ideas — is

moving up in the polls." The government party said: "We're in trouble.

We're going to lose the next election, so therefore we have to adopt

some of the policies of the New Democratic Party in order to appeal to

the voters." But it's a little late, because we've already, as I said

earlier, had 750 tax and fee

[ Page 11686 ]

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

Let's

talk about Ontario. I've heard the deficit there mentioned by members

opposite. I will remind the members opposite that the reason a New

Democratic Party was elected in Ontario by an overwhelming margin was

because a massive deficit was run up by a so-called free enterprise

party. They turned to the New Democrats in Ontario and said: "Please

help us." Those paycheques and those jobs are now being protected

because New Democrats care for people. They work on a bottom-up not a

top-down level.

This bill is a last gasp by the government

to say: "Where can we win some votes? How can we appeal to the public

that's turned off by a tired government with tired, recycled ideas?"

The minister says: "It's the global slowdown that's to blame. Ottawa is

to blame. The recession is coming from the east coast."

The

former Finance minister said: "We have a budget stabilization fund. We

have a rainy-day account. When these bad times come along, we'll draw

on that. We'll bring that out."

Where is it? Where's the

rainy-day account? It's pouring outside. This government offers the

taxpayers a rowboat when what we need is an ark.

Bankruptcies

are up, both personal and business, in the province of British

Columbia, and they've been increasing steadily for the last four or

five or six months. New business starts and investments are down in

this province, and this minister runs around in what he calls a free

enterprise government, handing out paycheques right, left and centre to

industry.

Right after he made the announcement of this job

protection plan he ran off to Golden and handed out $5.8 million to

Evans Products. Then he ran to a plywood plant in Vancouver and handed

out some more money. Recently, Milestone Wood Products got even more

money.

He's handing out dollars right, left and centre,

trying to buy votes in this province, trying to ensure people that

we're here to protect them. Where's the rainy-day account? The Minister

of Finance was asked in question period just yesterday what the state

of finances was in this province. They don't know. He didn't answer the

question.

[4:00]

Free enterprise

government says: "We're going to have some timber transfers with no

competition." Have you ever heard of such a thing? We know the

devastating position in the forest industry. We know the MOU's going to

be re-discussed — after this province gave away British Columbia rights

to a foreign government. Now they're going down to try to negotiate

their way out of it. Is that free enterprise — to give away public

lands, public forests, without competition? I think not. It's another

way of buying votes from their friends and insiders.

The former Finance minister of this province left the post because he didn't

want to face opposition questions about how he could be imposing restraint in

this province while the Minister of Regional and Economic Development — I think

he is known as "the mechanic" in politics — goes around handing out

millions of dollars on the one hand and preaching restraint on the other. Whether

it's Western Star Trucks in Kelowna or Conair in Abbotsford, deals are made

right, left and centre at the whim of the minister.

These

are not sound business practices; these are political gifts. The

minister runs around the province offering money. Is it done on sound

business practices? Over 7,000 people in the forestry industry have

lost their jobs since the spring of 1990. Where were the ministers?

Where was the job protection plan, and where was help for small

business and the taxpayers of this province who were losing their jobs?

They weren't there.

What is happening now? This government

opposite sits there and says: "We have to do something. We have to call

an election this year." Were they worried a year ago? No, they weren't.

They're worried now because they know that they can't get re-elected.

government going to give control to the communities, or is it going to

continue to have a top-down approach? "We will make the decisions at

the top as to where the paycheques go. We will make the decision" — the

minister will make the decision, they say — "about who gets the

benefits of the job protection plan.” Communities should be given that

opportunity. Communities should be involved, Mr. Speaker, in the

decisions of how to rescue this province from the inadequacies of

Social Credit fiscal management.

The BS fund is empty. The

government is empty of ideas. The sooner we have an election, the

sooner the voters can cast a decision — the same decision given in

Ontario. They're tired of old ideas; they're tired of recycled plans.

They want fresh new ideas from a fresh new government, a New Democratic

Party government.

HON. MR. SERWA : It's certainly a

pleasure to take

part in this very interesting debate on Bill 83, the

job protection commission and its single mission to protect the jobs

and paycheques of British Columbians.

I come from a

government that may be measured by its deeds, not by its words, and I'm

very proud of that. I heard the second member from Okanagan Boundary

make a statement on the unemployment level during the years 1972 to

1975, and I remember the slogan in the province at that time and have a

full appreciation of why there was probably a low unemployment level.

"Would the last one to leave British Columbia please shut off the

lights." That was the slogan then, and that's the slogan today with the

NDP.

I'm very proud of the record of jobs that have been

created in the province of British Columbia since 1986 with this

particular government. It's always interesting to listen to opposition

members who have very little background in the area of creating jobs.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if any of the members on the

opposite side have created businesses employing 20 or more people. One

mem-

[ Page

11687 ]

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. SERWA :

No, I think there's a difference in perspective. There are some who say

that those of the socialist persuasion have been described as parasites

of society, and there are many who would agree with that statement.

Centralist planning and socialism are falling down all over the world.

It's not because of good stuff; it's not because of the standard of

living. The people in the developed countries, in the eastern bloc

nations, are going hungry because of your type of centralist planning

and your concept. It's because of individuals like yourselves who laugh

and make fun, who can speak very well but have no fundamental knowledge

and understanding about what it takes to create an economy, the

responsibility of creating jobs and keeping the economy moving. So when

I listen to you it's with a great deal of humour. You really wax

eloquent on the role of your party. You can speak on many subjects, and

you speak well indeed, but you don't fool anyone, because you're not

coming from any foundation of actually doing it, of actually creating

jobs and caring about people. You pay lip-service to it. What you want

are people to be dependent on a socialist system. You're not helping

people help themselves. You cater to a tendency of some people to rely

heavily on the system. That's where your strong support is: special

interest groups and single interest groups, not caring about the

general health and welfare of the economy. You're a party of takers,

not of contributors.

You know, my friends, there's a great

deal of sensitivity over there, and the member for Alberni just stated

it, with his tendency to create a perception among the people of

British Columbia. Did this government only care for constituents in

their ridings? The member for Alberni just said that. What a bunch of

absolute hogwash. Since 1986, over $283 million has been advanced

through the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development to

constituencies held by New Democratic Party members. Since 1986, with

an overwhelming majority in this House, only $300 million has been

advanced to constituencies represented by a Socred member. Remember

those figures. Each time you come up with a statement that is basically

untrue, you are going to have to be responsible for supporting it. You

continue to make misstatement after misstatement.

The

second member for Cariboo made a quote and alluded to the previous

Premier of British Columbia. That quote was not made by the Premier of

the province, and the member should apologize for the misrepresentation

and the misleading of this House and the people of British Columbia.

You're on call. You're accountable for the first time. You're on

television, and the people are going to get the story the way it really

is. You folks have got to stand up now and be accountable to the people

of the province who really care. You know, you don't understand....

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

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

The

unemployed are not simply statistics; they're real people. The members

on the side opposite keep talking about big business getting all the

breaks. Big business creates a lot of employment for all of the people

of the province of British Columbia. We care a great deal about the

business activity that takes place.

The member for Alberni

spoke about Western Star Trucks in Kelowna — a very special deal, he

indicated and intimated. Well, I'll tell you how special that deal is.

Western Star Trucks generates about $62 million worth of purchases in

the province of British Columbia annually. They generate a tremendous

amount of activity in western Canada, and in all of Canada, and

annually they sell some 2,000 trucks all over the world, my friend.

They have produced over 30,000 trucks since they started up. Virtually

every community that has any industry, be it large — a Vancouver — or a

small community like Enderby, has an opportunity to produce widgets for

Western Star, and so they do. They're mom-and-pop shops that depend on

this manufacturing facility that assembles the widgets from all over

the province of British Columbia — be they tires, rims, fuel tanks or

electronics — in the assembly plant in Kelowna and provides jobs and

employment for British Columbians. That is a solid initiative. It's a

good company, and the employers and the employees who work have every

right to be proud of their commitment to the province of British

Columbia.

One thing that the first member for Nanaimo said

was absolutely right. He said the Social Credit government protects its

friends. I have to agree with him; we do protect our friends. Who are

our friends? Our friends are the people of British Columbia — everyone,

my friend. Everyone in British Columbia: the rich and the poor, the

young and the old, the employers and the employees, the native people

and the people from every nation of the world who have freely chosen to

make British Columbia their home. All those working people are our

friends, our Social Credit friends. We care, and we show that we

continue to care. That is why I support Bill 83. It's an outstanding

piece of legislation and very timely.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I've heard it said a number of times by members opposite, members of

the NDP. "We like the legislation, but...." They don't really say what

the "but" is, and I've attempted to determine what these alternatives

might be. I've waited till the very end because I was hoping perhaps

the Leader of the Opposition — who's mostly away from the House, but I

was hoping perhaps he might be back into the House — would tell us what

the NDP could propose as an alternative, or how they might propose to

improve on the legislative package. I've listened; I've heard nothing.

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

[ Page 11688 ]

there's

all sorts of material about what it is the Leader of the Opposition and

the NDP have been opposed to. They've been opposed to SkyTrain. They've

been opposed to the convention centre, stadium, Expo, B.C. Place, Alex

Fraser Bridge, the Coquihalla, the Island gas pipeline — all these

things that they've been opposed to we know about. I'm trying to find

out just exactly how what they're proposing might be somehow an

improvement on what we're proposing as a part of this legislation and

the whole of the economic package which will continue to keep this

province in the number one place in Canada. If you don't believe that

we're number one, let me tell you: take the time, if you can; go visit

your NDP colleagues in Ontario and see the disaster there.

[4:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

a matter of fact, I think there's something the NDP opposite ought to

know. I think this would be good information for you. Did you know that

hitchhikers in Ontario are now offering to go either way? Hitchhikers

in Ontario will go whichever way. That's the situation in Ontario,

where the NDP has only been the government for not too many months,

it's total disaster. Business is leaving. They've not introduced

anything as progressive as this.

I want to really

concentrate on this legislation, and have you supporting the

legislation in all of our attempts, not with a whole lot of buts and no

alternatives, but in fact as another positive move by this government

in order to keep this province where we brought it, to the number one

spot in Canada.

I also tried in my research.... As I said,

I found lots of negative stuff, but I found one that I thought might be

of some benefit. There's a quote from the Leader of the Opposition. It

was made February 15, 1989. He gave us a good insight as to the NDPs

ability to measure the economy and what is happening in our province

and country. The Leader of the Opposition said on February 18, 1989:

"We have a prosperous economy, but it has nothing to do with Social

Credit." Then on April 25, 1989, two months later, the same Leader of

the Opposition is again quoted — this time in a Victoria newspaper —

and he says: "We're still in a depression in the vast majority of

British Columbia."

This is what we've become accustomed to

with the NDP. They're here today, there tomorrow. You can't pin them

down. They're all over the place. "We'll do this, " or "we'll support

that." But there's no real substance to anything that they propose or

that they in fact might be considering. They have no proposals, no

suggestions. They're completely blank.

In my research I was reminded again about another NDP candidate you mentioned,

Mr. Member for Port Alberni. Let me quote you one of those NDP candidates. His

name is Leonard Krog, a rather famous name in this part of the world now because

he was the NDP candidate who — to his credit — for the first time really spoke

the truth. Leonard Krog was attending a big meeting of about 50 or 60 New Democrats

in Port Alberni, and Leonard Krog said for the whole of B.C. to hear: "If

we're going to be truthful with the electorate in this province, we have

to tell them that in order to meet the promises made by the NDP, everybody's

taxes are going to have to be increased." Everybody's going to be paying

more, they're all going to be paying more. Then, as I went through this

research a little further, I found something else.

MR. CLARK :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we're all entertained by an election

speech. I can feel one coming on myself, but clearly this is beyond

even the lax rules in this House in terms of second reading debate. The

Premier keeps referring to election material and the like, and I don't

think the NDP election material, the promises we're making and the good

news that we're putting forward are contained in this government bill

before the House that we're supposed to be debating.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate why it is they don't want to hear about

these things, and how it is that they would want to get me onto

something else. But these are the facts. The one good thing about live

television in the House is that it does give us an opportunity to

really show how bankrupt some of these NDP proposals are, and that they

really don't have a plan. Here we come forth with excellent legislation

as a part of a great economic package that will keep this province in

number one place — and they don't want to hear about it. No, they don't

want to talk about this at all. They keep referring to all sorts of

side issues, hoping that perhaps there will be those in the media

looking from on top, picking up on some of their negative comments, and

this will become the news story then, you see. We've become a little

accustomed to that.

But then again, as I was going through

this material in order to see what the alternatives were when it comes

to the legislation here in this economic package, I was reminded of a

statement made by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. He said we

had to double the welfare rates. Suddenly, it struck me what the

economic plan of the NDP is. You double welfare rates, and you double

everybody's taxes, and suddenly you've got people somehow receiving an

income and everybody else paying through the nose. They don't like to

hear that, but it's this government dependency instead of good

progressive legislation — legislation that will maintain this province

as number one, legislation that really provides an opportunity for

people in all parts of this province to have their jobs protected

through the facilities of government working with the private sector,

through the facilities of government working with all the stakeholders

in the private sector to try and protect jobs, to keep people employed.

not think for a moment, members of the NDP particularly, that some of

this somehow goes unnoticed. I was very pleased the other day. I sat in

a restaurant on Commercial Drive and next to me at another table there

were three IWA workers. These three IWA workers were complimenting the

Premier

[ Page

11689 ]

and the government for the tremendous job we had done, and they said: "Don't

you dare let the NDP get in."

It's

like the caller in Fort St. John, Mr. Speaker, who openly admitted —

and I don't mind — that he didn't particularly like or always agree

with me, but he said: "Mr. Premier, I have to vote for you and Social

Credit, because if I vote otherwise I vote for unemployment." It's not

going without notice.

I went to the Vancouver shipyard, and

I wanted to talk to some of the people there about some of this

progressive legislation we're debating today. I saw what they were

doing. They were working on these ferries which we're building because

tourism in the province has been great, number one and on the increase,

year after year. I met with these shipyard workers who were very

grateful for what this government has done. They know legislation like

this will again help to further protect the jobs that are available to

them and that hopefully will continue to be available to them.

This

legislation, such as we've seen in the whole of the package we've

presented for the people of this province, shows that the workingman's

best friend is the Social Credit party and this government.

MRS. BOONE : What about the women?

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

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Listen.

...to spout a whole lot of philosophy and to be very philosophical, such

as we hear from the NDP all of the time, but you can't pack all of this

philosophical stuff in your lunch bucket and hope to have a good lunch.

You can't pack all of this philosophical stuff in your bank account in

order to meet the mortgage payments. It's jobs that count. It's jobs

that this government provides, has provided during the last four years

and will continue to provide better than any other government in Canada.

the last four years, we've seen more activity, prosperity and growth in

this province than we've seen for a long time. But we know that Canada

is suffering economically — there's no doubt about that — and we're

seeing it elsewhere in the world and certainly on this continent.

know that when investors from abroad look to this country, they look at

all the legislation and what it does for their security as well as the

security of the people who will be involved with their businesses — the

women and the men working in those businesses. They look at how they

might be kept reasonably secure and how the policies of government and

the legislation with respect to the workplace are dealt with, or how

they relate. They look at this. It's important.

They look at Canada and particularly — and unfortunately for us today — at

a province like Ontario, because it is the most populous and most powerful province,

and it certainly is the largest and most central. As far as people looking to

invest is concerned, that is a measure. If they look at Ontario today — I've

already said it — the hitchhikers are preparing to go and offering to go both

ways.

But

the fact remains, they have that NDP philosophy. It's only been there

for a little while now, and people are expected to have philosophy as

opposed to full lunch buckets, philosophy as opposed to being able to

meet the mortgage payments or the car payments. The NDP was a disaster

for Ontario, and it will be a disaster here.

If you look at

this legislation, you will find that it's not only a first in this

country, but it's progressive. It's progressive in that it recognizes

that government does not take the place of the private sector and that

welfare is not the answer. You can't somehow say: "I'll vote for the

NDP or whatever and get the welfare and the payments increased." That's

not the answer. They'll look at this legislation, and they'll realize

this is something we could apply in various provinces very effectively

and help the women and men throughout the whole of this country. That's

the key.

I support this legislation. I'm very proud of what

we've accomplished as a government. I'm very proud of the fact that

this province still has the number one record and will continue to have

the number one record in this country. I'm very proud of the fact that

we're getting very good comments from people in the investment field

abroad when they are considering all of the provinces and how they

figure and see us to be the number one province.

I'm very

proud of the fact that we take the steps and introduce the new

initiatives before any other province, and that we are continuing to

lead this country. This legislation, Mr. Speaker and members, is again

leading the country.

I know the opposition will probably

want to vote for this. You'll want to vote for this and for all the

rest of the legislative package that makes up those initiatives which

will provide protection for all the people in our province, regardless

of where they live.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I get very

concerned when I keep hearing those members ignoring — or perhaps

forgetting, or not making reference to — the needs of the other regions

of the province. They continue to have the mentality of downtown

Vancouver — that whatever it is, downtown Vancouver or downtown

Victoria are somehow applicable to the whole of this province.

[4:30]

They

forget those IWA workers throughout this province and their particular

needs, and they forget those miners out there in the East Kootenay and

elsewhere, and their particular needs. They don't really care about

those people as much as we've expressed and shown in this legislation.

They don't care about the miners; they don't care about the IWA

workers. They care little about anything beyond downtown Vancouver.

They're a party with a downtown Vancouver mentality. I would urge you

to consider this legislation and support it wholeheartedly.

[ Page 11690 ]

MR. CLARK :

I love it when the Premier makes an election speech. It just makes my

adrenaline pump; I can't wait. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the

courage to call an election, to put it to the people to have that

debate. He wants to see his mandate kind of dribble away in the fifth

year.

Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: don't let those pretenders to the throne box

you in. I have some advice: don't wait for the Hughes commission. Don't

wait for it; don’t let them. They're boxing you in; you can feel it.

When you make that speech, I can tell you want to stay, so call an election,

Mr. Premier. Don't listen to them. Take it to the people, and we can debate

it.

Back

to the bill. On balance, this is a good bill. I'm certainly prepared to

support this legislation. The bill proposes, essentially....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK :

I'm going to talk about the bill, Mr. Speaker. I know it would be much

more fun to engage in electoral debate, but we'll wait for an election

for that.

The bill proposes a job protection commissioner

who has the power to intervene and to keep alive industries that would

otherwise close. That's a good thing. The Premier asked us what options

we put forward before the government decided to move in this direction.

The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the critical industries

commissioner be brought back. We support that. This bill does that;

we're prepared to support it.

There is a danger, however.

Government assistance should only be given to companies that have

long-run viability. Companies shouldn't just be given money; they have

to have long-term viability. There will be honest mistakes in any kind

of legislation like this. Judgments have to be made, Companies may look

like they're viable with a little government help, and they may

subsequently fail. I think we have to accept some of that risk. I

support that honest mistakes will be made, regardless of the

legislation.

The commissioner must act prudently. I have

faith in this commissioner; he has the credentials. I believe that he

will act with that kind of judgment. There will be honest mistakes, but

the danger is that this legislation will be abused. The Minister of

Regional and Economic Development has another piece of legislation that

allows him to give money away in loans, loan guarantees and grants, as

we heard in the Conair deal. The minister shakes his head, but we'll

see. He's busy trying to rewrite that agreement now that it's been made

public, in the cold light of day. In each one where loan guarantees and

loans are given, we have to act prudently.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't trust this Minister of Regional and Economic

Development — the most partisan minister in the government — to act with the

prudence that we expect for the public purse. I trust the commissioner we're

dealing with in this bill, and I'm prepared to support it, but I don't

trust the minister. Art Phillips, the former critical industries commissioner,

made the case that the bill is open to abuse. We have to be very careful about

it.

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

am concerned about certain aspects of this legislation that deal with

the Forest Act. Frankly, reallocating timber licences without public

hearings, without public debate, without competition, is something I

don't support. I think that moving tenure could be done on certain

occasions. If there's non-performance and other companies would use that

timber to create more jobs, it should be done. But I'm very concerned

about the discretion in this bill to allow the minister to make that

decision without public hearings, without public debate and without

competition. The members on this side of the House, my colleagues, have

made the government aware of that concern. We recognize, however, that

on balance we're prepared to support the bill even though we're

concerned about aspects of it which will make it open to abuse.

want to deal with something else the Premier said. This is a temporary

bill; it has a sunset clause, which I support, and it deals with

short-term help for problems which hopefully are short-term, or should

be short-term — otherwise they wouldn't get the help. These companies

have to be viable in the long run. But we also need medium- and

long-term solutions, which we haven't seen from this administration.

There hasn't been any planning in terms of the province as to where our

strengths and weaknesses are or what we should and shouldn't support.

There hasn't been any process to try and do that. There have been no

funds for community economic development, to try to diversify small

towns in British Columbia. We have single-industry towns which have not

been given the attention they should have had over the years under

Social Credit.

Kamloops is a good example, where

double-digit unemployment continues to this day. They never really

recovered from the recession in 1983 in terms of unemployment. The

Premier should know that we have two British Columbians: we have the

lower mainland, and southern Vancouver Island to some extent, and we

have the rest of British Columbia. The lower mainland has an economy

that is still doing reasonably well....

The Premier is

clapping, Mr. Speaker, but we've been making this case for some time.

Why do we have two British Columbians? Because of short-sighted

policies on the part of successive Social Credit governments. We need

to redirect growth outside the lower mainland into the regions of

British Columbia. That hasn't been done under successive Social Credit

administrations. We need to put resources into communities like

Kamloops, to help them diversify and build on their strengths. That

hasn't been done. Double-digit inflation continues to this day.

While

this bill deals with short-term problems which we clearly have, while

we support and applaud the effort of the commissioner to intervene and

use the power of government to assist industries over

[ Page

11691 ]

this difficult time, particularly in small towns, it's simply not

enough. We need medium-term strategies, looking at value-added and

diversification of our forest resource. We still import most of our

forestry equipment. We still import most of our sawmill equipment. We

have a natural resource strength in this province, and we should build

on it for what economists call backward and forward linkages. Instead

we are still, by and large, producing dimensional lumber for export.

There are some positive developments in terms of value-added, but that

is the direction we should be