CONTENTS

[ Page 2579 ]

Routine proceedings

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No. 34). amend-

ments. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2579

Development Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No. 102).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2579

Mrs. Jordan — 2581

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2586

Mrs. Jordan — 2586

Mr. Brousson — 2589

Mr. Wallace — 2591

Mr. Gardom — 2593

Mr. Williams. — 2594

Mr. McClelland — 2595

Mr. Rolston — 2597

Mr. Phillips — 2598

Ms. Brown — 2601

Mr. Phillips — 2601

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2602

Point of order

Hour of adjournment. Mr. Chabot — 2603

        Mr. Speaker — 2603

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2603

Routine proceedings

Development Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No. 102).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2603

Mr. Chabot — 2604

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 34 intituled the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 4, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Strachan begs leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 34.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moves the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 34.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 102, Mr. Speaker.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, not the Attorney General…

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …has the pleasure to move second reading of Bill No. 102, a measure for the support of small and medium industry in the Province of British Columbia which has been borrowed from the promises of the opposition extending over 20 years, and from the deathbed repentance promises of the official opposition in their twentieth year and eleventh month.

But nevertheless it is an important measure and I think should be acceptable in principle to all sides of this House. As I recall, the Conservative Party — which is more numerous in Nova Scotia than it is in this House — pioneered — and I have no hesitation in saying that because I remember from years gone by when we were arguing for this kind of assistance for secondary industry — the acquisition — oh, they made mistakes, and when they made mistakes they made dandies and when they had successes they were modest, but nevertheless under the Hon. Robert Stanfield (who has since gone to his reward) they pioneered these measures in the Province of Nova Scotia and I think for the benefit of all Canada.

I do not want to start an acrimonious debate with the official opposition on this particular evening, but I think our measure is more flexible than the bill they introduced as a private Member's bill in this House, which is restricted to the granting of interest loans on a rigid scale beginning at 1 per cent per year and going up to 9 per cent in the ninth year.

I consider that in the arsenal of modern fiscal experimentation and ingenuity in the governments across Canada we should be more flexible in the kind of industrial bill that we introduce. I think our bill does that because we incorporate different kinds of assistance to small business in differing situations and not merely this rigid schedule of interest loans.

We incorporate, of course, the idea of partnership which is an important and emerging idea in the 1970's not only in British Columbia but in other economies throughout the world.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we would like to think that we could pioneer some of these concepts, Mr. Member. We're not ashamed of that.

It incorporates the idea of equity capital so that the public can have an interest represented by their government in the success of the operation, and a private entrepreneur may be to a very large extent carrying the ball.

We incorporate in this the idea of loans upon various terms and conditions. It is very difficult to forecast ahead of time what kind of particular assistance will be most meaningful. We incorporate in our legislation the idea of the acquisition of industrial sites, possibly the erection of the plant buildings, to make an industry prosperous. We incorporate the idea of managerial assistance when that may not be offered by the federal Department of Trade and Commerce, which is now beginning to embark upon

[ Page 2580 ]

the field of managerial assistance to small business.

We are very concerned in our legislation not only to advance and enhance the industrial prospects of medium and small business but to protect the taxpayers' outlay. Wherever possible that will be done by mortgage security or it will be done by ownership of the land or the building that may be the essential catalyst to make a prosperous and successful industry.

We think in these endeavours that the government should be just a little bit business-like and not too academic. I say that after reflecting on my experiences over the last six months and particularly the last weekend when I met with the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce of the federal government, Mr. Alastair Gillespie, a very capable Minister — a Victoria man who went east and joined the Liberal Party — but everybody makes mistakes throughout life. I met also with all of the industrial ministers from all of the provinces of Canada, including Mr. Doodie of the Province of Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island where they were looking for some kind of industrial assistance for their potato crops.

It reinforced my impressions that to be successful in this field you should not raise high expectations but your programme should be lean and just a little hard-nosed and sharp-pencilled. In the long run you will do best credit in that fashion to both the taxpayer who is involved in helping with industrial assistance and to the industry concerned because there is no use helping a hothouse industry that is going to fail.

So it must be based upon careful research, whether it is a new industry that is trying to get off the ground or an existing industry that can be expanded. Such things as market surveys and productivity audits according to the best of the economic abilities of our technicians in this field today should be utilized. And, in the proper case, managerial assistance.

Yet in the Province of British Columbia with our expanding population and the rate of growth which has unquestionably by any figures been put at the highest in North America — it varies between 2.9 per cent cumulatively per year up to 3.2 per cent or something of that sort. With this government and a new Premier in the Province of British Columbia, I am not expecting whatsoever that that population increase will decline; it will increase. Because nowhere on the North American continent can you find a better climate than you find in the Province of British Columbia under the NDP government.

The climate is magnificent and the water warm, and our population will increase. We will have need to create wherever we can employment opportunities, particularly for the younger people who are coming up through our schools.

And yet it would be only fair to say at the same time that we have problems in British Columbia. Our market is fairly small; we have a freight rate problem with eastern Canada which makes it difficult for us to explode into the markets of Ontario and Quebec and central Canada.

We have that problem, and I don't think there's any doubt that we have a problem in the field of credit advancing, in that in our chartered banks, even with the addition of the Bank of British Columbia which is really just another bank, we do not have the credit facilities that are available to business in central Canada.

We do not intend in any way to duplicate the industrial assistance programmes of the federal government. They are numerous, ranging from advanced technological assistance to, as I say, counselling services under their new programme which they call CASE — Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises — and to their Industrial Development Bank which had done a very creditable job in the Province of British Columbia and has increased its loaning very substantially in the last 10 or 12 years, and to the DREE programmes and the other forms of federal assistance that may be available.

But we need an agency that will take advantage of the federal programmes, assist our small businesses to take advantage of them and where occasion requires, supplement those federal programmes. So we think we do that in this little bill where the capitalization is $25 million. But I want to assure Hon. Members who may judge things by their size….

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Who does that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't want a competition to arise on the floor of this House whereby we say $25 million capitalization and then somebody else gets up and says $50 million. I don't know what the proposal of the Liberal Party is, but it could be anything tonight.

I want to point out, that we can supplement of course, in the British Columbia Development Corporation, the amount that may be invested in terms of investment capital….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, under the terms of the Act. The amount that may be advanced in terms of investment capital can be subsidized by loans from the Treasury up to a total maximum limit of $100 million. Yet I would say again that the British Columbia Development Corporation can and should proceed in a very business-like way, and its object should not be to pump assistance into an obviously floundering industry, however praiseworthy it may be….

[ Page 2581 ]

MR. GARDOM: Like Celgar.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Celgar is something that you will live to regret the opposition of. Oh yes! Celgar is a massive social programme not only for the salvation of all of the northern section of this province, but one which will in good time return fat dividends for the people of British Columbia. Not that we're discussing that tonight because I stressed that this particular kind of industrial assistance should be for medium and small-scale business, that we may make it successful in the Province of British Columbia.

There is not a province of Canada that does not have such a programme. I think it behooves us to improve upon the mistakes that have been made and to avoid the errors that have been made and to take advantage of their successes. Because there's no question, whether you think of Dutronium or the Conservative experiment at Churchill Falls and some Ontario failures, it is essential that in a business-like way we take advantage of the success and we avoid the errors.

A sample of success is Dosco, as the Premier points out. So there are an infinite variety of means in which we can be of assistance to small industry in the Province of British Columbia. But it will be supplemental, last resort, last financial avenue of resort assistance. On that business-like basis, I move second reading of Bill No. 102.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unaccustomed as I am to having the floor after that Hon. Minister, I couldn't help but listen with great interest to his comments and his sage advice to the industry of British Columbia. He talked about the great momentum in this province that had been build up by years of careful planning and economic development by an industrious and independent people in British Columbia and by very responsible government — government that was tough, hard-nosed, as I think the Minister said, but fair, Mr. Speaker.

It was a government that recognized that when government expands too far into the private sector and beyond its responsibility to the economic climate and the people of this province, then it is in danger of stifling the very initiative and incentive and spirit that built the justifiably buoyant climate in British Columbia that was claimed by the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought when he praised the situation in British Columbia that he would have been more inclined to follow the well-researched and well-established concept of the previous administration, the Social Credit administration, in establishing an Industrial Development Corporation in British Columbia.

It was based on a knowledge of government's responsibility in stimulating secondary industry in a province which is faced with many problems in this area, but an acknowledgement that you must have the initiative and drive and incentive in that programme to encourage people to develop on their own without interference from government.

He said that it was a better climate in British Columbia now that we had a new NDP government. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that rather than a better climate, the business industry and the business sector of British Columbia is finding it more like a chilly arctic disaster as far as climate is concerned.

The Minister said that government really wanted to encourage secondary industry. I feel he's sincere in this. But he talked about little bits of assistance like ownership of the land and ownership of the buildings.

Mr. Speaker, if that Minister knew anything about business he would know essentially, when one builds a business, their largest portion of equity is in their land and is in their buildings, and when it comes time to retire from that business and to sell that business, that the retirement fund is not in the goodwill of the business, Mr. Speaker; it is in the equity of the business.

Government, as the Minister proposed in British Columbia, is going to essentially own that equity. Equipment depreciates, becomes outdated very quickly in today's modern technology; so what is the Minister offering these businesses? Control.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I know. But, Mr. Minister, you should be encouraging people to buy their own land and to develop their own buildings. Or the Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, should be encouraging other businesses to buy the land and to put up the buildings.

What the Minister is doing in this statement is making it very clear to business taxpayers in British Columbia that he is going to use their tax dollars to compete with them. There are industrial sites all over British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and our side is not opposed to some assistance in the development of industrial sites.

But for the government to embark on — really when you look at the various pieces of legislation before this House — an almost massive scale of land acquisition for industrial sites at a much debatable price — which I can't mention at this time but is very much an issue — and then to build buildings, he surely must recognize and the government must recognize that this is setting up in direct competition to initiative and risk capital that has already been

[ Page 2582 ]

invested in British Columbia.

Those people who have taken this risk, who have invested this risk capital, are the people that are paying the taxes that are providing the money that this Minister is going to take and invest in direct competition with them.

I suggest, Mr. Minister, that this is rather a distorted point of view of how you help small industries in British Columbia, because many of those buildings and industrial sites are owned by small investment people, not by major corporations.

Mr. Speaker, he suggested that the bill, No. 6, and the proposals by the previous Social Credit administration regarding the help to secondary industry were a deathbed repentance. But after listening to the Minister describe what his efforts are going to be, and the veiled threats of control that are in this bill, I'd suggest that his statements resemble the deathbed rattle for private enterprise and individual enterprise in British Columbia.

He talks in terms of flexibility and I agree there should be a degree of flexibility, but that flexibility should be directed towards stimulating new ideas and initiative, and stimulating the small man and woman and family in British Columbia to invest their money in the land of British Columbia and their money in their ideas and their money in the company; not a flexibility that is directed in essence to cut in on the private initiative and the private capital.

If a small business is doing well, Mr. Speaker, the Crown or the people of British Columbia get a fair portion of that profit through taxation. But now the government wants not only the taxation or the cream of the profit without the risk; they're going to go in and take part of the equity too.

What does that really leave the individual entrepreneur? Not too much incentive, I would suggest.

Mr. Speaker, the bill on which this bill is patterned…and I recognize and appreciate the Minister's comments that much of the bill is patterned on the Social Credit proposals. This was done not lightly. It was done after some considerable time of study and some considerable knowledge that before one develops an industrial development corporation which could truly serve the people of British Columbia and not be a drain on general revenue or the taxpayers' dollars, that there had to be equity capital free and ready to put into it.

We felt that $50 million was there in the Treasury and is in the Treasury today — providing the Premier doesn't get on too big a spending spree in the next few days — to put as equity capital into this development corporation.

We recognize in looking at British Columbia, which has a firm foundation built on the basis of its natural resources and its primary industries, that this has to be done before you can look at secondary industry. The primary needs of power, of transportation systems, both rail and road, and in the case of British Columbia water transportation, were recognized and were built, Mr. Speaker, with a view to acknowledging that British Columbia has a very small population and thus a very small ready market.

Western Canada has a small population and thus a small ready market. Therefore, secondary industry in British Columbia must compete nationally and internationally. In order to do that the province had to be sound financially; and the climate within the province had to be such that a secondary industry could establish with the knowledge that it could get qualified labour, with the knowledge that it could have sufficient transportation and sufficient power. And this was done.

The Minister mentioned, and we feel very strongly, that a secondary industry in British Columbia faces very complex problems in being competitive in Canada. One, of course, is the freight rate structure which has been stacked for years by the Liberal government against the western manufacturer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Member, the Liberal and Conservative, you're quite right. There hasn't been a government in Ottawa which has been capable of looking at Canada as a whole and of recognizing the potential of each area of Canada. They have chosen, as the Minister said, to establish "hothouse" programmes rather than initiative programmes. If they would reduce the freight rates and encourage industrial development in British Columbia, their false assumption that there isn't enough freight going east to warrant this reduction could soon be disproved.

There's another problem for industry in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and that of course is its ability to be competitive on the international market. This includes the United States which, as the Minister knows, is one of our largest markets for secondary manufacturing. In order to be competitive there we have to be competitive in production.

British Columbia, because it has one of the highest-educated work forces in Canada and amongst the highest wage rates in Canada, puts itself in a position where it must have other types of assistance or certainly some control on the economy of British Columbia in order that it can produce and manufacture and export at a competitive rate.

I wonder when the Minister talks about incentives and partnership with business if he really is looking at the overall picture of what his government has created in British Columbia. The efforts of the former government to try and control or set an example on the inflationary pressures in British Columbia were done for many reasons. One reason, Mr. Speaker, was a knowledge that if the wage rate in British Columbia

[ Page 2583 ]

becomes too high, if the demands of the working force become too great, and if the incentive for private industry is too small, there is no way that we can develop secondary industry in British Columbia and make it competitive — not only internationally but in the United States.

Since taking office, the Minister has been part of a programme which has released buoyant inflationary forces in British Columbia. He has been part of a government programme which has increased taxes on industry in British Columbia — and that means secondary industry in British Columbia; not as a matter of need but as a matter of principle and philosophy.

It seems just a little ludicrous that the Minister would stand up here and talk about what he's going to do with taxpayers' dollars and partnerships to stimulate secondary industry and then be party to these forces and statements from this government which are very rapidly destroying the sound economic climate in British Columbia; and which in fact, when he talks in terms of partnerships, are doing much to confuse the public and bring into their minds serious questions about whether or not they really want to go into business with a partner like the government — any government.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most serious problem facing any industry — and certainly small industries that are in existence in British Columbia today, or anyone who has an idea that they want to put into production or who has a small production force now and wants to expand that production — is the cost of capital.

You can't go to the bank and borrow money at a reasonable rate anywhere in Canada today. You can't go to the bank in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, in many instances, after the actions of this government, and borrow money on the basis of your land holdings. One wonders why the Minister doesn't give this some consideration.

The Bank of Canada has just raised its basic interest rate to 6½ per cent. This means that in Vancouver if one is in business and can get a loan they are paying anywhere from 10 to 12 per cent. In the interior of the province, Mr. Speaker, a small industry will be paying that and more. Even the Industrial Development Bank set up by the federal government charges a similar rate.

Mr. Speaker, if one has a small business…and I would think in terms of one I know about where a man is working making a special type of filter for refrigeration units in his basement. He's built all the equipment himself. He wants to move from a basement, part-time operation into a full-time operation. His problem is how does he do this, raise the capital, be competitive, bear the tax load, bear the high interest rate that's paid and support his family at the same time?

It amazes me that this very thoughtful Minister, this Minister who has this new portfolio and who we know wants to do a good job with it, can't recognize that low-interest money is really one of the major keys to stimulating new industries in British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: But, Mr. Minister, one of the problems within the bill is that like so many other bills of this government it just doesn't spell it out. I've talked to as many people as I dare talk to without embarrassing them or the Minister before this bill came up and nowhere have I received any assurance that there would be what is truly low interest money on a sliding scale or an incentive scale.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I am not terribly worried about Dow Chemicals, Mr. Speaker, but I am worried about little industries in British Columbia that want to go into component housing, who are in a form of that and want to expand. Mr. Minister, the bill and our philosophy which would give these smaller people a low interest rate of 1 per cent the first year, 2 per cent the second year, 3 per cent the third year — on up to 9 per cent over nine years — gives truly a low interest rate. It gives the industry an opportunity to take all its initiative and all its forces and its incentive to expand and to grow. It relieves this terrible worry of how they're going to meet this interest rate.

Mr. Minister, if you have this confidence, then why isn't it spelled out in the bill that these would be some of the options? We think, Mr. Minister, that there must be a programme of an incentive type of low interest rate.

If the bill was funded with $50 million this would give the Minister a great deal more flexibility. He says he wants flexibility, and we agree that there should be flexibility. Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, when you look at British Columbia as a whole, $25 million sounds like a lot of money, but if the company is really going to do its job, it should have more leeway. We would suggest to you that it be funded with $50 million to start with. The money is there; put it in quickly before you spend it all, and be short.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Speaker, that's the difference, and that is where the Minister is having his problem. I believe, and we believe as Social Credit, in incentive — that government has the responsibility and the right to stimulate, but not in that stimulation to take the price of freedom the interest rate.

Mr. Minister, I don't know how much you know

[ Page 2584 ]

about business, and I'm no world authority on it, but I do know something about business. A small business needs government for a partner like it needs a hole in the head. Government traditionally, and you have to look through the administrations of your own philosophy in other parts of the world, cannot help but become cumbersome. Through you Mr. Speaker, who did you have dinner with tonight, Mr. Minister — the fellow who drafted the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What about Pan-Arctic?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, one minute the Minister is talking about the little businessman, and the next minute he cites Pan-Arctic as a great example. Pan-Arctic, as I understand it, isn't that hot because it was supposed to be for Canadian companies, and it is largely American companies. So I wouldn't hold that up as an example.

Mr. Minister, government tends to interfere, no matter how well-meaning. It tends to be bureaucratic and it tends to be sluggish. When you get a small business you have to make instant decisions; a manager has to be free to be in California or Chicago or Montreal or Osaka to read the climate. He has to be able and prepared and free to make a snap decision at that time — just as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) made that snap decision of the Titanic of Ocean Falls. He was free because he is the boss of his party to say, "That's it, boys, we're going." Now you've given him that leeway, Mr. Minister, give the little companies who get this type of assistance the freedom that they need to make sound business judgment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, let's face it, there are a few lifeboats on that Titanic that are going down with it. We'll call Ocean Falls the lifeboat.

Mr. Speaker, we feel any industry that develops in British Columbia must have proper feasibility studies if it is to get government assistance. It must have certainly if not a proven, a very sound potential market; it should be non-polluting as much as possible in nature, and able to afford the pollution controls that will be required of it. We feel that in receiving government assistance, there should be some explanation and openness as far as salaries for management are concerned. We don't feel the employees should have to be unionized.

That is one of the kickers in the Minister's bill as opposed to our bill. Our position would be that if people want to work with that company, it is up to the workers and the company to decide their terms. We feel that the company should pay the going rate. If the company wants to do it on a share basis with the employee, that's fine. But, under the legislation that we have previously had second reading of in this House, there is every possibility that the Minister can also say to these small companies, "We are going to assist you; we are going to become a partner, and you must be unionized."

That is just another example, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, of where government, because of its own legislation, cannot help but interfere. It will have a dampening effect on the initiative and the personal feelings that those employees and that management will have about that company, and may well be the difference between success and failure of that company.

If the Minister is shaking his head, then we would like a commitment from him tonight that any company receiving assistance under this Act would not be compelled to be unionized. Leave it to the workers. Certainly make a regulation, if the Minister wishes, that the wages be comparable to other wages in that area. But don't tie this can to their tail. Leave it to the individuals involved.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: The trouble with this Minister is he gets side-tracked. I don't really care whether the lawyers can belong to the Bar Association or not under this bill, Mr. Speaker. What we care about is that the taxpayer's money be used wisely, be used in a stimulating manner, and that those involved, as long as they are responsible in the manner that I have suggested, not be tied with a can by this government because of some philosophical point of view. Leave them some of their independence and freedom.

Look at Japan, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, where there is a tremendous feeling of personal involvement between the employees and many of their companies. It doesn't always show itself in salaries; it sometimes shows itself in recreational facilities or any other avenues. Leave the employees and the companies free to discern this for themselves. Don't hook them up before they get started.

We also, Mr. Speaker, would like to see this bill with more emphasis on the stimulation of secondary manufacturing and processing of our agricultural product in British Columbia. I personally have a list of three companies which will have gone through to the Minister's department who want to start up in this business. While I would recommend them as a matter of viewing, it is up to the department to look at the feasibility of their projects. But if you start tying these up with too many "ands," "ifs" and "buts," again it will defeat the purpose of the bill, and what is really a very good idea.

[ Page 2585 ]

The protection of the people's assets, which is their tax dollars, Mr. Speaker, is of vital importance in this bill. We feel that if the people's money is going to be best spent — providing there is proper protection in the form of mortgage holdings or collateral holdings, or whatever you want to call it — that money will be best used if it is used on an initiative basis rather than an almost a see-saw punitive basis.

I would ask the Minister, in administering this bill, to give the women of British Columbia a fair break. Now more than ever, women are venturing into the business world, gaining acceptance in the business world. More and more are wanting to go into business for themselves. I am not an extreme liberationist at all, but I do feel there is no question that when women go to the bank to borrow money it is more difficult for them than it is for men. They always want to know what their husbands do.

I was a highly-paid cabinet Minister in this government, and when I went to the bank to borrow some money they wanted to know what my husband did. I think that this is something that this company, this British Columbia Development Corporation, must not exhibit. If anything, bend over backwards to help the women. They are very, very tenacious, you know that, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If I can liberate any of them, I certainly will. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: How do you intend to do this, Mr. Minister? Perhaps you'll give us an explanation. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member

MRS. JORDAN: Take a good look at the ability of the women. The average woman who will come to the Development Corporation to apply for a loan is not going to have the background of the average male. She is likely not going to have been in business for herself before, and the reasons must be looked at — was it a lack of desire, a lack of ability, or was it a lack of an opportunity to borrow money and establish herself? In that case, the Development Corporation should bend over backwards. If you are going to take a risk, Mr. Minister, take that risk there, it will be worth it. They won't fail you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, no real risk. I think there is risk, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, in any business venture anywhere. And I happen to feel that the risk of entering business in British Columbia while this government is in power is extremely high.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister has taken my words to heart. But, I would explain to him that that there are certain areas of this bill that concern us greatly. Once again we wonder who the architect of the bill is. The kicker in the bill is again what is not said, as much as what is said. When we look at this bill and we listen to the discussion from the floor of this House, and the statements by the Minister, it is almost as if this government is bent on playing a type of British Columbia roulette with the taxpayers' own money. One just has to look at the Manitoba manifesto and then compare its statements with the legislation that we have on the floor of this House to get a very deep feeling of concern as to really where we are going in British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, this is the preliminary to the printed copy that you people have, through you Mr. Speaker. A summation of the Manitoba manifesto is that the purpose of the plan is spelled out. The intention is to drive private businessmen to one side. "The government would create a series of Crown corporations" — sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it? — "including a bank." Which is not likely to happen in British Columbia in view of the fact that we have the Bank of British Columbia, which if I recall correctly this NDP Member opposed on the floor of this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I never opposed the publicly-owned bank.

MRS. JORDAN: The government would create a series of Crown corporations, including a bank to elbow their way into control of the business of the province. And Mr. Speaker, that is what we are seeing in British Columbia right now. The government is elbowing, to put it charitably, its way into all sectors of business in British Columbia.

I go on quoting: "The public sector can and should be used to change the nature and structure of production in Manitoba to encourage a systematic redistribution of real income through the direct production of goods and services. This is a valuable compliment to the redistribution of money income via the tax system." Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that is a manifesto written in Manitoba which this government is following.

They have increased taxes disproportionately in British Columbia — proportionate to need. They are elbowing their way into the industrial sector and the small business community, and it is clearly spelled out that the reason is not only the redistribution of income through taxation, but the redistribution of income through government control. Mr. Speaker, that is something that this government did not get a mandate for. I suggest that it is something that if the people of British Columbia knew and recognized, it would be a philosophy that they would not accept. It

[ Page 2586 ]

is a philosophy that is going to stifle the initiative and stifle the future of this Province.

It goes on to say that Manitoba has the highest rate of income tax in Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I want a ruling from you, if I may so respectfully request, on the relevance of a document, written by who knows who in Manitoba, to this debate. On the same premise, Mr. Speaker, I could if I chose, read the doctrines of the Edmund Burke Society — to which all the Social Credit Party in Ontario are members — who believe in book burning, attacking visiting politicians, and have been subject to many police enquiries. Now, if the Member wants to start that particular course of action, I think that it leaves a lot to be desired. I would like you to rule on this kind of thing.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think that the Hon, Member, in objecting, pointed out the error of going beyond the point. I think the Hon. Member of North Okanagan has gone far beyond the point in regard to discussing the general principles of Bill No. 102. What happens in another jurisdiction, unless it is directly related to this bill, is the sort of thing one could do around the world, but it still would not apply to the general principles of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect your opinion, but I suggest that this has been a practice in this House during this session. If the Hon. Provincial Secretary feels touchy about these matters, then that is his prerogative. If he wants to call me a member of the Edmund Burke Society or whatever else he wants to…. I am not. I have no part of it. I don't even know about them. That is his prerogative.

MR. SPEAKER: Of course. Now, you see, you are quick yourself to judge when someone else is irrelevant, but not prepared apparently to accept the same judgment from the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, there is strong suspicion that the architect of part of this manifesto is one Eric Kierans, and he has, by the admission of this very Minister whose bill the principle we're debating…

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that's relevant to this at all.

MRS. JORDAN: …has said that the government has entered into dialogue with. I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Kierans' statements — whether they are made in Manitoba or British Columbia, when it's known that this government has been in dialogue with him — are very pertinent not only to British Columbia, but to this bill. This bill, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: There is absolutely no relevance to this bill so far in anything that you have said. No relevance in your remarks to this bill in regard to reading something about some manifesto that you are talking about from Manitoba.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, there is indeed, because there's provision in this bill — with all due respect — to put taxpayer's money through the form of partnership into small business in British Columbia…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stick to the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: …and that is a socialist philosophy; it's one espoused by this government. It's part of the Manitoba manifesto which was architect, in part, as an adviser to this government. I would respectfully suggest that it's very relevant.

The philosophy behind this bill, Mr. Speaker, is more than just a stimulation to industry; it is the government's stated intention to become partners in industry. That is very much the principle of the bill, and the principle of the bill very much reflects the philosophy of the party and this Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that what the Hon. Member should do is try to keep with Bill 102. Would you please?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: It is quite obvious that the Minister has some embarrassment about this bill in the fact that it is more than a stimulation to industry; it's in large part a takeover and a control of industry. It is socialism in its wildest dreams. Mr. Speaker, it is pertinent.

In other jurisdictions where this has been tried, it has been highly unsuccessful. This is taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, I'm a taxpayer in British Columbia and they tell me that for the last 20 years I've been working, I've been a shareholder in CBC. Frankly, if that's what this government is going to do with my tax money, I don't want any part of it. The only benefit I ever got from CBC was a headache.

I think that the taxpayers in British Columbia want to know what sort of benefit there is going to be to them in investing their money in this development corporation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 2587 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I think CBC needs a good shake-up, Mr. Member. It's got some good points, but it's got some very bad points, and as a shareholder I'd like a say in what goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I think the shareholders of British Columbia who will find themselves shareholders through their tax dollars in this Minister's actions, will want to know what is going on.

That's another point in the bill, Mr. Speaker. The corporation does not report to the Legislature, it reports to a committee. We would suggest that this corporation should report to this Legislature, and that all companies involved in a partnership basis should be available for public scrutiny by these Members.

The Minister suggests that one of the concepts will be back the loans of small corporations at the bank. I really question how much benefit this is going to be. I've mentioned in other debates the danger of this government spreading the backing of the province too thin, so that it no longer has the credibility that it has now. It's very debatable just how much of a benefit there will be in this backing if you come from 10 per cent to 8 per cent. This isn't a great deal of relief when you're talking about the struggles of the small companies.

It confirms and supports the federal government's policy of high interest rates — which this government should be opposing, as the Social Credit opposition opposed. It doesn't bring any return back to the citizens of British Columbia.

If the Minister uses his development corporation funds, Mr. Speaker, on a sliding scale basis, it not only has an incentive, but the incentive is such that the corporation will be encouraged to go to conventional financing within a reasonable time, and that interest rate goes to the people of British Columbia as a benefit.

It's very questionable, Mr. Speaker, how backing of bank loans is going to help a small company. There must be really few marginal companies that really need the government to back their loan.

Another point. If the government chooses, or the development corporation chooses to back these loans, again it is a payment that's benefiting outside British Columbia, and if the loan was made by the development corporation, again, that interest would benefit the corporation, and in turn, the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the flexibility that the Minister wants. We are deeply concerned about how many jobs this is really going to create in British Columbia. There is a crying need for more secondary industry, and the Premier of this province said quite some time ago that his government was not interested in small companies and small jobs — 15 or 20 jobs We suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is a prime area of interest.

There has to be an opportunity for the development of small companies in British Columbia. Every single job, Mr. Speaker, that we can produce and develop in British Columbia is of vital importance.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, that's very true, Mr. Member. Big businesses are the outgrowth of successful small businesses.

You can go through British Columbia, you can walk down the streets of Victoria and see business after business after business that is employing 200, 300, 400 people. But they started out, Mr. Speaker, employing one, two, three, and four people. That Minister has a responsibility to know the need for the creation of jobs, even if they are only two or three or 15 or 20 in a successful small business.

The other point, Mr. Speaker, is that this Minister doesn't seem to understand that if you're going to have a growing and healthy province or jurisdiction, you've got to have a balance between the so-called corporate structure — the large corporate structure — the government and its bureaucracy and the… I wish the Minister would listen. He might learn something.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, he won't learn any law from me, Mr. Member, but he may learn a little bit about life, which is probably more than you know. Come out of your musty, dusty law books and get down to where the living goes on. The living doesn't go on there and in here, Mr. Member; it goes on out there, where there are little people trying to start little businesses. They don't want government as a partner. They just want an opportunity.

If we're going to keep British Columbia for British Columbians, then those little people have to have the opportunity to own the land, not the government. That's how you keep it a free country. They have to have the opportunity to develop their small businesses, so that you get a balance, Mr. Speaker, in the middle with these individual initiative enterprises. That keeps government from getting too strong and it keeps the large corporate structure from getting too strong and it creates a real enterprise society and a real enterprise climate.

In speaking to the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, and when we hear the Minister talk about partnerships and the type of industry, we're concerned about what has been stated by his party as being their objectives. One of their objectives was that the provincial government make nationalization of British Columbia Telephone a major priority. Is that where some of this money is going to go, Mr. Speaker? That isn't going to create any more jobs in

[ Page 2588 ]

British Columbia and it certainly isn't going to increase the efficiency of the service. If some of this money goes there, then it's straight philosophical nonsense.

One of the other sound suggestions from the NDP in British Columbia is that the provincial government investigate the feasibility of establishing a Crown corporation to produce a pollution-free Canadian car. Mr. Speaker, in theory this may be a very worthy objective. But I would suggest that if the Minister has any idea of this type of development, he'd better go down and find out just how much it costs to even develop the prototype of a car that could be marketed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Edsel.

MRS. JORDAN: The Edsel will be nothing compared to what this government is going to produce.

Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the type of partnership company that this corporation is going to develop. To talk about developing a car in British Columbia, with the millions and millions of dollars that it would cost, is extremely far-fetched and, I would suggest, irresponsible. In 50 years it might produce revenue to the province. But, Mr. Speaker, that attitude is saddling the taxpayers of today with the burden of tomorrow. This Minister has a responsibility to see that that isn't done.

There's talk of a publicly-owned British Columbia airline, Mr. Speaker, and that this should be a top priority of the British Columbia Development Corporation under the NDP government. Mr. Speaker, the third largest airline in Canada is Pacific Western Airlines. It's a British Columbia company. It's a growing company and it's a good company and it has good management. Mr. Speaker, part of its life's blood are what they call the truck routes or the turtle runs within British Columbia. For the government to take taxpayers' money — and some of it will be Pacific Western Airlines' money — and establish a competing airline which would do all the government's business and likely be in a monopoly position, is something that we just cannot accept.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, all these companies that are successful companies were started in British Columbia in a free enterprise climate, Mr. Speaker; not a partnership of government but a free enterprise climate, where they were willing to take the risks and put their homes and their health and their life and their ingenuity on the line.

The Minister says, "Whoever said we're going to start a British Columbia airline?" I don't know where he's been during this session, but on numerous occasions references have been made from the cabinet benches about an airline, about emergency ambulance service. We know that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is viewing airplanes at this time. There's no way….

AN HON. MEMBER: Red Air.

MRS. JORDAN: It would be a disaster whichever way the air goes — red, left, right — Mr. Speaker. There is no way that the taxpayers' money of British Columbia should be funnelled into a government airline which is really just to serve cabinet Ministers and disabled corporations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't think everybody acts like you.

MRS. JORDAN: The previous cabinet Ministers weren't highly overpaid cabinet Ministers. They were just overworked cabinet Ministers.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier says, "Don't think everybody acts like you do." Well, he'd be a far better Premier if he acted the way I do.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, you're the man who won't give the old age pensioners a $50 a year increase but you take a 20 per cent salary increase for yourself. I wouldn't hold your action up for any examination, Mr. Premier. As I said, the only welfare programmes we've got that are operating in British Columbia are the overpaid cabinet Ministers and the disabled companies. We don't want a disabled airline in British Columbia with taxpayers' money.

The next business suggested by the NDP is a government-owned and operated auto body repair shop — direct competition to individual enterprisers in this province with their own money. You talk about Russian roulette. It's British Columbia roulette.

The government should build salvage departments and depots and establish these throughout the province. The government has legislation to do this right now, Mr. Speaker. Now this bill, the principle of which we're addressing ourselves to at the moment, is putting up the funds — taxpayers' dollars — for this government to establish businesses which are in direct competition to the small enterprisers in this province. We don't approve of that, Mr. Speaker.

We believe that the Minister should follow along with providing low-cost capital money, certainly research assistance to small companies or large companies, for that matter. There should be a much stronger relationship and contact — and I know there will be — between the department personnel and various areas of the province. There is room for some industrial park development in British Columbia by the government, particularly through the British

[ Page 2589 ]

Columbia Railway and Hydro. But not, Mr. Speaker, in direct competition to other little parks throughout this province with their own money; and not for the purpose of controlling business.

Mr. Speaker, we suggest that this government should embark in South America particularly, where Canada is missing the boat, and in the Pacific Rim markets; and certainly examine closely the Common Market and what potential there may be there for Canadian and British Columbian investment. They should assist with these trade missions, not fully paying the shot, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker. The individual companies should put up some of their own money in order to assure their interest. It's tax deductible for them. But they certainly….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're back again. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: And that poor, overworked, bored Press gallery is saying to you, Mr. Minister…

AN HON. MEMBER: That enough is enough.

MRS. JORDAN: …that enough is enough. Enough government intervention is enough government intervention, Mr. Speaker.

Here's the bill, Mr. Speaker. Use it wisely, but use it on the basis of incentive and don't play British Columbia roulette with the poor, overworked Press gallery and the initiative and industrious attitude of the people in British Columbia.

We will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I almost hesitate to speak at all after….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Go ahead. Somebody has to.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, it really is a privilege perhaps to be the first speaker in the House this evening to speak to the principles of this bill.

One can't help noticing, Mr. Speaker, that this bill, as the last speaker did comment, has great flexibility like a lot of other bills this government's brought in so far this year. And also like a lot of other bills brought in so far by this government it provides great and sweeping powers.

However, Mr. Speaker, having said that I do want to say it is very pleasant also to be able to say that I am going to support this bill.

Before speaking very briefly to that, I want to make one comment on something the Minister said with reference to the Bank of British Columbia. He did say that the Bank of B.C. is "just another bank" and I want to make one comment about that. The Bank of B.C. in the British Columbia financial community is more than just another bank. It is a bank that is based in British Columbia, in Vancouver. In its very short history it has done a great deal to improve financial conditions of this province because it is the first time we've had a financial base that was in British Columbia, and not controlled from eastern Canada. And this is, I think, a very important thing to be noted.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill obviously provides for items that many of us have advocated for many years, and we advocated those items when we were criticizing the estimates of the former Minister of Industrial Development (Mr. Skillings). I think perhaps the first thing that must be referred to there is its provision of a bank of last resort.

British Columbia is, and has been for many years, the only province without such a bank, and in industrial development we do need to be competitive. I would urge the Minister to consider, in acting as a bank of last resort, that we do consider special rates for special cases.

I want to emphasize also the importance in that regard that we do not provide a hothouse atmosphere for industries that will quickly wither later on.

Many provinces have had those problems, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister did refer to some of them. I want to mention only two as examples whose lead I hope we won't follow. They are very recent examples in the history of western Canada. One would be the Province of Manitoba, where there's an airplane manufacturing company that's very heavily provincially financed and I think, without question, is never going to return any of its finances at all to the Government of Manitoba. The Province of Saskatchewan, for some strange reason, has just in the last few weeks purchased a meat packing company at what appears to be double its market value. I think this is consideration that this government should look at very closely as it begins the operation of the Development Corporation of British Columbia.

There are some things which the development corporation could do and which, from my personal experience, are very much needed in British Columbia.

First, I think, is the need of serviced industrial land. Looking, for instance, at the Greater Vancouver area, there is a great deal of land which is zoned for industry but there is a tremendous scarcity of land that is serviced for industry — that means roads,

[ Page 2590 ]

sewers, power and water and this sort of thing. Now the difficulty is that, because of the scarcity of this serviced industrial land, what is available has an artificially high price. As a matter of fact, it is very clear since Bill 42 and the land freeze that some of those prices have risen again in the last few months — anybody with industrial real estate in Vancouver will tell you this.

The problem is that so many of the municipalities in the Vancouver area do not have the finances or the expertise to develop first-class serviced industrial parks. This is something to which I addressed myself in the estimates of the Minister of Industrial Development a year ago. I suggested that the government should be providing this kind of assistance to municipalities — advice and financing to provide serviced industrial land. I hope that this is something this bill will enable the government to do.

I want to mention particularly consulting services. The Minister referred to this and he has implied by his remarks that he wanted to leave this, I think, to the federal government. But I want to expand on this just a little, Mr. Speaker, because of the problems that B.C. industry has. I won't dwell on them at great length, but they include the problem of freight rates, the problem of high wages, the problem of the low population in our area.

The secondary industry — the small company in British Columbia — has got to be extra good. If it is just as efficient as, say, a firm in Ontario it won't survive in national markets. It's got to be a little more efficient. It's got to find a better way of doing something. Therefore I would like to think that this bill would enable the government either directly through the corporation, or through the Department of Industrial Development, to provide some special consulting services either itself, or by bringing in the experts that it required, to try to provide some of this extra efficiency.

B.C. is blessed with many small firms that are trying to become medium-sized firms, and medium sized that are trying to become larger. Today we have new requirements of financing techniques, new requirements of using computers — all kinds of advanced technology of this kind. The firm that has grown from two or three employees to a dozen or 20 employees in many cases knows it needs some of these techniques but doesn't know where to get the advice as to how to use them to get this extra efficiency in economies of scale.

This is where this kind of approach can come in — these kinds of consulting services can help the small company get into these new and more sophisticated, efficient management techniques.

Another area that the Minister has referred to very quickly has been the matter of research. Now this department that is responsible for this bill, Mr Speaker, has in the past done some research and has produced publications — surveys of particular markets in different parts of the province, and that sort of thing. But I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they have been neither really useful nor really practical.

If a department of this kind prepares a study that says there ought to be a factory to produce some particular kind of widget in British Columbia, and distributes it to everybody in Canada, probably nobody has very much interest in coming in to make that kind of widget, because it's a matter of common knowledge.

I think what is needed is for the government or this corporation to say to free enterprise, "We are prepared to help you. If you have an idea for a product or market, come and talk to us. We'll discuss it with you. If it has merit perhaps we'll give you some assistance in researching it and studying the market, and we'll do it with you and for you on a confidential basis." But not this great broadcast of surveys saying that widgets would go great in Abbotsford, or whatever it is.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): We've already made that decision.

MR. BROUSSON: Widgets are no good? O.K.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We need things we can sell in the North Okanagan. (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: Another very important point, Mr. Speaker, is the matter of marketing. I've spoken year after year on this subject. I think that in comparison to every other part of Canada B.C. has looked particularly bad in its assistance to the marketing of its own products.

There's just a wealth of things that could be done around the Pacific, across North America, in Europe and around the world in providing marketing assistance to the manufacturers both small and large, but especially the small ones. The large manufacturer has the facilities, has the financial backing and has the network of people to do it. But the small manufacturer so badly needs the marketing assistance to get him across the continent, across the oceans.

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister, as he has previously suggested, leaves this to the federal Department of Trade and Commerce, B.C. is going to get very short shrift and be treated very badly. That federal department is based 3,000 miles away, and its facilities are not going to help the small firms of British Columbia.

It's a British Columbia Development Corporation, a British Columbia Department of Industrial Development that has got to get going and provide a first-class world-wide marketing programme for the firms of British Columbia, be they large or small.

[ Page 2591 ]

I want to make one point clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am glad to see some limits and controls placed on this corporation. At the same time, by requiring approval directly by the cabinet of many of the actions of this corporation, it's going to mean that the management of the corporation is going to be very close to the government and to the politics of the government and the politics of British Columbia. I think the people of British Columbia have to realize that this is one of the dangers in this corporation. It could become a very political organization. I think we should be clear on that at the very beginning. That is the fact. I hope that doesn't develop.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

I want to make a suggestion to the Minister, Madam Speaker, not for the short term, not for this year, on this corporation. I think it's possible that this might turn into a very profitable and successful operation. I wonder if the government would consider the possibility of making it possible in the future for the private citizens of British Columbia, for individuals to purchase shares in the Development Corporation of B.C., so that the shares aren't all owned by the Crown. Why should not the people of the province have the opportunity, if they wish, to buy shares from the province?

I think that this corporation has first got to prove itself — to prove that it can be successful, which I believe it can. If it is showing signs of being successful, I think the government should make its shares available for sale and make it a true public, British Columbia company.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the establishment of the Development Corporation of British Columbia. It's been a long time coming to this province. I hope it will function well. It's going to need a good deal of imagination. It's going to need a good deal of financial wisdom. It's going to need a good deal of luck. But it can be a very potent force for good in the financial future of this province.

Finally, Madam Speaker, considering the importance of this department and the importance of this bill that I tried to emphasize, I do hope that the Premier will soon appoint a full-time Minister of Industrial Development so that the Attorney General can get on with the needed law reforms in British Columbia, the reform of the Fire Marshal's department for instance, and the protection of the consumers of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn't quite know if the Member for Vancouver–Howe Sound was going to make it for a minute there.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): West Van. (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We're very happy, as the Conservative Party, to support this bill which is very similar in many ways to part of our election programme.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, I didn't write it. We're pleased to see, for whatever reason, that we were on the right track and that the socialist government sees the wisdom of this kind of bill.

Actually, Madam Speaker, in introducing the bill the Attorney General used such phrases as "being hard-nosed" and "using sharp pencils" and….

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Real Conservative.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Minister of Mines, the statement of the Premier came back to me very clearly the other day when he said that this government is really a bunch of free enterprisers masquerading as socialists. The fact that they see eye to eye with the Conservative Party on this kind of bill is very gratifying.

One of the reasons is that it sees the real need to support small business. As one other Member has pointed out, enterprises which start off in a small way, if given a real chance to get going in the first two or three years, can go on to be a very useful economic factor in the economy of British Columbia.

In introducing the bill, the Minister also talked about the emphasis on managerial skills. This kind of very solid and earthy approach to the problem is exactly the kind of philosophy which we in this party appreciate. We'd also like to say, incidentally, that we're amazed that the Social Credit Party could put up a speaker like the one tonight who tore the bill apart and then said she would support it. It must be the peak of inconsistency of all the 12 weeks we've been in this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That, my good doctor, is known as schizophrenia.

MR. WALLACE: Well, she's always using the word "schizophrenia." I'm beginning to wonder if she really knows what it means.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Madam Speaker. One of the other aspects of this bill which we appreciate and

[ Page 2592 ]

support is that in defining industrial enterprise, the government has made the very clear intent of describing it as "any form of agriculture and the processing of agricultural products."

We've been critical of this government in the early weeks of this session that they're doing very little for the farmer. It really pleases me because of the particular efforts that were made by a former Member in this House to get government help in the financing for the processing of alfalfa. At that time the request to the then government, of course, was turned down.

The examples of the kind of business which I'm sure this bill will help greatly are some of the ones that have already been mentioned in this House. I won't repeat all of them. Particularly in the area of medical technology, I'm sure there's tremendous scope for an enterprising businessman to develop equipment which almost from month to month or year to year comes into world-wide demand. I'm thinking particularly — and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), I'm sure, would be very interested in this simple example:

There's one little drainage unit which is used after surgical operations which is the simplest technique you could ever imagine. It really consists of two circular flat plates separated by springs attached to a tube. One end of the tube is in the patient. The two sides are pushed together on the springs to promote a form of gradual suction on the tube for 24 or 48 hours after surgery.

I was interested enough to ask the administrator of the hospital what we are paying for this very simple little device, which is a suction apparatus. It's something in the nature of $14 or $15. It's manufactured in the States. It's like any invention, I suppose. Once you see it, you wonder why we didn't think about it. But it's a simple example of the kind of product which is being sold all over Canada and throughout the States.

As I say, the cost in relation to the inherent value of the product and even the complexity — because it is not the least bit complex — anyway, we're buying at great cost this kind of simple equipment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, the other one. I wasn't going to repeat that because I've flogged it to death in this House in the last week or two.

But there is this artificial kidney. The scope and potential for this kind of business, Mr. Minister, through you Madam Speaker, really is tremendous. At the present time the artificial kidney, as we all know, involves a very large cumbersome piece of apparatus. The patient has to stay in hospital overnight and so on. This doctor in Vancouver says that the potential is really there to develop a portable unit which the patient can wear, if we can achieve miniaturization of the equipment.

I could talk about this at great length; but the principle is that many of these industries and businesses need help to get started. Once they prove the need and once they corner the market, the employment factor and the dollar value of the goods sold — and of course the tax revenues that come from employing more people — the whole thing is a cumulative matter which is to the tremendous advantage to the province.

We are very much in favour of the principle behind the bill. We feel that there's tremendous potential in the medical and surgical fields of technology. If you think of the tremendous advances that have been made in the treatment of heart disease with electronic pacemakers and a host of other associated, relatively simple pieces of equipment — these are then used all over the world but, they tend to emanate from one or two sources in the United States.

I feel very strongly, even with a limited knowledge of the technology, that some of the equipment is really relatively simple. Whoever got into the market first cornered the market. I feel that this bill should enable the potential that we have in British Columbia to be developed in some of these directions.

I don't know if $25 million is enough or whether it should be $50 million or $100 million. But as far as we're concerned, as a party in this House, we like the bill. We would certainly feel that if $25 million proves to be inadequate, we would not stand in opposition to expanding the amount of capital based on the early success of the corporation.

It has been stated that it is flexible. I didn't quite follow the Minister in introducing the bill when he talked about rates from 1 to 9 per cent. But there is no clear definition of interest rates in the bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I see. Oh, I beg your pardon. I just noticed that there's no specific rates quoted in the bill. I presume that it's graded according to the need of the enterprise.

Certainly, the bill seems to us to have both the flexibility, which makes good sense, and the safeguards.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'd certainly want to apologize for confusing your bill with the Social Credit bill.

An interesting point that the Minister mentioned, on which we would urge caution, is the question of the capacity to borrow up to $100 million. We would wonder, if at times the corporation made some bad calculations and put money into companies which

[ Page 2593 ]

went broke, whether or not the government is prepared to go on borrowing more money to put, as it were, good money after bad.

There's one section of the bill that puzzles me a little bit. We won't go into sections at this stage, but it's section 25. You state that where there's reason to believe that the enterprise is not flourishing, you can refuse to advance any more money, and in fact you can demand that they pay the amount outstanding there and then. I just wonder how you do that when an enterprise is going broke. How do you tell them to pay up their outstanding debt? It would seem to me that you'd be in no different position than I would be if I lend you money personally, and after you've spent the money you borrowed, you can't pay me back. I don't really know how I can demand payment. This puzzles me in that particular section.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, presumably if there are buildings or machinery or equipment….

Anyway, Madam Speaker, I feel that's a rather picayune criticism because a bill of this nature involves risks. Whenever a government corporation or an individual lends money, he takes a risk by lending that money. Although the bill spells out that it will attempt to apply good business policy and have securities in various forms against a loan, I think we have to accept that there are certain risks and that the government might lose money.

But, if the kind of principles which the Minister outlined — he talks about having managerial skills and an objective analysis of the potential for the business to survive and grow and the value of the enterprise to the economy — if these very basic, common sense attitudes, which are typical of Conservatives and which I'm pleased to see in the socialist rank; if these basic business attitudes of sound common sense and evaluation of the people borrowing the money are followed, I foresee that this bill will be a big step forward in creating jobs and in diversifying the economy of British Columbia.

We're always hearing about the forest industry and the mining industry being the pillars of our economy. Certainly in this highly technical era in which we're living, it would seem to me only to make sense that we should diversify the sources of our tax revenue and provide jobs in areas other than forestry and mining and construction.

This bill, in our view, is a very sound, good, sensible bill brought in by the Minister with the kind of reassurances which the Conservative Party would always itself bring to bear on legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Madam Speaker, I would draw to your attention, since the House is within your custody and control, that one of the lights in the ladies' gallery went out. I don't know if this is the responsibility of the long speech that we had from the lady Member or the bill. But I would draw to your attention that the power did fail up there. Make sure there's daylight between all couples.

Madam Speaker, I intend very much to support this bill, but I would say not with the degree of complete enthusiasm that's been expressed by a number of earlier speakers. I'd like to say this. The bill itself has exceptionally wide powers of participation in a business endeavour. I note that it's within the provisions of the Act that the development corporation can purchase any shares in an industrial enterprise or, in fact, any shares in any company. I suppose it's not even restricted to British Columbia companies. I also note that it does not have elected directors, but it has appointed directors. Mechanisms such as these are ones which could make it capable of becoming a patronage vehicle. I indeed hope that it would never be that.

The thing that troubles me most, Madam Speaker, is the power to participate in equity. Personally, I do not like governments being in the business. I look upon the duty and responsibility of government to be a carrot in front and a cattle prod to the rear, but keep out of the facility. In my view, Madam Speaker, a government is never able to do as good a job or as inexpensive a job as the private sector, nor indeed can it be as facile…. I'm delighted to see I'm getting some new support from the New Democratic ranks down there. For the very first time, they're slowly seeing the light, Madam Chairman.

Nor indeed can government be as facile in correcting a bad job. If you do find a bad job in the private sector, then that can be corrected by the law of the marketplace — by replacing a shopworn or poorly-functioning vehicle. That happens whenever the demand is there.

But, I would say that any government, whoever they may be, are never wont to abandon an uneconomic or poorly-functioning or a publicly unacceptable ship. They're just prepared to stay in there far, far too long. In the private sector, by virtue of the natural law of the marketplace, you can go ahead and have that unfortunate situation which proves to be a drain upon management, those who hold equity, those who loan money and indeed upon those who work for it — in the private sector you'll find that they're able to create and effect cures.

So I would very much urge that the government tread very easily with this bill and exercise the very broad powers that they're granted under the bill very, very carefully, and only after extremely thorough research and investigation. That certainly includes cost projections.

[ Page 2594 ]

Cost projections are one thing that we've heard precious little of from the New Democratic Party and its new government in any of the proposals that they've advanced this year. They've advanced, in the bulk of the cases, open-end proposals. We've not had any information given to this House of what the cost projections are for the general public.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just briefly, as the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) introduced the bill tonight, I was certain that I saw shining through that hard exterior the heart and soul of a true free enterpriser, and I welcomed what he had to say.

As I listened to him talking about the manner in which this corporation would be managed, I recognized that it was on its way to sure success. Then I thought, well, succeed or fail, the government will take it over anyway, so we're safe. (Laughter). I draw your attention to the right of the Province of British Columbia to take it over if it succeeds or fails. Based upon your performance to date, if it fails, it's got a better chance.

However, Madam Speaker, this is not a new venture, as the Minister has said. And not being a new venture for governments at the provincial level, the Members will also be aware that there have been many spectacular failures in the use of development corporations by several of the provincial governments. That alone is not enough to deter us from making this move. I think that the government, in its approach to this bill, with the amounts of money that are being made available at this particular time — the limits on individual investment and the limits on the totality of investment by way of loan guarantee or otherwise — this would indicate that the government is at least taking a cautious approach in the first instance.

I don't think that the people of British Columbia should look at this particular time for any great achievements from this corporation because the amounts of money that are to be made available are not themselves such as would assure any large, spectacular industrial development in the Province of British Columbia.

Certainly, if the limitation in the investment in any one enterprise is to be $1 million, then we would not go very far. Even for such a laudable purpose as the development of the renal dialysis mechanism that the Member for Oak Bay referred to, $1 million would not go very far towards the establishment of the necessary production and marketing facilities for that kind of a device.

Anyone with any experience recognizes that venturing into a new field can consume a great number of dollars before any return can even be anticipated, let alone realized.

However, it is wise I think for the government to be approaching this matter with caution.

I notice that the corporation is to make its decisions as to participation by way of investment or loan on merit. Yes, on merit. And that's wise; I'm not criticizing that. I just hope that in reaching judgment as what is meritorious or not, the Minister may indicate when closing the debate what the guidelines will be for making that kind of a decision. The Attorney General seems to be having difficulty in finding the section, and if I might refer him to section 24(2), Mr. Minister.

There is a merit provision and it provides there's to be no discrimination of any kind.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. But you are still to be guided by merit. Merit a loan, it says — without discrimination. Yet, of course, when I turn over to section 31 I find that you can't lend money to a corporation in which an MLA is involved and obviously that's discrimination right off the bat. You've created a new class of 55 people who are not to have the opportunity to participate in the opportunities. I was thinking of Century Sales and all those exciting corporate developments that the government is missing an opportunity to latch on to.

But when I think about merit and the guidelines that may be established, I want to offer one suggestion in all seriousness to the Minister. Since it is likely that we will have some failures in these ventures, may I enquire from the Attorney General whether or not the government would give consideration to participation with companies who might be prepared to involve their employees at the directorship level. We have often heard this spoken of in this province and elsewhere.

We know that this technique functions in some of our highly industrialized European countries. Indeed some of the countries in the European Economic Community which have displayed the greatest industrial success are those where the employees have played a significant role on the board of directors of their companies.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. West Germany is a particular example. West Germany is a country which has had an astounding industrial success. Yet it is found in that country that many companies, where the employees are sitting on the board of directors have, on occasion, been able to have the top management of the company changed to the great

[ Page 2595 ]

advantage of the company.

I would think that when we are embarking even hesitatingly upon this new industrial step in British Columbia — where the government is going to participate either by equity or loan — that in determining what might be meritorious, consideration could be given to companies which say "in our operation, our employees are going to have some say; not necessarily a majority say, but some role to play in some of the management decisions that may be taken."

I would think that, certainly with fledgling operations, there is a possibility that that very factor may itself do as much to ensure the success of that operation as would the financial loan or investment from this corporation.

If it doesn't work, then it's a failure for which the corporation will be blamed and for which government will be blamed. But that's the risk you run. It's a risk enterprise when you go into equities in this field.

But if it happens to succeed — particularly in corporations of the size of which we are speaking in this bill — it may indeed do much to encourage secondary industrial growth of businesses of this size; and it may itself do much to quieten down some of the concern that has been expressed about the development of secondary industrial operations in the Province of British Columbia because of the alleged labour-management uncertainty.

If this were to happen I think that this venture would repay many, many times to British Columbia more than the return that this industrial development corporation might enjoy from either its loans or its equity investments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Madam Speaker, I can't share nearly the confidence of the previous speakers with regard to this industrial development corporation. I don't understand, Madam Speaker, how this government can take such a good idea, an idea for a development corporation, and completely emasculate it because of their insistence on intruding into the private sector every move they make.

Madam Speaker, the previous speaker who just took his place, said that the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce sounded almost like a free enterpriser when he was speaking. But he was much too proud of the government's intention to get into equity positions when he was introducing this bill to sound anything like a private enterpriser.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: You bet I noticed that, Mr. Minister. Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest that that's the only way that this government is going to participate in most of the areas in which they say they are going to help out with this development corporation. They are going to participate providing they can get the kind of equity position they want.

Earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Minister talked about protecting the taxpayers' outlay. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say that neither the Minister nor the government care very much about the taxpayers' outlay because they haven't given one whit for the taxpayer in this bill.

Where's the promise that we've heard so many times before that this government will work side by side with private enterprise? If you intend, Mr. Speaker, or if this government intends to work side by side with private enterprise, then why do they need all of the sections in all of the bills that they've put forward in this session which insist that they must have equity positions in private business? They must hold a clubhead over private enterprise before they'll even get involved.

They are rushing headlong, Mr. Speaker, into public ownership and this is another example of that headlong rush to do away with private ownership.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce and the Premier insisted over and over again that they don't want to get into any failures. But that's all, Mr. Speaker, that's been offered to the taxpayers of British Columbia so far. Failures. The only evidence that we have so far of any government participation in private enterprise has been with failing companies — failures, Mr. Speaker. And that's what we are going to see in this bill as well.

The Minister also said earlier that this is a "last resort" and we've heard other speakers in this debate refer to the "bank of last resort." It's some kind of a magic formula.

But I wonder if that means, Mr. Speaker, that the government is going to jump in just before bankruptcy. Is that what it means in every instance, that the government comes in and jumps in to bail out a bankrupt corporation? It's the only kind of indication that we've had up to this point.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's the major thrust of this government. It's nothing to do with the kinds of things that have been quoted for this industrial development corporation, but rather it is that this government wants to establish an equity position in as many British Columbia companies as possible; and they'll do anything they possibly can to maintain that kind of a position.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that that position is folly. It doesn't make any sense. All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at the examples that we've had offered before us over and over and over again in

[ Page 2596 ]

other jurisdictions, and we can say that it is folly, folly, folly. We have a trail of bankruptcies dotting Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Is that what you want? It's what we have. Of course it is. Mr. Speaker, the entry of government into private enterprise is noted only for its failure.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe in the government entering into private business of any kind. They should play a support role and a support role only.

For some reason, Mr. Speaker, the socialists will not give up despite the evidence of failure after failure wherever it gets its sticky fingers into private enterprise. You talk about "last resort," Mr. Speaker. The Premier says he isn't interested in supporting losers. Those two statements, Mr. Speaker, are not compatible at all. You'll be the last resort. The winners don't want you and they don't need you and they won't accept you. So all that's left for you is losers. That's all you're going to get into.

Ocean Falls — a loser. Colcel — a loser. Every other entry that you make into the private enterprise sector is going to be a loser because the winners don't need your help and won't accept your help unless you force your way into their position.

Failure after failure after failure, Mr. Speaker, and the socialist still thinks that if he gives the lever one more pull, he'll finally hit the jackpot. But the odds are stacked against you. You don't know what private enterprise is about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say "crackpot?"

MR. McCLELLAND: I said "jackpot" but this is crackpot legislation, I'll buy that. (Laughter). Slot machine government — pull the lever one more time and you'll hit the jackpot. Slot machine government, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if this development corporation is kept as a support programme, as the Social Credit Party suggested and proposed in an excellent piece of legislation, it can work and it can stimulate both employment and a healthy economy. That's what this is all about.

But this government, Mr. Speaker, isn't content with offering a support role. This government needs to keep on getting its sticky fingers into the jam. They want to take part. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you stay out. You won't only drag the company down but you'll drag the taxpayers of British Columbia down with it.

Speaking of jam, Mr. Speaker, I was reminded a moment ago by one of our Liberal colleagues on this side about some jam. This government is so anxious to stumble into private enterprise that it even forces a small doughnut manufacturer up against the wall because the B.C. Federation of Labour snaps its fingers.

How about a company like this small doughnut manufacturer that we've been talking about earlier today? Will this manufacturer be allowed to get a loan or support from this development corporation?

Not on your life because his employees belong to the wrong union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: You put him out of business now. You mean you're going to put him out of business and then help him, providing he gets his employees to join a Federation-supported union? Mr. Speaker, there's no way that this kind of once thriving enterprise can ever get a part of the Industrial Development Corporation.

HON. MR. COCKE: Go back and write another editorial in your newspaper.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I do that every weekend. Sure that's fine. I have the right to do that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: And subscriptions are open to all of the Members on that side of the House if they want to learn something. Just take out a subscription.

Mr. Speaker, what we're getting here is just a foretaste of what's to come. This government seems bent on finding any kind of excuse that it possibly can to cut out private enterprise and then move in and pick up the pieces. Once the government gets around to moving in, Mr. Speaker, that's all that's left — pieces.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the opposite of the kind of development corporation that British Columbia needs and deserves: the kind of corporation which will help out those people in the private enterprise sector. Instead, Mr. Speaker, this government is offering only a fantastic opportunity to blow the savings of the taxpayers of the province, one more opportunity to pour money after money after money down the drain.

Mr. Speaker, we spoke earlier about examples. What kind of examples do we have of government intrusion into the private sector? The only examples we have, Mr. Speaker, are bungle after bungle in every instance. Just look at your sister socialist province of Manitoba. Consider the Lake Winnipeg cruise ship, which lost a bundle. Our friend Mr. Schreyer put $200,000 into a chop suey factory. The honourable

[ Page 2597 ]

owner disappeared in a maze of noodles. They're still looking for him. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He drowned in his own soup.

MR. McCLELLAND: They had to sell that one at auction. The Development Corporation of Manitoba is still sifting through the noodles looking for their money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sweet and sour Schreyer. (Laughter).

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there was also something in Manitoba called Omnitheatre, which also went down the drain. I suppose we shouldn't dare mention Flyer Industries — half a million bucks down the drain.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, come on.

MR. McCLELLAND: Half a million dollars down the drain. British Columbia's trying to shore them up, I must admit, with a nice little donation. But that won't help. That's another winner. The Premier says we'll invest only in winners. Flyer Industries, I suppose, is the kind of winner we're going to invest in.

The Manitoba taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, are now spending $1 million a month to bail out the Manitoba Development Corporation and to support that government's folly — $1 million a month and no evidence that the taxpayers have any hope of ever getting that money back.

Mr. Speaker, the aim of a bill setting up a development corporation is excellent: to develop and expand the economy by the encouragement of industry. Nobody in British Columbia could fault that aim. It's marvellous. But, Mr. Speaker, this government is heading down the wrong road and will not achieve that aim by the methods it has chosen.

Mr. Speaker, the government has already created an economic climate in this province that may ensure that we have nothing left but losers, so that you'll be able to invest to your heart's content in losing corporations. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the taxpayer of British Columbia will be the biggest loser of all.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of this bill. One of the things I first got involved in in being an MLA was to hear from the various councils, especially in Maple Ridge and Mission, and hear some of the concerns they have about industrial development.

I think that many parts of the province feel that many of the Crown corporations and many of the heavy government expenditures are really not shared throughout the province, and there is a real need to see more provincial and public input into some of the depressed areas. I'm not saying that my riding is all that depressed, but it should be pointed out that as far as the tax base and industry, we in Maple Ridge and Mission only receive 13 per cent of our total taxation from industry. I think we would prefer to see more like 40 per cent; certainly 30 to 40 per cent of the tax base should be from industry.

So there is certainly a hope on my part and on the part of industrial development committees in my riding to see that there can be a much greater input and that we can use provincial money in the form of loans. I would emphasize here that we're talking about loans, not subsidies or grants, which I think the Social Credit tended to emphasize in the dying days of their regime.

We're asking for loans. We have $25 million here. I believe we're talking about $1 million maximum loans per project as a partnership. I think a lot of work has been done in Mission and in Maple Ridge anticipating some kind of a partnership with a Crown corporation such as the Development Corporation of British Columbia. In fact, six months they were anticipating this kind of legislation.

I would just like to share some of the things that they would really like to see. Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out to the House that 33.2 per cent of the B.C. labour force in 1968 was involved in the producing industries, contracted to 44.6 per cent in 1951.

In the service industries and especially the high labour-intensive industries — I'm thinking of transportation and communication, trade, finance, insurance, et cetera — this is increasing all the time. In 1968 it was 66.8 per cent. In 1980 it could be nearly 71 per cent. It's these high labour-intensive industries that I am especially hoping can be attracted to parts of my riding.

We've sent several letters to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) hoping that we could get options on land; that we could assemble this land; that we could service it; that in some kind of a partnership — again borrowing from the Development Corporation of British Columbia — we could establish and service an industrial park in various parts of Dewdney. It's my hope that this can really be done very quickly; that we can put this money to the land, possibly to buildings — let the manufacturer put up risk capital. Usually, Mr. Speaker, the manufacturer has spent most of his capital on land, services and building, then has nothing for operating. So it is our hope that we would have this available for him. He would lease it and use his capital in the operating of his facility.

It's very important that there be low-interest

[ Page 2598 ]

loans. I appreciate the flexibility that these bills give to the various people, or municipalities or private corporations that are hoping to work with the corporation. I think flexibility is very necessary.

It is certainly my hope that we can encourage this corporation as soon as possible. It should be impressed upon the Members that when you set up such an industrial park, usually you're not imposing heavy personal costs such as schools, health, police and other personal services. You're not actually adding to the population; you're simply adding to the industrial capability of an area.

I simply want to encourage this legislation. I think it's long overdue. I don't think there's anything safer than just starting with land and servicing land, and seeing that this is in really appropriate parts of the province. I really can't see how we can lose with this initial phase. Maybe next year, with a new capital outlay and a budget, we can go from there.

I have documents here that really have suggested and, I think, anticipated this kind of legislation. I would certainly encourage the Members to give second reading to this bill this evening. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say first of all that I would certainly be very remiss in my duties if I did not enter into this debate to establish a Crown corporation in British Columbia after I tabled a bill of my own, which was a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It was an excellent bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're biased.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe I am biased. The bill that we introduced on this side, versus the one the Minister of Industrial Development introduced, represents two distinct and entirely opposite philosophies.

I certainly want to agree with the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) when he says that there is a need in British Columbia for a corporation to assist small industries to develop. I think, Mr. Speaker, that when the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce said that this was a very flexible bill, I have to agree with him. The bill he introduced is very flexible. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it's so flexible that it reminds me of an elastic band. I'm afraid that once it's stretched by this government as far as it can be stretched, it's going to be bent and twisted. They might even twist it up and put a propeller on the front of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that how you make alfalfa? (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: After it's stretched to its limit, I'm afraid that it's going to snap back. The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is going to feel the sting. Unfortunately, when he feels the sting, so does everybody else in British Columbia, so do all the taxpayers in British Columbia. Of course, it's the taxpayers that I'm really interested in.

I have to agree also with the Minister of Industrial Development when he says that we need additional credit facilities and that western Canada suffers by not having a financial institute in western Canada that is aware of what is happening in western Canada so far as business is concerned.

But what I have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, is why in a nation like Canada do we have to continually stuff feathers into the pillow of small business? We have a nation which is rich in natural resources. It's all over Canada, but particularly in western Canada. Why do we have to prop up; why do we have to entice people to go into business?

Mr. Speaker, that is something that I want the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to search thoroughly in his mind. I think Ottawa should take a look at this. Why? You have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that the philosophy in Canada has always been that Ontario has all the industry and we in western Canada subsidize it by freight rates.

I want to speak for just a moment about freight rates. The reason I want to speak about freight rates — and this is very appropriate and also very, very, very interesting. I want the Premier to listen. I've got a good suggestion….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it has, Mr. Speaker. It has a lot to do with this bill.

Here's an article that's dated March 12, 1973: "How B.C. Lost a Business." The reason that B.C. lost the business, Mr. Speaker, is not because there wasn't money to pump into the business, not because of interest rates, not because there wasn't a development corporation in British Columbia, not because the gentleman who started the business didn't have any business experience. No, the reason, Mr. Speaker, is because of freight rates, number one. Number two, because of labour costs.

If we're going to have a successful development corporation in the Province of British Columbia, it's not good enough to just do what has been done in other provinces. It's not good enough at all. Because, Mr. Speaker, it hasn't worked in other provinces. It didn't work in Saskatchewan. It didn't work in Manitoba. Every time that the government joins hands with small businesses…. It's all very well and good to talk about Northern Slope Oil — that's a major project. And we're not talking about B.C. Hydro.

[ Page 2599 ]

What we're talking about here, Mr. Speaker, is small businesses that are going to employ anywhere from five to 100 persons. We're talking about the type of management in these small businesses. Maybe he doesn't have a college degree; he doesn't have a C.A. We're talking about small businesses….

Would you like me to adjourn the debate, Mr. Premier?

When we're talking about small businesses, as soon as the government becomes a partner in a small business, then that small business operator — who as I say hasn't got the experience of a law degree or a certified accountant — is going to say, "Well, this business isn't going to fail because I've got jolly Big Brother," who is the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce — whoever he maybe at that time — "as my partner."

This is exactly what happens. This is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that I'm trying to point out the pitfalls. Whereas if you loan that small enterprise the money, then that small enterprise is responsible for running the business, for making its own decisions and for paying that money back. Mr. Speaker, this is the fallacy. Sure, it didn't really work that well in Nova Scotia either — and there you had a Premier at that time who had a wide and varied business experience.

HON. MR. COCKE: In underwear.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well all right, in underwear. What's the matter with underwear? You against underwear? Up where I come from we have to wear it in the wintertime — we can't live down here in this wonderful climate of Victoria. We have to wear underwear.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you against the trap door when you get down here?

MR. PHILLIPS: No I'm not against them at all. All I'm saying is, and as the Attorney General said — and I feel that Ottawa was as much responsible for that blunder on that heavy water plant in Cape Breton Island as was the Nova Scotia Development Corporation. But when they blundered, they cost the taxpayers of that province millions of dollars — not only in Nova Scotia, but the taxpayers in British Columbia are paying for that today — that blunder. This is the type of thing, Mr. Speaker, that we have to be very wary of. Very wary indeed.

Mr. Speaker, before we get involved in being a partner in a lot of small businesses, I would suggest this idea of a British Columbia airline is not that far off. Pacific Western Airlines is doing it now. If we can afford to fly cattle all around the world, why doesn't the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce think of buying, or in cooperation with Pacific Western Airlines, getting some flying boxcars and seeing if we can't compete with the railways directly'?

Instead of before you lose all this money in this Industrial Development Corporation, what would be the matter with starting, or cooperating with, an airline and flying manufactured merchandise back to Ontario? I'd like to ask the Minister of of Industrial Development, Mr. Speaker, if this has ever entered his mind.

In world of commerce today, and in the very near future, air transportation is going to be the transportation regardless, Mr. Speaker, of what the Premier may think about running a rail line up to Alaska to get the oil out.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the oil companies, who have access to research, and the United States government are thinking about a railway line to get the oil out at the same time as we're talking about shipping it out through the northern passage. There are studies going underway, Mr. Speaker, to fly that oil out of the northern slope. It's not that far removed. As a matter of fact, the studies are very, very close to being completed.

All I'm saying is — the Members can pooh-pooh the idea all they want to — all I'm saying is that we in western Canada have suffered since the beginning of Confederation because we have had to subsidize Ontario industry. Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is sincere about studying freight rates, I don't think you're going to be able to break that camel's back because it's a lot bigger than British Columbia — you're bucking the whole economic climate of Canada.

Would you like me to adjourn the debate? I've got a few things that I want to say now. Will I carry on or will I adjourn the debate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Carry on. All right, and I'll try and be brief. There again, Mr. Speaker, I really haven't got much sympathy for this government, in trying to ask me to be brief, when they cram — as I said this afternoon — as much legislation at us as they have and then sort of urge us to be brief. It just doesn't add up. As I told you before, Mr. Speaker, if I have to stay here till next September…. Somebody's tripping me here. That's all right, it's all right. I've got my feet on the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Don't trip the Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No.

Now, the second thing, Mr. Speaker, that enters into small industry being successful in British Columbia happens to be succession duties, and I know that the government will pooh-pooh this idea as soon as I say it. Anybody who wants to argue that — and you

[ Page 2600 ]

can use all the philosophy you want to, Mr. Speaker — but this is one of the main reasons….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't see how succession duties has anything to do with the development corporation. It's going to take great ingenuity to link them, maybe you can.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh order nothing! Mr. Speaker, if anyone doubts that succession duties in British Columbia doesn't have a bearing on people starting enterprises and not selling them out and having them moved out — well I'd like to prove they do, and I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta does not have an industrial development corporation at the present time. Yet industry in that province — small industry — is thriving.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Doubt it? You can look it up — they don't have it. They do have their Treasury branches, but they do not have, as such, what we're setting up — an industrial development corporation. Yet, you go to Alberta today, Mr. Speaker, and you will find hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thriving small enterprises. Manufacturing is starting. Doubt it? Go there and find out. Why? And maybe you'll see where the link is, Mr. Speaker — they have no succession duties in the province of Alberta.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, well listen. I realize that the hour is late, but I'm sure that the Members have enough intelligence to understand what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker.

Neither does Manitoba — I mean Manitoba has succession duties. Here, Mr. Speaker, is an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail, dated October 20, 1972: "Succession tax claimed driving firms out of Saskatchewan." And yet here, we're probably going to invest in this at the very minimum, $50 million. And we're not getting at the root of the problem. If we want this industrial development corporation to function and to do the things that it is set out to do, you've got to get at two of the basic problems.

I'll warn you right now, Mr. Speaker, your industrial development corporation, as you've got it set out, will not work for the reasons I have outlined. I'll repeat them again. One is that as soon as the government becomes a partner in a small business corporation, the private individual partners feel that the government is going to be responsible, they're going to help make the decisions and they're going to be a success.

Number two is your freight rates. I've offered you a good constructive idea as to what we can do to buck the freight rate problem we've had since Confederation.

Number three, Mr. Speaker, is the succession duty on entrepreneurs who want to build up something. As soon as they die, it can't stay in the family, so they say, "Why bother?" So as soon as it gets to be worth a certain value, they sell out to some American firm.

The fourth one, Mr. Speaker, of course as the Attorney General himself mentioned, is interest rates. I don't know how his industrial development corporation is going to help. This development corporation, Mr. Speaker, is not going to help the interest rates at all.

I have to warn the government, Mr. Speaker, that the boss of this corporation has got to have certain qualifications. As a matter of fact, he's got to have so many qualifications that I doubt if we will ever find such a man. The boss of this corporation, Mr. Speaker, has got to have had a successful business career in his own right; he's got to have been a successful businessman because if he hasn't been, he's not going to be able to make the decisions that are necessary to make this corporation a success. He's got to know and have a good knowledge of the business atmosphere in this province, not only in his own phase of business, but in all the industries with which he is going to be dealing because we're not going to just be setting up small corporations in manufacturing. There will be food processing, and I hope that if the bill passes, there will be agricultural processing plants. This man must have knowledge, and if he doesn't have knowledge he must know where to get it.

All this, Mr. Speaker, is very necessary but, the most important quality this man has to have, and this has been the downfall of corporations elsewhere, particularly in Manitoba — he's got to have the strength to oppose politically attractive, but uneconomical proposals. This is an absolute must. He's got to have the diplomatic skill to steer the enterprise along the path dictated by his own business instincts.

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia this is going to be very difficult, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why. Already in this province, pressure from the cabinet — which would be on this general manager — to buy out two businesses that were on the skids. Already, before we even get this development corporation started, Mr. Speaker, we are heading down the wrong path.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is predicting rather than discussing the principle of the bill. We are here dealing with the general area of legislation, and not making predictions

[ Page 2601 ]

about what will be done with the legislation. Surely the principle of the bill is the subject matter….

MR. PHILLIPS: The principle of this bill is to start a development corporation that will not lose money so that it will, as the Attorney General says, return…so that any money he puts out he'll get back.

Now what I'm saying and as I just pointed out, is that the essential skill of the man who's going to run this organization is diplomatic skill — I'll read it again — "to steer the enterprise along the path dictated by his own business instinct and not to be pushed and shoved by decisions of the cabinet who maybe have their own particular portfolio that they want to see go ahead." This certainly has a lot to do with the principle of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order that I was raising is simply this: If you're talking about the appointment of management, there is a section in the bill in committee that deals with that. Surely that's the time to bring up the point.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know, Mr. Speaker, how much business experience you've had, but let me tell you something. The success or failure of any corporation is the man who runs the corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, talk about it in committee.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about the principle of setting up a development corporation and certainly, as I say, the most important part of it is going to be the man who is going to run it.

Maybe if the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would answer some of my questions in closing the debate, I'll be able to make up my mind. But, before the Minister will give all these answers, we have to raise all these points.

The other thing that I want to caution the man who's going to run this organization is that we mustn't allow him to be pushed around by the Premier who may want to make a coup-de-grâce here on some organization in the province which maybe has a monopoly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you against your research staff?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not attacking my research staff at all. And the reason that this is very appropriate is…. You know the frivolity with which this very important matter seems to be handled really concerns me, Mr. Speaker. It really concerns me.

Here we're talking about a $100 million investment in the Province of British Columbia, and everybody takes it with a grain of salt, and they laugh at it. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is no laughing matter.

Here is a development corporation which was just recently set up in Canada. It's called the Canadian Development Corporation. And what was the first investment they made? It was an investment made because of certain relatives who were in certain other ventures. It only involved…. Let me see, it didn't involve very much, just let me see. Well, it says: "The Canadian Development Corporation bought 35 per cent interest in Venture International Limited for $4.5 million." However, the private owners of this particular corporation for $3.5 million — in other words a million dollars less — has 65 per cent. Now this is the type of thing, Mr. Speaker, that we must guard against. This is why I point out to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce that he's going to have to have a pretty sharp man operating this company and one who can't be pushed around.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): The Member seems to be really concerned about the man who is going to head-up this corporation. I share his concern, and I wonder whether he would lay the matter aside if I assured him that if we can't find a man, we certainly can find a woman with all of these qualities to do this job.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: The other thing — and I'm just about finished Mr. Speaker, which will relax your mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, just relax.

This same thing, unfortunately — the thing that I'm warning you about here — has happened in Saskatchewan. Right now, Mr. Speaker, they're on their fourth manager of the Manitoba Development Corporation. Their fourth manager. Mr. Schreyer and his cabinet have invested in something similar to what he did — they put $92 million into Churchill Forest Industries, and they're still trying to pump money into it to make it a viable enterprise. And the previous manager of the Manitoba Development Corporation was against it. He was against it. But why did the Manitoba Development Corporation pump money into this? Because he was told to do so by the

[ Page 2602 ]

Manitoba government.

And that is why, Mr. Speaker, that I have pointed out why we are going to need a man who is going to be free from political influence. I want the Minister of Industrial Development to stand in this House when he closes this debate, and assure me that whoever runs this development corporation is going to be free from political influence — both of the cabinet, the Premier, and of any Members of the backbench.

I want it written in the record. I want it written in the record, Mr. Speaker, because I don't want to have to stand in this House in two or three years….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: There go the race horses again. Maybe we're going to invest in a racing stable, I don't know. But I'll tell you Members on the backbench that you'd better heed exactly what I'm saying because your days are limited, and as this development corporation loses millions and millions of dollars, you are the ones who will be responsible.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we've heard in the last few hours a great deal of puffed-up claptrap. Mr. Speaker, I recall earlier in this House when we spoke during the throne debate and the budget debate how Member after Member, especially the two northern Members, pleaded with this government to give special assistance to special problems of the north.

We sent an economic research officer to the north and, related to this bill, we asked him to prepare a report for us of the things that this government could do for the north. They stood in this House and asked for an alfalfa cubing plant. Then they have the nerve to come in here tonight when the first means shows up — the first legislative means available — to solve some of those regional problems that their government ignored, and they have the nerve to get up and call it, amongst other things, "crackpot legislation, slot-machine legislation."

That's fine. I listened to it all. And this is politics — it's fair game. When I go up to the north of British Columbia, I'll tell them what that Member said about this legislation. I'll tell them how he stood in this House and said, "You've got to avoid political influence, and I want that written in the record." You bet your life. Because when he stands up here in this House and asks for help for his area, is that political influence or not? What is he elected for? He is elected to fight for his area just like every other MLA, and he's counting himself out of that fight right now!

Oh, you don't like the heat. Oh, you can dish it out, but you don't like the heat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. What's your point of order?

MR. McCLELLAND: I understood that the House was supposed to adjourn at 11 o'clock.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, do you want to do something about it? Go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: So far I have received no motion of adjournment and one Member has the floor. If you look at standing order No. 3 it doesn't say the Speaker leaves at any time, except at 6 o'clock.

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier has just stood on the floor of this Legislature and insinuated that the Member from the north called this "crackpot legislation." I did not say it was "crackpot." You were twisting it. You said you were going to go up north and say, "the Member from the north called it crackpot legislation." You just stood on the floor of this Legislature and said that, Mr. Premier. You tried to twist my words.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Member be seated.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we listened to the Member sitting next to you. If you didn't hear what he said, I'll get the Hansard tomorrow. I'm going to go up to your constituency and tell them what that Member said. He said it was crackpot legislation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I did not. You read it back on the original.

It's a Social Credit Party statement. You can't have it one way in the north and one way in the south to satisfy your needs. You want an alfalfa cubing plant? You want to help the farmers process their materials? What did you ever do in legislation to help the farmers by giving them loans and getting involved in it? Nothing. And you've got the nerve to come in here tonight and say it's political influence. You, my friend, are going to have the chance to put your name on the record, whether you really believe in the farmers or you're just playing cheap politics as you've done for three hours tonight.

It's all very well for you to stall this House, It's all

[ Page 2603 ]

very well, Mr. Speaker, to do whatever they want. But every minute you delay, you stall the farmers getting help through this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your point of order?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that standing order No. 3 says, if at the hour of 6 o'clock on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed upon for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m. The House will continue until The Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 p.m. The House will continue until 11 p.m. unless otherwise ordered.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I'm quite aware of that but nobody has told me to leave the chair. I can't do it unless standing orders tell me to leave the chair and they don't.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It specifically says in standing orders that at 6 o'clock if no other time is appointed by the House, the Speaker shall leave the chair. That's mandatory. It says nothing about 11 o'clock in the standing order. I don't move until I'm told to move by this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tell him what time it is.

MR. CHABOT: I've already told you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Draw his attention to the clock.

MR. CHABOT: The House will continue until 11 p.m. unless otherwise ordered. You have no right, Mr. Speaker, to sit in that chair beyond 11 p.m., unless you're ordered to do so by motion of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Quite the contrary, it doesn't tell me to leave at 11. I leave when I'm told to leave by the whole House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is the Member drawing your attention to the clock?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, say so.

MR. CHABOT: I've drawn the attention of the Speaker to the clock on two different occasions.

Once at 11:12 p.m. and another time at 11:15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: I quite appreciate the fact that you've drawn my attention to the time. The question of order that I have to deal with and consider is when the standing orders are silent as to what the Speaker does, does he automatically walk out on the House. I cannot see that I do because standing order tells me to do that at 6 o'clock — right in the standing order.

Consequently, if it doesn't say so at 11 o'clock, I don't move until the House tells me the House is adjourned. The House can do what it pleases at 11 o'clock, but I can't.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member sit down. There's another point of order.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) doesn't seem to understand standing order No. 3, which makes a clear differentiation between the arrival of 6 o'clock and the arrival of 11 o'clock.

At 6 o'clock standing orders instruct the Speaker to leave the chair. That's mandatory. Standing orders at 11 o'clock don't instruct the Speaker to do anything. Only the House can instruct the Speaker what to do at 11 o'clock. The House has not yet instructed the Speaker. A Member has the floor. I suggest that the Member for Columbia River is abusing the rules of this House by disrupting and interrupting a speaker while he's making a speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Premier continue his speech?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to add that it is the purpose of this legislation to provide assistance on a regional basis or on an industry basis to ensure that there is a rational development of secondary industry in this province. That includes every region in this province.

For the Member to suggest that there will be political influence, I want it clearly understood that I expect every MLA who intends to do his duty fully to represent his constituency and put forward suggestions from his constituency for this industrial development corporation. That's exactly what it's for. If an MLA does not take this responsibility and defines his participation as politics, then he's not fulfilling the role that has been suggested for him.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said that we shouldn't stuff the feathers in the pillow of small business. That I will repeat in South Peace River when and if we consider an alfalfa plant. I'll have to consider the statements by that Member in

[ Page 2604 ]

that area. If we grant the money, will he be against the small business that we grant the money to in that area? He's against stuffing feathers in the pillow of small business.

It's not a threat. You can't have it both ways. You can't come in this House and spend two hours condemning this legislation and then go out of here saying you fought for your area. You can't have it both ways.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm very interested in the way they've behaved tonight. They have serious problems in the areas that they represent. Not once did we hear a constructive statement from that side for a specific proposal in that area that needs help and needs development in that area to help unemployment. Did they take the opportunity tonight? Did they take the opportunity tonight to specifically spell out in terms of development rational and regional needs related to agriculture or small industry in their area? No, they condemned, condemned, condemned.

Well, that's fine. But let's make it on the record. Because what they're doing is involved in politics. So are we. So tonight we'll have a measure of where they're really at. If they're prepared to follow up where their mouth is in attacking this bill, then they'll vote against it. But they can't have it both ways. So now it's a question to you: put up or shut up. Do you want to help the small people of this province or don't you? You'll have your chance tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River. Are you entering the debate?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Going down twice and coming up once. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. CHABOT: We're discussing a very important bill here, the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act. I don't think that it's necessary. Members of this side of the House have discussed the principle of this legislation. They've expressed their fears and their anxieties with the legislation. I think they have a right to do that without a constant threat, because of their expression of their opinions on the floor of this House, by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia — a constant threat to the Members on this side of the House with political reprisal.

I want to tell you I never thought I'd see the Premier of a so-called open government stand up in this Legislative Assembly time and time again and threaten the Members on this side of the House with political reprisal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what you were doing.

MR. CHABOT: "I'll go into this corner of the province and tell them what you've said here. I'll go over there and I'll say that you said this and you called it crackpot legislation." That's all we can ever get from that "big stick" government, from Big Brother, left-wing government. Nothing but threats when we stand up and tell the government what we believe is wrong with the legislation which they're introducing. Threats, threats and threats from that Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll just read Hansard to them and you'll go down the tube.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just read Hansard.

MRS. JORDAN: We listened to you and that was bad enough.

MR. CHABOT: Unfortunately, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is not here tonight because I want to discuss affairs of this legislation dealing with something specific.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I have to be more charitable than that. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources has had a long-standing policy of winding up at 11 p.m. He has said himself that he would not tolerate sitting after 11 p.m.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Give a motion to adjourn.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Premier, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Hartley files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:25 p.m.