[ Page 9321 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Report on Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative. Mr. Lea –– 9322

Domtar plant closing. Mr. Cocke –– 9322

Housing and employment development bonds. Mr. Stupich –– 9322

Japanese coal shipments. Mr. Leggatt –– 9323

Excess vegetable production. Hon. Mr. Schroeder replies –– 9323

Ministerial statement: Release of dangerous offenders.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9324

Mr. Barrett –– 9324

Commercial Appeals Commission Act (Bill 43). Report. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

Third reading –– 9325

Small Business Development Act (Bill 82). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 9325

Mr. Lea –– 9333

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9336

Mr. Mitchell –– 9339

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 9341

Tabling Documents

Committee on Selection report, September 15, 1982.

Mr. Wolfe –– 9343

Financial Administration Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 86). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 9343

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: In the gallery today are a number of friends of this government and our party. I'd ask the House to welcome to Victoria and to the House Henry Justesen, John Hall, Al Lambrecht, George Smith, Clint Schwandt, Roy Lisgar, Daryl Anderson, and one other person who is well known to this House, Elwood Veitch.

MR. SKELLY: On behalf of my secretary, I would like to introduce two guests in the gallery who have moved to Victoria from Zimbabwe in Africa: Peter and Margaret Davel. I ask the members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Here from Chilliwack is Mr. Ben Voth, who is a director with the credit union movement.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Would the House welcome two visitors to the gallery today, Mrs. Shirley Greenwood of Qualicum Beach and her house guest Miss Felicity Hyde, who is visiting from London, England.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move that the Premier now be seated. He seems to have trouble taking his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're in introductions, hon. members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to make this statement while the gentleman who I would ask all members of the House to give a farewell greeting to was in the House. As you know, last evening, when I asked leave, I was not able to bring this greeting to him personally. However, in spite of the fact that he has left Victoria this morning to take up studies at the Vatican, to enter the priesthood, I do know that all members of this House would want to wish well one of the young interns who studied under the internship program of the government, as well as being a representative of the Employers Council of British Columbia. Mr. Greg Smith has left his duties with the Employers Council to take up his new career in service. I would just like to ask all members of the House to wish him well, as I know he touched the lives of all members of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my few words of appreciation to Greg, as well as the Minister of Human Resources. I wasn't here last night, so I am glad it was held over until today. Young Greg has made a decision on his vocation that is to be admired by every member of this House, and particularly by the people of British Columbia. It his intention to come back and be a priest in British Columbia. I'm sure that his experience in this chamber has added motivation for him to return and help. In my conversation with him I was pleased... but disappointed that he is not going into the Jesuit order. That is the only handicap at this point in terms of his choice. I hope he will make a decision to stream into the Jesuits. Beyond that, it is important and graceful for this province to be able to have such a young man offer himself in community service in that way, after having already established the fact that he could have had a magnificent career in other fields. It is a glorious decision he's made, and I think everyone in the House is happy for him.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like members to welcome a good supporter and resident of the Cariboo who is in the gallery today, Mary Prestwich from Williams Lake.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today we have a visitor from the city of Penticton, Mrs. Virginia Hassler. With her are two visitors from the United States — from the state of Ohio, I believe — Mr. Michael Swinehart and his wife Margaret. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. BARRETT: We have in the gallery today a guest from the British Chancery in Ottawa, Miss Sorgensen, and I ask the House to welcome her.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, shortly before the hour of adjournment yesterday afternoon, upon the order being called for second reading of Bill 81, the Rate Increase Restraint Act, objection was taken that, as the said bill had received its first reading during the morning sitting of the House, standing order 81 should have precluded a motion for second reading of the bill on the same day without leave of the House.

Objection was also taken that as the Hansard Blues indicated the bill was ordered for second reading at the next sitting after today, the bill ought not to have appeared on the order paper for second reading until today. With respect to this objection, it was ascertained from the Hansard tape that the Blues were in error and that the House had in fact ordered the said bill for second reading at the next sitting, which of course was the afternoon sitting of the House. Hansard tapes further disclosed that, prior to the House making its order for second reading at the next sitting, leave to move the prerequisite motion to do so was neither sought nor given.

On further points of order, objections were then taken by the hon. members for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), Nelson Creston (Mr. Nicolson), Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that the Chair ought to have intervened and directed the attention of the House to the necessity for leave being given to advance the bill two stages on the same day, although no objection was made at the time. That point was well taken, as clearly the House was, in effect, by its actions, suspending standing order 81, notwithstanding the fact that the bill in question was the fourth bill, in a series of bills, which had at the same sitting been advanced two stages, without objection being taken by any member present. Accordingly, the Chair assumed that in the absence of any member calling for leave in any of these four instances, it was the will of the House to advance its business in that manner with respect to each of the bills which proceeded in like fashion.

The assistance of all hon. members is always appreciated when it is perceived that leave is required and that leave accordingly drawn to the attention of the Chair. However, there is no question that the Speaker, when of the opinion that any proceeding is contrary to the rules and practices of the House, should draw the attention of the House to that fact. With respect to Bill 81, it is the opinion of the Chair that it was, irrespective of the question of leave, properly on the order paper for second reading during the afternoon sitting

[ Page 9322 ]

yesterday, as that was the disposition of the bill ordered by the House during the morning sitting.

I thank members for their points.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ruling. I wonder if it's advisable that the Chair give us references from May or MacMinn to assist us in validating your opinion and having references that are appropriately connected with this particular decision, so that our group can study the references that deal with this.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his observation.

Oral Questions

REPORT ON PACIFIC

NORTH COAST NATIVE COOPERATIVE

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Attorney-General in regard to his responsibilities for native Indian affairs. On June 25, 1981, the Attorney-General indicated that he was "in the final stages of producing a report on the affairs of the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative." On June 22 of this year the Attorney-General made a commitment to produce "within three weeks, this chronological report." No report has appeared to date and there has been no indication that we can expect it shortly. Can the Attorney-General now inform the House that he will live up to his repeated promises and produce this report without further delay?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Persons who have responsibility with respect to that cooperative, and are therefore intimately connected with its affairs and knowledgeable of its history, are working on the report, and it's not being delayed on my account.

MR. LEA: I have a supplementary question. Is the Attorney-General aware that since I've asked for this report his government has destroyed the cooperative, that it no longer exists?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not aware of any government action to destroy the cooperative.

MR. LEA: I draw the Attorney-General's attention to a notice in the British Columbia Gazette, August 19, 1982, page 1337, which destroyed the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative as of July 29, 1982. I would still appreciate receiving the report, although the cooperative has already been destroyed by the government. I would like to urge the Attorney-General to bring this report as soon as possible. Has the Attorney-General decided to take steps to restore this cooperative to a legal position, to turn back the July 29, 1982, order in the Gazette and make this cooperative a legal identify again in this province?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of the notice published in the Gazette. I'll be happy to examine the reference made by the member. I wish to assure him that the government has not caused it to take place.

MR. LEA: A final supplementary. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General: during all this time that the report has not come back to the House, how could it even have been started and he not have knowledge that the cooperative had been destroyed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The affairs of the cooperative are under the responsibility of the management committee. They continue to function. As for the legality of the existence of the cooperative, that, of course, is a matter for its members and directors. The report is being prepared at the request of the member. It deals with the whole chronology of the functioning of the cooperative and the cannery at Port Simpson. It will be produced when it is complete.

DOMTAR PLANT CLOSING

MR. COCKE: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Domtar has announced that its New Westminster-Burnaby plant will be closed on September 24. Can the minister advise whether he is going to intervene in this attempt, and will he attempt to prevent the loss of 75 jobs, 25 of which are held by people with 25 years' seniority? I think it's a very critical situation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: After that rather long statement, I am afraid I have lost track of what the question was. I wonder if the member would repeat it.

MR. COCKE: It was probably one of the shortest questions we've ever heard in the House, Mr. Speaker — a very direct question: will the minister intervene? Domtar bought out Coppers International, which owned that plant; then they closed it down. So now they have a beautiful monopoly. Meanwhile 75 jobs are down the tube, and the Minister of Forests sits there and can't follow the question. Could he please tell us whether or not he's going to do anything about it? September 24 is the day after tomorrow.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The job of the Ministry of Forests is the proper management of the forest resource of British Columbia. I do not make a habit of intervening in decisions made in the private sector by companies.

MR. COCKE: The company, of course, provides nothing but service to the forest industry. With his high office, the minister could certainly have something to say about it when Domtar comes and dominates the industry in B.C. and out go the jobs. The Premier once said: "B.C. is not for sale."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite certain that a question was not asked during that particular statement. Is this not question period?

HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
BONDS

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for the second day. Since agreement has now been reached that the $100 bonds are part consideration for the preliminary BCGEU agreement, there must be a value assigned to these bonds. Since the interest rate is such an important factor in determining value, is the Premier now prepared to tell the House what interest these bonds will bear?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

[ Page 9323 ]

MR. STUPICH: In the continuing absence of the Minister of Finance, and with further reference to the bonds, since the employees getting these bonds will be interested in knowing how long they'll be obliged to keep them, is the Premier prepared to tell the House what the term of the issue will be?

HON. MR. BENNETT: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: In the continuing absence of the Minister of Finance, I have another question to the Premier. The Housing and Employment Development Financing Act authorizes the borrowing of $250 million, of which $190 million is committed to purposes under Bill 82; $1.4 billion is committed for the Homeowner Interest Assistance Act; and $8 million is committed to pay a portion of the government's salary bill. Social Credit election promises to date total some $1.6 billion, funded by a $250 million bond issue. Can the Premier tell the House how he expects to finance the shortfall of $1.35 billion from consolidated revenue as is promised in Bill 79?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: The question was "would the Premier tell the House, " not "can he tell it." I ask again: will he share that with, the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Our time is limited in question period.

MR. STUPICH: A further question to the Premier: when?

HON. MR. BENNETT: During this sitting,

JAPANESE COAL SHIPMENTS

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Coal shipments from British Columbia to Japan are now running at 20 percent below contract volume. The Japanese steel industry has projected that by 1985 they will be taking only 16 million tonnes of coal, although they have contracted for 20 million tonnes of coal. Can the minister advise how he intends to protect the shareholders of BCRIC and, more importantly, the taxpayers of British Columbia from this impending crisis and disaster that's coming upon us?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The only impending disaster I know of that might befall this province is if the socialists get back into government, and we wouldn't be shipping 16 million tonnes, we wouldn't be shipping even 10 million tonnes. With the attitude of that opposition towards international trade, we probably wouldn't be shipping any coal at all.

As I have explained many times, we're presently going through a small hiccup in the supply and demand of coking coal on the international market. It is not the first time this has happened in the world demand for coking coal. We went through this in 1975. Because of a fear of labour strife in Australia and a fear of port congestion in the United States, the Japanese steel industry presently finds itself in a position of oversupply. The forecast over the long term for the demand for coking coal on the international scene, because we're not selling coking coal only to Japan, states that there will be a shortage of coal by the year 1990. Just the other day I was reading that the Vancouver Harbours Board, which is finally starting to think forward, are talking about being able to move through that port 25 million tonnes of coal by the year 1990.

It's fine for the opposition to continue to wear their blinkers. I tell you, there would be no economic development, no future preparation for the economy of this province, if those birds were still in power.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it the minister wasn't wearing blinkers when he failed to see any unemployed in the middle of this province last Thursday.

The president of B.C. Coal has now initiated a move to have Canada's coal suppliers form a common front in contract negotiations with Japanese buyers. Why hasn't the minister called a meeting between southeast and northeast producers to head off this crisis of shortfall in terms of our markets? What's going to happen — and the minister knows it — is they'll take northeast coal and southeast coal is going to go down the drain in four years.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It seems to be a continuing job of mine to keep that member who just took his seat straightened out. First of all I want to correct a statement that he's trying to perpetuate again. What I said is that the small independent sawmill operators in the centre of this province are not experiencing as much layoff and unemployment as some of the big guys, due mainly to an initiative by this government a few years ago in forming Fibreco, a chip-exporting facility at the coast which has helped those small independent sawmillers in the interior to stay alive, stay solvent and keep people employed.

I have to inform the member that I have already had a meeting with the northeast producers and the southeast producers. What we're trying to do in this province is to get the coal industry together to form a loosely knit cooperative like the Council of Forest Industries so that we can go out in the international world and sell the coal industry. Prior to northeast coal coming on we were such small players in the international field that it wouldn't be worthwhile, but I am already light years ahead of the backward looking member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce Motion 29 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to provide answers to questions taken on notice.

Leave granted.

EXCESS VEGETABLE PRODUCTION

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The question was submitted by the member for Cowichan-Malahat:

In recent weeks vegetable producers on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland have been forced to dispose of hundreds of

[ Page 9324 ]

thousands of dollars worth of fresh vegetables because of a massive influx of California produce. Why has the minister not taken steps to ensure that B.C. farmers have an opportunity to sell their produce?

The answer is that supplies of fresh vegetables in British Columbia and, indeed, throughout North America have been extremely high over the past three weeks. This has led to very low prices in all North American markets. Unloads in the Vancouver market of California produce have not increased for this period over previous years. Though a major problem for a period of two weeks, supplies are once again in balance with the market. Though much produce was sold at quite low prices in bulk sales, the market appears to be returning closer to normal for this period.

The second question taken on notice was:

Inasmuch as the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, is responsible for the production of extra produce, particularly in the Saanich Peninsula, by refusing to allow potatoes to be grown there, why has the minister failed to persuade Mr. Whelan to impose seasonal tariffs?

The answer is that seasonal tariffs are in place for most commodities. Examples are: broccoli at 2.5 cents per pound, or 15 percent, whichever is greater; cabbage at 1.25 cents per pound, or 15 percent; cauliflower at 1 cent per pound, or 5 percent; tomatoes at 2.5 cents per pound, or 15 percent. These tariffs are in place for varying periods, relating closely to our normal production periods. As well, I have joined with the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission in petitioning Mr. Whelan to implement a surtax on tomato imports from the U.S., due to extremely low prices this year.

RELEASE OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. Yesterday during question period a question was posed to me by the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) dealing with the steps he asked me to take with the Solicitor-General of Canada regarding inmates of institutions whom he thought might be dangerous. I'm afraid that the response I gave him was not directly associated with his question. I think it is important that we have on the record the answer to the member's question, because it was one that was quite properly asked.

With regard to inmates of federal institutions, they are released by two methods. One is by way of parole, after consideration by the National Parole Board — and that, of course, is discretionary. The other is under mandatory supervision, which is non-discretionary, being statutory. In each instance a parole certificate is prepared, which sets out conditions under which the inmate is released. With respect to mandatory supervision, if the nature of the offence for which the person has been incarcerated or the conduct of the inmate while in the institution raises questions as to whether he would continue to be dangerous in the community, additional conditions may be imposed. At the time of release these certificates are distributed as follows: one copy to the inmate; one to the regional secretary or registrar — and in the case of parole or mandatory supervision the release is always to a designated community or region of the country; one to the chief of police or the officer commanding an RCMP detachment in the community into which the person has been released; one forwarded to the Canadian Police Information Centre and thereby distributed to all police forces in Canada; one to the supervising district office for the use of the supervisor of that inmate, and if a private agency is used for supervision purposes one copy is provided to that agency; and in those instances when either parole or mandatory supervision will result in deportation, copies of the information are sent to the nearest immigration field office.

With respect to provincial inmates, if they are released on parole — and we have about 30 a month of our people in provincial institutions, those sentenced for two years plus a day — CPIC is notified with respect to every one of those parolees, as well, of course, as the parole supervisor. Before parole is granted, the police in the area into which the person may be paroled are consulted with respect to the provincial parole aspect — these are provincial people.

Again, with respect to provincial inmates, in all other cases when the incarceration of a person is complete, if the person is considered to be dangerous to himself or to others by reason of the nature of his offence, or his conduct in the institution, then advice is given through the director of the institution to the police department or unit in the area to which the person may be released, as well as to CPIC. If he is released under circumstances where he is subject to corrections officers' continued interest, then that information is provided to that correction officer as well.

MR. BARRETT: The question asked by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam which prompted the ministerial statement, and to which I'm replying, was directed towards a singular gap in the system, which is still missing in the statement by the Attorney-General.

There is a deep concern in the community that the overlapping jurisdiction between federal supervision of parolees and mandatory supervision, and provincial paroles, is not commonly known to each other. The minister correctly informs the House of the procedure whereby the federal authorities notify the RCMP of a federal parolee being released, or of someone being released on mandatory supervision from a federal penitentiary, but the question raised by my colleague was that there is no automatic notification of the provincial parole service. The gap, therefore, leads to a continuing part of the minister's statement when he says: "When there is a provincial parole the local police are notified, and the provincial parole does the supervision. In the case of federal supervision it may be a private agency."

What the gap is, Mr. Speaker, is that when a provincial parolee is being supervised, he may be in consort with a federal parolee, and there is no way that the provincial probation officer who is supervising the provincial parolee knows that that parolee is keeping company — or may be keeping company — with a federal parolee who may be dangerous. It is a gap in the administration that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam was getting at. It is a serious gap — but not serious enough to cause the explosion that followed later around order-in-council patients. I appreciate the apology made by the Attorney-General, but there still is that problem.

In completing my statement, I want to make it very clear that I am not satisfied that the community of British Columbia is receiving the maximum potential protection from dangerous criminal offenders when there is an absence of that kind of notification, plus a continuation of a system, recommended seven years ago to be dispensed with, where the cabinet made decisions about forensic matters. I appeal to the minister, and to this House, to plug that gap, particularly at a time when the police and the Attorney-General are going through a great deal of difficulty in explaining procedures,

[ Page 9325 ]

which may have intrinsic gaps of their own, apart from this, for dealing with serious criminal matters.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Orders of the day.

First of all, I call report on Bill 43, Mr. Speaker.

COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION ACT

Bill 43 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to call second reading of Bill 82.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and support this bill which will go a long, long way to assisting the small business community of British Columbia, which is really the backbone of industry and commerce in the province and a segment of our society with which I have a great deal of empathy and rapport. Like the home program, the cornerstone of our small business program is to provide low-interest funds to enable small business people to help themselves; not to have Big Daddy government come in and tell them how to run their business but to assist them in helping themselves, to encourage their growth, to create new jobs and to preserve the jobs that are there in this time of high interest rates. These rates are unfortunately not the responsibility of this government; unfortunately, because if they were, maybe we could do something about them. High interest rates emanate from our capital, whose policy over the last few years has been to follow socialist policies, supported by the NDP in Ottawa and by the socialists here in British Columbia. It's those policies which have wreaked havoc on our small business community.

Mr. Speaker, governments can never have the total answer to the problems of the small business community. Giveaways are certainly never the total answer. During the last six years we have endeavoured to create a business climate where the small businessman could expand, where new businesses could be established and could flourish, make a profit and hire people; a climate of opportunity, free from government interference.

From time to time, I think, it is necessary that the government use the special resources and abilities that it has to raise low-interest funds. We have followed this policy to some degree in the last six years. We should direct these funds in a dynamic way to those businesses which can use them and multiply their effect — to use direct grants or forgivable loans only in the areas of greatest need, and where there will be the creation of something new or the holding on to something that exists. I refer specifically to high-technology industries in the manufacturing sector.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The program I announced yesterday has been developed by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development in conjunction with the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, and certainly in cooperation with the British Columbia Development Corporation, which has taken a keen interest in the development of small industry and small businesses in the province and has worked well with them during the past few years. We've also had meetings with the financial institutions of the province since the announcement of this program, and I might say that we have their commitment to full cooperation. During the past six years we have worked with the financial institutions so that there is not one group of lenders going one way and the government going another, and the British Columbia Development Corporation going yet another. There has been a great deal of cooperation and working together for the common good of the small business community.

The program to be instituted under this bill is called, for short, the LIFT program — Low-Interest Funding Today — and indeed it will do just that: give a much-needed lift to the small business community in British Columbia. Already, this morning, people have been phoning me to congratulate me and the government on this much-needed program in a time when it will be used by the small business community.

Of course, the money from the program will be the second major example of our tax exempt B.C. development bonds: another idea from the Social Credit government giving the people of the province the opportunity to invest their money in the province and to get a little break in their taxes. I regret very much that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the lady over there who doesn't believe in free enterprise, doesn't believe in the private ownership of land, as she has stated many times. Therefore she certainly is not for the individual or the small businessmen in this community. I wish she'd just keep her ideas to herself and let me finish my little talk.

The proceeds from the sale of these new bonds will create a $200 million pool and maybe more. The low-interest funding from this $190 million will be used for new and expanding companies in the key job-creating areas, as I said before. The bulk of this low-interest funding — $190 million — will be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation. Unlike some other provinces where they have brought in a program and have had to hire 100 new staff, we will be able to handle this program with existing staff, plus maybe four or five additional staff which will be brought on part-time by the Development Corporation. We're not going to build in a huge bureaucracy so that in some instances it may cost the taxpayer more to administer the program than the results would provide. That's just part of our overall good planning. The other beautiful thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that the staff in my ministry are on hand, ready to handle the first portion of the program, and the staff are on hand in the Development Corporation so that the program can start immediately.

From the new $200 million funding pool, $10 million will go to forgivable loans in a special small manufacturers development assistant program. Another $20 million will go to the expansion of the low-interest loan assistance program. These two programs alone, based on our experience of the six years, will create some 5,500 jobs. The small manufacturers development assistance program is really a program to assist the small entrepreneur who has an idea, who maybe is better at running his business than he is at dealing with the bankers, and who needs some seed money, some initiative and some help from this government to proceed and either build new

[ Page 9326 ]

premises to put his idea into manufacturing something or to expand the plant that he already has.

This has been a very successful program over the past few years. What it's really doing is preserving that entrepreneurship of that little fellow who wants to get started but can't quite make it. It's giving him that little boost. You will see as time goes on that the little companies that we have given this little bit of initiative to — this little bit of seed money — will go on and expand. Some of them are already going into the next portion of our program, where they go to the Development Corporation and borrow up to $200,000 in low-interest money to further expand. Some of them are already selling in the international marketplace. That's the type of program that we have brought in very successfully in this province. This new program is a cornerstone of an expanded small-business development program. We are constantly working with the small-business community. New marketing and tax incentives are being developed and certainly will be announced at a later date when completed.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we're working on further programs. They will be announced in due course. The low interest financing that we are providing here provides the immediate help that is needed today and makes it clear that this province will do everything that is within its power to ease the burden of high interest rates on homeowners and businessmen in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of important aspects to this new program. I want to say again that it is the small business community that is really the backbone of the economy of British Columbia. Don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that most of the large and medium-sized businesses that we have in this province today really started out as small businesses. They started out with an idea, with a man who wanted to work maybe 18 hours a day, seven days a week. Some of them put their family in it, and they worked and they worked. That's really where it's at. Those are the type of entrepreneurs that we must preserve and indeed help in this province.

These funds, Mr. Speaker, will be directed into new and existing small businesses in the critical economic sectors throughout British Columbia, as I said before, where they can have the greatest job-creation and job-preservation effect.

The funds will provide for three almost separate and distinct programs, two to be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation and one to be implemented by my ministry, really a continuation of an existing....

The target economic sectors for these initiatives, Mr. Speaker, will be manufacturing and processing, with heavy emphasis on high technology and certainly resource-related transportation. Small and medium-sized businesses in these sectors will be eligible.

It is not a giveaway program, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, because those who are in business today recognize that any money that goes out has to be paid for out of taxes. They don't mind us helping and being of assistance, but they also don't want any great giveaway program. So the small and medium-sized businesses in these sectors will be eligible, but they must be able to demonstrate strong management, growth potential, job creation or preservation, and, of course, need. In other words, we don't want companies that are solvent and don't have any loans at the bank to go and take advantage of this program where there really isn't a need. They must be able to show us that the company resources have been depleted by the current economic conditions, and that the enterprise has a continuing viability in a more normal environment. In other words, this isn't any bail-out, giveaway government program.

I want to assure the taxpayers of this province that this is not a giveaway, bail-out program. It is a program to preserve, to enlarge, and to ensure that our viable small business community is intact when this recession recedes, which I hope will be very shortly. Certainly priority will be given to British Columbia-owned and — operated firms which have at least 75 percent of their assets and employees in the province. This isn't a giveaway program by the taxpayers of British Columbia to European; Japanese- or United States-owned companies; 75 percent of the assets must be right here in the province.

MR. LEA: It's a giveaway to the Europeans and the Japanese in your big business program!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, we don't have any....

The member for Prince Rupert is trying to perpetrate a myth on the taxpayers of this province which emanated from the Leader of the Opposition, who does not feel that we should even be in the international marketplace; the leader who, last week, on the Jack Webster show, said: "Oh, when I was in Japan I told the Japanese...."

AN HON. MEMBER: He played football.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, this is his last trip that somebody paid for. I don't know who paid for it. I don't know how he got there, but he went over.

On the Jack Webster show, Mr. Speaker, he said: "Oh, when I was there I told the Japanese steel industry that we were going to do this, and we had to do that, and we had to do something else if you are going to develop northeast coal." Well, I have to say that was a very misleading statement by the leader of the socialist party, because the leader of the socialist party, before he went to Japan on that trip that somebody paid for — I don't know who paid for it.... He didn't go over to talk coal, because he came to my office before he went to Japan and he said: "I realize the difficulty you are having in putting this multi-faceted northeast coal deal together, having to deal with eight steel companies, and trading companies in Japan, and the banking system in Japan, and the Japanese government. I know that you're in very ticklish negotiations, and I wish you well. While I am in Japan I will not mention, I will not talk coal." And then he had the audacity to go on the Jack Webster show and say: "Oh, when I was there I talked to the Japanese steel industry." He never mentioned coal or talked to the Japanese steel industry when he was in Japan on that trip that somebody paid for, that he hired one of these experts to go around and put out information on. That's the type of misleading statements we continually get from those socialists. You can't trust them anywhere. You can't trust them in the Legislature, you can't trust them on the hustings and you can't trust them on the Jack Webster show.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll have to call the minister to order. We are in second-reading stage of a bill discussing small business. The debate is quite irrelevant.

[ Page 9327 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, just how this relates to small business, because, as I said before, it's the climate and the major projects that create opportunities for the small business community in this province, and allows them to enlarge, grow and establish new businesses. That's what it is all about.

You know, this government isn't only for megaprojects. I can show you literally thousands and thousands of initiatives that we've taken to create small businesses in this province, helping entrepreneurs and starting other projects. But, oh, the opposition would just love to forget all about those. I'm going to read some of them into the record this afternoon for your information.

But I just wanted to say — since the member for Prince Rupert brought it up — that they are against the coal project. They say that if they were elected government they would renegotiate northeast coal. Well, the people of this province are not stupid. They know that they were going to renegotiate the Alcan project in Manitoba when the socialists got into power down there. They renegotiated it all right. They renegotiated those opportunities for the small business community, for individuals to have gainful employment in the province of Manitoba, right out the door. There could have been a major development in Manitoba today by the Aluminum Co. of Canada, providing thousands and thousands of jobs, and opportunities for the small business community in Manitoba. The big socialist hordes come in there and renegotiated the deal. They negotiated it out of the province of Manitoba forever and ever.

That's what I'm bringing this up for. It bothers me when the socialists go around and say they'd renegotiate northeast coal, that they'd get a better price. There's another one of the myths that they've tried to perpetuate in this province. A study recently completed by my department states that northeast coal is receiving the highest price paid for coking coal anywhere in the international marketplace. Yet the socialist hordes over there would try to perpetrate the myth on the people of the province of British Columbia that we're giving our natural resources away. We're getting paid a bonus of over $10 a tonne for coal out of the northeast, and I cannot allow those socialists opposite to continually go around and perpetuate the myth that we're giving away the coal from the northeast part of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please, for the last time: to the bill.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: To the bill, to the bill, to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 82.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you how what I have been saying relates to this bill. There are opportunities out there because of the expanding economy of British Columbia, and high interest rates are not giving them that opportunity to expand. So we've had to come in with this program to assist the small business community, to allow them to expand and to allow them to take advantage of the growing economy that we have here in this great province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The man says: "Really?" I want to take you back to 1975 when there was no world recession at all. What was happening in the province of British Columbia? There was no construction. There were no plans on the drawing boards. There were no projects going ahead. As I've said more than once, the construction industry would never have been able to go out on strike in 1975 when the socialists were in there. Do you know why? There was no construction. Nobody was working in the construction industry. I know. The construction industry came to see me and they said: "Mr. Minister, you've got to get us some work." And I said: "Yeah, I'll get you work. If you tell me that you won't go out on strike for five years, I'll tramp the highways and the byways of the world, and I'll tell them to come to British Columbia and build, that now is the time to build, because the construction industry says there will be no strikes. You won't have a $5 million or $6 million project held up for two and a half months, seven months or whatever by some construction strike, be it the elevator workers, the electricians or whoever." Well, of course, the union leaders told me: "We can't do that." They weren't interested in the working men of the province at that time, and they weren't interested in the working men when they took them out on strike this year either, at a time when thousands of people were unemployed.

This program has three aspects to it. Development assistance for small manufacturers is a $10 million program. The object is to encourage and assist the modernization, expansion and establishment of small manufacturing and processing companies and, of course, high-technology enterprises throughout British Columbia. This is really a tried and tested program. In the last five years it has created literally thousands of jobs in the province. As I said, it gives seed money to the small entrepreneur who has an idea, a plan, but who doesn't seem to have the faith of his banker. I'm not for giveaways, but I feel that this particular aspect preserves the entrepreneurship of the small individual who has an idea; he knows how to manufacture, but he may need a little help selling. In other words, he's learning as he's growing. This bit of seed money gives him the little boost that he needs.

You know, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This program received its first application for financial assistance in 1977. It remains a very successful and popular program. It is designed to stimulate small business ventures in the manufacturing and processing sector by providing interest-free forgivable loans for capital expenditures. Applications totalling 1,438 have been received, and $9,572,183 in assistance has been approved for 536 projects. It is projected that the assistance will create 2,389 new jobs. It's creating something new or expanding on something that already exists. There's the proof. It's an excellent program. Of course, this money is in addition to our ministry's existing programs. This program will be administered by the provincial Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

The first criterion for eligibility is that the proposed project must involve manufacturing, processing, high technology or a maintenance or repair facility directly relating to the manufacturing, processing or high-technology sectors. It doesn't involve the service sector of the commercial world. The proposed project must indicate commercial viability. It must provide socioeconomic benefits to the province. In the case of an existing business being expanded, average sales for the two most recent years of operation should not exceed $500,000 per year, and eligible capital costs may not exceed $100,000. Regarding new facilities — new manufacturing, processing or high-technology facilities — it's 50 percent of the eligible capital cost or $30,000, whichever is less. New

[ Page 9328 ]

maintenance or repair facilities directly relating to the manufacturing, processing or high-technology sectors — 30 percent of eligible capital cost or $18,000, whichever is less. Those are some of the financial terms. If you're going to modernize or expand existing manufacturing, processing or high-technology facilities — 30 percent of eligible capital cost or $18,000, whichever is less. Existing maintenance and repair facilities directly relating to the manufacturing, processing or high-technology sectors — 30 percent of eligible capital cost or $18,000, whichever is less.

The opposition have been demanding a debate in this Legislature on the economy and that we do something for the small business community. I notice that not one single member of the opposition is here, or interested in what we're doing. All they do is talk, talk, talk, yack, yack, yack. They don't care about the economy. They don't care about the small business community. They don't care about the future of this province. There's not a single one of them in their seat; not a single opposition member was in their seat, Mr. Speaker. Oh, they go out and mouth around about how interested they are, and they hide under all kinds of legal technicalities in this House to try to get a debate going on the economy. Now that we are discussing the economy and that great business community — the small business people in this province — not one opposition member was in his seat. Now the little lonely old member for Prince Rupert, who talks out of both sides of his mouth at once, depending on whether he's in his riding in Prince Rupert or here in the Legislature....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. Personal allusions are unparliamentary and are not allowed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I wasn't attacking him personally, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly will withdraw.

I have to tell you that it depends on where that member is — whether he's in Victoria or Prince Rupert — as to what he says about northeast coal. When he gets up there he says: "Oh, it's a great project." He comes down here and gets with his leader and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), and he doesn't know quite how to talk because one would close it down, one would renegotiate it and one would buy an interest in it. So they are all over the map. You never know where they are at. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I know what would happen if they become government in this province. They'd close the project down. That's what the member for Coquitlam-Moody would say. That's what the Leader of the Opposition has said innumerable times. He's said: "I'd close the project down." Anyway, that just goes to show how little interest there is from the socialist opposition.

Mr. Speaker, there is some forgiveness built into this program.

AN HON. MEMBER: We noticed that. It's a giveaway.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not a giveaway. I'll tell you, there's a member over there talking about giveaways. That member over there, when he was an NDP member in Ottawa, supported the Liberal government on hundreds and hundreds of initiatives that they took down there. That's why Canada has the problems is has today, because the NDP in British Columbia and their members in Ottawa support the Ottawa government. They are espousing the same type of socialist policies here, policies that have brought this great nation to its knees. They're the policies that those socialists over there would bring into this province, the policies that the Ottawa government has had for years, the policies supported by that NDP member when he was in Ottawa, and the type of policies that this socialist opposition has supported for years in Ottawa: socialist policies that haven't worked in this country. They didn't work in this province, but they're socialist policies that they would love to impose on the people of this great province. They would love to be government again and, my gracious sakes alive, Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that that never occurs in British Columbia again.

MR. LEA: I'll bet you do. Where would you work?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It isn't only where I would work; the question is: where would thousands and thousands of people work? When they were government, there was no world economic disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the forgiveness part of this: 50 percent of the loan will be forgivable one year after operation has commenced, and the balance one year thereafter, provided the required terms and conditions under which the loan was granted have been met. In other words, it is not a giveaway program; he has to maintain his facilities and make a commitment to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Do you have something to say, Mr. Member? You are usually yacking about Ocean Falls or something. Do you have something to say? Would you like to say it? We'll give you an opportunity in just a moment.

Mr. Speaker, there are criteria that have to be met, so it is not a total giveaway.

The low-interest loan assistance end of our LIFT program will be administered, as I said, by the British Columbia Development Corporation. It's a $20 million program. The objective is to enhance the economic base of the province of British Columbia through the provision of low-interest loans to businesses in key economic sectors which wish to modernize, expand or establish new facilities. This end of the program sort of goes up another step into the next bracket of small or medium-sized businesses. The $20 million will be provided over two years to augment this established and successful program, which has been administered over the past few years by the British Columbia Development Corporation.

These are new funds which are in addition to those that have already been available under the program, and because of the high interest rates existing out there we feel quite sure that this money will be taken up almost immediately. The program will be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation as a trustee of the fund provided by the province. Again the applicant's business must be engaged principally in either manufacturing, processing, high technology or the provision of services to manufacturing, processing and high-technology sectors.

The proceeds of the low-interest loans assistance must be used for plant modernization, expansion, or the establishment of new production facilities which will create new economic activity and benefits for the province of British Columbia. Businesses receiving assistance under this program must be economically viable. It is not a giveaway; we must be going in to preserve the business. If the business

[ Page 9329 ]

cannot be helped anyway, we are not coming in with a giveaway of taxpayers' money. I want to advise all of the taxpayers of British Columbia that we're not going to have a giveaway program. We're not going to help businesses that will compete against them. It's to preserve and enlarge our manufacturing base.

The applicant applying for the loan must have a minimum total tangible asset ratio of not less than 15 per cent on a pro forma balance sheet basis.

MR. LEA: What does that mean?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That means the owner must have some equity, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert. I'd be quite happy to sit down with you and give you a lesson in accounting.

The loan size is one-third of the capital cost for fixed assets, subject to a maximum of $200,000 — so there is a cap on it — and a minimum of $30,000. Again, this has been a very successful program.

MR. LEA: Is there anything left in the fund?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, certainly.

MR. LEA: How much?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be quite happy to get you the latest information.

Mr. Speaker, we pay the opposition thousands and thousands of dollars for research staff to do their work for them, and then they come in here and want me to do it for them. I don't know what you do with your research staff, Mr. Member. You probably use them for politics instead of doing basic research. If they started doing basic research they'd find out just how good the economy of this province is today.

There is an attitude out there.... Sure, things are tough in the lumber industry and tough in the mining industry, but the other sectors of this province are doing fairly well. They also recognize the initiative of this government in diversifying our sales away from the United States in the lumber industry. Maybe they don't realize over there that British Columbia is now selling lumber in Holland. There are more sales in the United Kingdom and a great number of sales to Italy and other European communities. We're selling lumber to Japan. We've worked with the Japanese housing construction industry and they're now building houses, thanks to the initiative of this government in cooperation with the Council of Forest Industries. We are selling a lot of lumber to New Zealand, Australia and the Middle East because of the initiative of this government. We're not totally dependent now on the United States. If you look at the figures over the last five years you'll see that the percentage of external sales to the United States has gone down, and that our sales in the international marketplace have increased. Our lumber industry today is not in as bad shape as it could have been, because we diversified. That is just another of the initiatives this government has taken.

With regard to the British Columbia Development Corporation, of course they administer other loans besides the LILA program. It might be interesting to put some figures on the record so that we can advise our small business community that it's not only the low-interest loan; the British Columbia Development Corporation has other loans as well which they have been administering over the last six years. These are active loans, a number of them paid off: 13 percent of the loans they have put out into the business community, or 31, are between zero and $50,000; 32 percent, or 76, are between S50,000 and $100,000; 31 percent are between $100,000 and S150,000; 15 percent are between $250,000 and $500,000; 5 percent, $500,000 to $1 million; and 4 percent are over $1 million.

The Development Corporation, in their regular loan program to assist the business community, has a wide variation of the total segment of our industry out there. It is not aimed particularly at the large industries, not aimed particularly at the small industries, but has a very balanced portfolio. Also, the development business finance division of the corporation has acted as a lending institution, and operates on business principles. Its primary objective, of course, is to improve productivity and employment in British Columbia by encouraging other businesses, primarily manufacturers and processors, to expand and increase their efficiency through the purchase of such fixed assets as equipment, building and land. They have done an excellent job out there in the community. They work in great cooperation with the existing banking system. with the existing financial institutions, and, of course, with the federal government's programs for the business community. I just have to think that if the rules of the banking system were such that it was in there doing its job, we wouldn't need all of these programs — government wouldn't need all of these programs. Ottawa sets the rules for the banking system and then comes in behind it with another bunch of programs. No wonder the small businessman sometimes gets confused, and that's why we make the rules of our programs as simple as possible.

The Development Corporation also has a number of active LILA loans in existence. For instance, 20 percent of their LILA loans are between zero and $50,000, 34 percent are between S50,000 and $100,000, and 46 percent are between S100,000 and $250,000. They have 335 active LILA loans at the present time.

It's also interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note where these loans are going. For instance, in the food and beverage sector they have seven loans out, but have either created or preserved about 232 jobs. In the wood products sector, which is our largest industry in British Columbia, they have 13 loans, creating or preserving 99 jobs. In printing and allied industries there are 15 loans, creating or preserving 66 jobs. This is just for last year — the fiscal period ending March 31, 1982. Here's an interesting one in the metal products industry. This is very important, because the metal products industry will be doing a great deal of fabrication for our coal-mining industry, not only in the southeast but also in the northeast. Because of the enlargement of our coal-mining industry, a lot of these manufacturing facilities were not able to manufacture or fabricate supplies and services for the smaller mining industry in the southeast. My department is working with the coal industry, and with these manufacturers and fabricators. Of course, a lot of them will now be taking advantage of the expansion in the coal-mining industry. A lot of them will be doing fabricating and actual manufacturing of parts and pieces which will be used in the coal mining industry. A lot of them will be retooling, and a lot of them will be able to take advantage of this program to expand and create jobs. That, of course, is one of the great spinoffs from the northeast coal development.

[ Page 9330 ]

The other day I was talking to a small fabricator who landed a $450,000 contract to manufacture bulldozer blades. They used to be brought in from the United States or eastern Canada. This small manufacturer will now be actually manufacturing those bulldozer blades. Hopefully, because he landed this one small contract, the coal-mines in the area will recognize his ability, and those bulldozer blades, which make up a large portion of the costs of mining coal, will be manufactured right here in the province of British Columbia. That's just one of the other benefits being derived in our business community. There are literally thousands of small business people in the province who have benefited from being awarded small contracts on this massive project.

As I say, last year the Development Corporation had 34 loans out in the metal products industry, and either created or preserved 137 jobs. In transportation equipment four loans preserved or created 41 jobs. Here's an interesting one — electrical apparatus and supplies: six loans, but 42 jobs. These may sound like not very much, but this is the type of thing that we have been doing through my department in cooperation with the British Columbia Development Corporation during the last six years. Scientific and professional apparatus. This is interesting, because this would be considered high technology — seven loans and 35 new jobs. Aircraft and aircraft maintenance parts, two loans and 112 jobs. Building products, nine loans, 39 jobs. Plastic products, four loans, 20 jobs. Miscellaneous manufacturing, 12 loans, 65 jobs. Clothing and allied industries, three loans, 22 jobs. In other words, last year the loans that I have talked about put out by the Development Corporation have either created or preserved 948 jobs. That certainly is low profile. That's the type of thing that we are doing, creating or preserving jobs in British Columbia.

I sometimes feel, Mr. Speaker, that the general population of British Columbia actually doesn't realize that we have a tremendous amount of secondary manufacturing in this province. We employ four times as many people in the manufacturing sector as we do in what you'd call the primary industry. We have a good, healthy secondary manufacturing industry. Something came to my attention just recently — as a matter of fact, very recently. Last Friday I was opening the great new Microtel Pacific Research Centre at Simon Fraser University. I have to recall that when B.C. Tel were taking over Automatic Electric and Lenkurt, Mr. Gary Lauk, the then Economic Development critic, chastized that takeover and said all kinds of bad things about it. Yet, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that we now have a very healthy high technology electronic manufacturing industry in British Columbia. The member for Vancouver Centre, who goes around chastising banks, almost put the run on the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and the same type of thing happened when he mouthed off about what was happening when B.C. Tel tried to bring those high technology companies back to British Columbia and establish them here. I just want to give you some facts, Mr. Speaker, because it's very interesting.

People of this province do not understand that we have a very healthy, high technology manufacturing industry. The electronics industry in British Columbia has showed a rapid rate of growth in recent years, and has been little affected by the recent downturn in the economy. In other words, high technology industries have maintained their employment and actually have been growing. They are the industries of the future. That is why this government, in doing our forward planning for the economy of this province, recognized from the beginning that it was in the high technology field that our growth was going to happen. We wanted to develop high technology industries. That's why this little ministry, working with the minister of science and technology, got together and formed the research part in conjunction with the universities. That's why we were able to go out last Friday afternoon and open a $10 million facility for research and development of the electronics industry here in British Columbia — simply because of the planning done by this government.

The opposition are not interested in that. They have yacked all session about the economy. The opposition have one member in the Legislature. The socialist leader of the opposition goes around yacking about the economy. He could be in this House this afternoon learning something about what is happening in this great province. Where are the socialists today, when we are discussing the small business community? Oh, Mr. Speaker, it makes my heart sorrow to see that they're not interested. They're not interested in working for the good of British Columbia. The socialists opposite are not interested in working for the good of the province. All they're interested in is politics, politics — negative, negative, harping, harping critics! That's all we hear from the socialists. When the debate comes to the floor of the Legislature, where are they? Where are the socialists, Mr. Speaker? They're all gone! They run and hide behind their telephone books. That's where they are this afternoon. They're not interested in learning the facts about the economy of this great province.

MR. LEA: They're on the phone, getting orders from Moscow.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker.... There's that little member for Prince Rupert, mouthing off again! He has a great deal to say sometimes in the Legislature. He gets up and he talks about philosophy, and he hedges around about northeast coal. He comes out and says: "Oh, the government should be buying an interest in northeast coal. That's why we're against it." He wants to take the taxpayers' money and put it in the coal mines. We have a situation here today.... I don't know where they'd get the money from in these tough times. They'd probably tax the people or borrow against the future of our young people, go into debt — so that the young people would have to pay and pay, like we're paying for what Ottawa has done in the past. That's probably what they'd do so that they could say, "We bought into northeast coal."

When they were government, they didn't create one single thing. They went out and bought a bunch of companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy, and that probably should have gone that way anyway. That's all they did. And what did they start? They started a little processing plant that cost the taxpayers of this province $10 million. What did they create that was new? Absolutely nothing. Oh yes, they did; they opened a plant to manufacture railway cars. They put it in the wrong place and the overruns were almost 100 percent. It was supposed to cost $4 million, but it cost $8 million. Sure, we closed it down. If we hadn't, today every British Columbian could have had his own railcar right in his own backyard. That's how many there would have been. They wouldn't have been competitively priced; they would have cost 25 to 50 percent more than for the same railway car in eastern Canada or somewhere else.

[ Page 9331 ]

In the meantime, as I've said, with just one little program we have created literally 300 to 700 percent more jobs than were created by that disastrous railcar plant, which never would have been efficient. If we had kept it open, every British Columbian would either have had his own boxcar, or there wouldn't have been room on the tracks of the British Columbia Railway for anything else but newly manufactured boxcars. We wouldn't have been able to run the trains; they'd have been backed up clear to Prince George.

I was talking about the high-technology industries we have helped through our programs in the past. Today in British Columbia approximately 100 companies are involved in the manufacture of high-technology apparatus. Those have been created since the Social Credit came to power in late December 1975. I remember it well — putting up signs in a snowbank. It was a desperation move by the then government to try to win a winter election. Yet they yack about one little car manufacturing plant. Today in the province of British Columbia 100 companies are involved in high-technology parts manufacturing, with sales of $350 million in 1981. How many are employed? Not the 50 or 60 employed in the only thing the socialists ever created in this province, the railcar manufacturing plant.... Oh, I'm sorry; Swan Valley Foods, which cost the taxpayers $12 million. How many people are employed in these high-technology industries that have been brought in by the initiatives of this government in the past six years? One hundred companies, with sales of $350 million in 1981 — the latest year probably show a lot more and employing 3,500 people. How many did this little railway car plant employ? Forty. As I said, had we kept it open, every British Columbian would have his own boxcar in the backyard.

I want you to understand what I'm saying. Because of the initiatives of this government, because of the programs of the British Columbia Development Corporation and my ministry to help small high-technology manufacturing industries today, there are more than 100 companies in the province, with sales of $350 million in 1981, and employing 3,500 people. What else is significant about this? Sixty percent of their sales are outside the province of British Columbia. The opposition would have you believe that all we do is chop down trees and draw water out of the lake. We have a healthy, high-technology manufacturing industry in this province, due to the initiatives of this government selling into the international market; some of our companies competing against the great giants in the United States, some of them competing against the great giants in Europe, and, yes indeed, some of them competing against the Japanese in the electronics high-technology industry. That's little old British Columbia, mainly because of the initiatives of the government, and does the opposition give a dam? There isn't one of them in the Legislature.... Oh, yes, there is. I'm sorry. They sent the period in from Esquimalt; he wouldn't know what a high technology industry was if he fell over it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once, again, order, please. All members are reminded not to make personal allusions against other members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wasn't alluding to him personally. I was alluding to his policies. Sorry, I do withdraw.

Now we get down to British Columbia's small business development fund of $170 million. The objective is to enhance the economic base of the province of British Columbia through the provision of fixed interest — and I want a heavy emphasis on the fixed — loans at economically attractive rates to businesses in key economic sectors which wish to modernize, expand, establish new facilities or improve their working capital positions to meet the challenges of the marketplace. This $170 million will be provided over two years, to provide affordable loans for eligible businesses. This is a new program which would be implemented at no cost to the B.C. taxpayer. The program will be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation, as trustee of a fund provided by the province of British Columbia.

I want to outline for you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, and for the one single socialist opposition member that is in the House.... And I want to remind you that the socialists, oh, they've been yacking, yacking, yacking for weeks and months about the economy. They talk about their great what is it...?

MR. MITCHELL: Twenty-six point program.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We analyzed that 26-point program. It wouldn't create one job. It's nothing but a bunch of political fluff.

Here I am, Mr. Speaker, talking about the economy, and where is the Leader of the Opposition? Where is the economic development critic? Where are they? They're not interested in anything but pure old politics; that's all they're interested in. They're not interested in the working people of the province or in the long-term viability of the economy of this province. All they're interested in is politics and getting in bed with the labour union leaders of this province. They're not interested in the working man, No, they're not interested in men, women and children, and the long-term security automatically that comes with a Social Credit government Social Credit government: long-term security.

Back to the program. The program will be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation, but there's an eligibility criterion. We're not going to be like the socialists were when they ran BCDC. "Come in, and if you ve got an NDP card you get a loan." No, we have eligibility. We had to write off literally tens of thousands of loans from British Columbia Development Corporation which the socialists put out after they established it. It didn't matter whether you were economically viable or not; it depended on whether you were socialist or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were bad debts.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. If you were a socialist you got a loan. We have some criteria. The record speaks for itself. The record of repayment of loans through the Development Corporation is fantastically good, because we put them out on sound business principles. We're not wasting and giving away the taxpayers' money. As I outlined just a few moments ago, were creating jobs — the proof of the pudding is right there.

Now I want to talk about the eligibility. The applicant's business must be engaged principally in either manufacturing, processing, high technology — one of the industries that I talked about a moment ago — or resource-related transportation. The proceeds of the loan must be used for plant modernization, expansion, the establishment of a new production facility which will create new economic activity, and

[ Page 9332 ]

benefits for the province of British Columbia, or replenishment of working capital. Replenishment of working capital is a new twist, one which I'm sure many companies will take advantage of. But, again, they must be a viable enterprise. We're not going to establish working capital for a business that is not viable or would not be viable. So it is not a giveaway program, but it will help a lot of industry and small business in this province.

Businesses receiving assistance under this program must be able to demonstrate strong management, growth potential, job creation or preservation, and financial need; that company resources have been depleted by current economic conditions, and that the enterprise has continuing viability in a more normal environment. Priority will be given to British Columbia-owned and -operated firms which have at least 75 percent of their assets and employees in the province. All areas of British Columbia will be eligible. They must have security. If available, the security will consist of a mortgage or realty debentures secured by fixed assets owned by the company and guarantees of principal shareholders.

The average loan is expected to be in the range of $100,000 to $200,000, and provisions will exist in some cases for a maximum of up to $1 million. The interest rate is initially 3.5 percent per annum, payable monthly. The interest rate is fixed for the term of the loan. The terms of the loan shall be three years, and principal payments will be tailored to meet the needs of the company, so that we have some flexibility.

That end of the program will be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation.

I just want to say that my ministry has recently been instrumental in re-establishing the Electronic Manufacturers Association of British Columbia, which now has 60 member companies and certainly is an important aspect of our local industry activity. I'm very disappointed that the socialists opposite are not really interested in what I have to say today. All they're interested in is politics. They are certainly not interested in the business community, because they don't understand it in the first place.

You hear the socialists opposite from time to time saying that the great megaprojects are a tremendous drain on the budget of the province of British Columbia. They know full well that less than 4 percent of our total budget this year is going into such great projects as northeast coal, B.C. Place and ALRT, but they continually, for some unknown political reason, go around this province trying to mislead the people of this province into thinking that money from health and education is being diverted away from those social services into items like northeast coal and other great projects. Yet they say they are interested in the economy of this province. Have they told us what they would do? No, they are void of all ideas. They don't stay in the Legislature when we are discussing....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They don't stay in the province of British Columbia; they don't stay in their seats in the Legislature when we are devoting time and energy to discussing the economy. They yacked all last session about the economy, and yet what happened? My estimates came up and sailed through the House in three and a half hours, and right after that they said: "Oh, we want to discuss the economy." Well, whose portfolio do you think you discuss the economy under? I'm here today to discuss the economy. I'm here today to discuss all aspects of the economy. I'm here today to discuss the aspects of this great bill that I am bringing into the Legislature, and where are the opposition, Mr. Speaker? Where are they? All they do is yack, yack, yack.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's another armchair specialist sitting down there. He's never earned a day's wages in his life. He's never worked a day in his life, Mr. Speaker, and yet he stands around here and tries to tell us how to run the economy of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The member for Victoria seeks the floor.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, to correct a statement by the minister. He asks why so few members of the Legislature are here. Workers' Compensation Board regulations forbid being within such close range to hearing-damaging effects, like this foghorn from South Peace River.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development continues on the bill. Please avoid making personal reference to another member of the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw any personal reference to that member for Vancouver Centre, who can only talk — yack, yack, yack — and never listens. Yack, yack, yack, that's all he does, and never a sensible statement emanated from his mouth in his life. He never listens to the facts, because all he is interested in is politics.

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a great deal of assistance to the small business community in this province. We're not draining the coffers; we're going to allow British Columbians to participate in the economy of this province, to have a little tax break. We asked the socialists down in Ottawa to go along with us. But no, they're too busy running the oil companies out of the country, too busy telling investment that we need in this province not to come here, through their Foreign Investment Review Act. I don't know what the socialists down there think about, and I don't know what the socialists opposite think about, but we need investment capital in this province. What we're trying to do is create a climate for the small business community; but we need those big projects, we need that foreign investment. The Leader of the Opposition stood on the floor of this Legislature, I think it was about four years ago, and chastized me for allowing foreign money to come into this province. He said: "We don't want foreign investment." I'll tell you, the socialists over there have a great way of attacking the business community, of attacking those who make a profit. You don't hear them today. They've changed, haven't they, but they don't know what to do.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that during the past five years some of the programs which we are continuing and enlarging have been very excellent programs. We want to continue.... As I said not long ago, when I announced that we were going to push ahead, and made a commitment on behalf of this government to develop the northwest section of the province, we're making a commitment to economic

[ Page 9333 ]

stability. As that happens, there will be new opportunities for our food processors. There will be new opportunities for those in the service sector. There will be new opportunities for small bakeries. There will be new opportunities for small drugstores. There will be new opportunities for grocery stores. All of that is development. Call them megaprojects if you want to, but all of that great development will take place in the next decade. In the northwest part of this province there will be development of minerals and other resources which are needed by the world, and development of processing facilities to process those metals here in British Columbia. All of that is economic development. All of that growth will create opportunities for the existing small business community, and indeed, for the expansion of the small business community.

The Leader of the Opposition goes around yacking about some contracts that have gone to firms outside British Columbia and outside Canada on the northeast coal project. We specifically let out small contracts on that program so that small contractors — small businesses — were able to have the opportunity to bid. But what did the Leader of the Opposition do when he was going to build a refinery in British Columbia a few years ago? He went to London and hired people to draw up the specs for a refinery. Yet he goes around talking about it all staying in British Columbia. You know, you can hardly believe a word that the socialists say any more, Mr. Speaker, because they have endeavoured to mislead us and the people of British Columbia so many times.

Mr. Speaker, we have a good bill; it's going to do a lot for the small business community in British Columbia. I hope that the tremendous growth and employment that is taking place in our shipyards today, providing opportunities for the steel fabricators in the lower mainland....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No interruptions, please. The hon. minister is speaking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, we don't seem to realize that the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia today is probably employing more people than it has ever employed in its history. We are selling, for instance, tuna boats to Mexico, fishboats to the Philippines, and we're building barges for Peru — keeping people gainfully employed in this province. A lot of it is the result of the work that has been done by my ministry in helping some of these companies get into the international marketplace.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is a good bill. I know that the opposition will stand up and speak against the bill, and they'll yack and yack. But when it comes to the vote, they'll do the same as they do all the time: they'll make a 100 percent turnaround and vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in moving second reading of this great bill.

MR. LEA: I guess the polls have been counted.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my remarks to the bill and some of the comments made by the minister in his introduction when moving the bill.

First of all, I'd like to point out the great lack of programming ability that they've shown in this bill. The government has tried to leave the impression that somehow or other this piece of legislation is designed to meet the needs of the small business community in its entirety. They're trying to leave the impression that people in the small business community who are in the service industry — such as restaurant owners, hotels, garages, transportation not necessarily involved in resource transportation — have access to some of these moneys. That's not true. The service industry is absolutely left out of this piece of legislation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Would you put it in?

MR. LEA: Yes, I would put the service industry in.

I would like to point out a number of things about this bill that the minister has brought up. He says it's not a Big Daddy government bill. When the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and I travelled this province, we spoke to a great many business people individually, and to over a hundred groups of business people. Each one of those business communities, each one of those individuals whom we spoke to said: "We do not want grants. We want decent interest rates and a tax structure that would be conducive to the economy." This bill does exactly the opposite. No matter how you slice it, a no-interest forgivable loan is a grant. The business community has asked specifically not to have this approach, yet here we are, discussing exactly that approach.

MR. LAUK: It's welfare.

MR. LEA: No, it's not welfare, but it is a policy that the business community itself has made a point of not asking for.

For instance, if you look at the New Democratic program, "Let's Get to Work, " you'll find that in these areas covered by this bill — that is, manufacturing and processing, high technology — you'll find that our policy is one of tax incentives. In other words, business people in the community who want to do research and development, or do some manufacturing and processing and get into high technology, can make the decision on their own. It's their decision; they make it or break it on their own decision. But if they make it, there is a tax incentive for them. Under this there's is a grant or a low interest loan, and he says it's not a Big Daddy bill? Wouldn't it be better to allow the business people in this province to make up their own minds as to when they want to go into business and what they want to do, as opposed to having to go to government and say, "We'd like to do this, " or "We'd like to do that"? And the government would say, " You can do it," or "You can't do it," according to the whims of whom? Business people will be going to government and BCDC, and talking to an economist 3, and a clerk 4, and the economist 3 and the clerk 4 are going to decide who gets the grant or who gets the loan. That's who will decide.

So it is actually Big Daddy Social Credit government and the bureaucracy that are going to decide whether or not a person should expand a business; whether or not they should go into manufacturing, into processing; whether they should go into high technology or whether they want to go into resource-related transportation industries. They're going to have to go to the government and ask, "Is it all right?" If you agree, Mr. Government, then we can do it because then there's some funding available. But if you don't agree, clerk 4 and economist 3, then we're out of luck."

[ Page 9334 ]

I just don't believe that a Social Credit government.... Actually, a Social Credit government would not bring in this bill; only a coalition would. A self-respecting Social Credit government would not take this approach. First of all, a Social Credit government, and a New Democratic government would not leave out the service industry. As the member for Nanaimo and myself travelled the province on our fact-finding mission, we found that the people who need help more than any other sector of the economy are in the service industry.

The minister said he was getting all kinds of calls. Well, I got a call too — more than one. A small business person in my riding phoned me yesterday. He had heard my remarks on radio and had heard the release from the government. He owns a small shoe-store, and he's in financial trouble. As far as I know, he has been a lifelong supporter of Social Credit. He said: "Graham, is there any help for me in this bill?" The answer is no. He's in a service industry, and this bill in no way is designed to help the person who owns a shoe-store.

MR. SEGARTY: We'll help him out: we'll all buy some shoes.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it may be a joke to the member for Kootenay, but a small business person in my riding is in financial trouble, he's looking to this bill for help, and he won't get it. It's no joke to me.

The part that I hate about this legislation is not embodied in the legislation itself. It is the sham that this government is trying to pull on the people of this province, the small business community. They're trying to tell the small business community that there is help for them, and there isn't. If any member of the Social Credit caucus, either cabinet or back bench, will get on his or her feet and tell me that there's anything in this bill for any business related to the service industry, I'll be glad to hear it.

MR. RITCHIE: We'll be doing that.

MR. LEA: Then you'd be lying; and you may do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. LEA: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is groaning....

HON. MR. GARDOM: At your level of debate.

MR. LEA: Oh, my level of debate! My level of debate is that there is not one red cent in this bill for anyone in the service industry.

MR. RITCHIE: Red cents don't help people.

MR. LEA: Neither does a stench, and it's a stench to actually let the small business community believe that there's some aid for them in this piece of legislation when there isn't any. The minister says to me across the floor: "Would you put in the service industry?" I say yes, I would. I will further say that when we get to the committee stage those members are going to have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to put in the service industry. You'll have the opportunity over there to stand up and be counted, whether you want to help the small businesses in your community. You're going to have to decide whether a small business going down the tube because of the bad economy in Cranbrook gets some aid from this bill. In Central Fraser Valley the member is going to have to decide.

MR. RITCHIE: No problem.

MR. LEA: No problem if you vote for my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, you can tell they're a little nervous, can't you? They know that when the small business community finds out that this government is putting one over on them, or trying to, they're going to be darned angry.

Along with the legislation that was entered in the House, other pamphlets and information were put out at the same time. The government would have us believe that by putting $30 million into the economy they're going to produce 5,500 direct jobs. When the minister is closing debate I'd like to have a bit more detail on that, because I don't believe any economist in this province or any other state will go along with those figures. As a matter of fact, when you take a look at our present economy, you'll find that the non-resource based secondary manufacturing area in B.C. accounts for only 4.6 percent of the gross provincial product and 4.5 percent of employment. This bill is aimed mainly at that sector.

I would like to talk a bit about the reason any government in British Columbia would have to look at giving a helping hand to the small business community. Why are we in Canada in a recession? The government tells us it's because of the policies of the federal Liberal government, which they say is socialist oriented, like ourselves, and that this has brought chaos and ruin to the British Columbia economy, along with the rest of Canada. If that's true, then I have to ask why the Social Credit government, in their 1978 position paper on economic development, go along with the federal Liberal policy on economics.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We didn't.

MR. LEA: Oh, but they did. In their 1978 paper to the federal government, over the signature of the Premier, W.R. Bennett, it said: "We agree with the policy of the Bank of Canada on high interest rates." They said we had runaway inflation. In order to curb inflation the Social Credit government said: "We agree with the policy and direction of the Bank of Canada and the government of Canada." How does it work when you put in tight money and high interest rates? What are they hoping to do that would bring down the inflation rate?

MR. COCKE: Put people out of work.

MR. LEA: Exactly. That's what happened. If you put up the interest rate and put in tight money policies, which this government recommended to the federal government in 1978, it's designed to do some things. First of all, it's designed to create unemployment, as a dampening effect on the economy in an attempt to bring down inflation.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The minister says: "You can't sell that." Has he ever read anything about economics? If you put up high interest rates, along with other policies which they also

[ Page 9335 ]

agreed with — in the paper, it's called gradual monetarism....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let's talk about the National Energy Program. You were in support of that.

MR. LEA: Let's just talk about what you and your government supported, MR. Minister. In 1978 you and your government supported the government of Canada and the Bank of Canada on high interest rates and tight money. That policy is designed to create unemployment. It's designed to put marginal business out of business. It's designed to create unemployment by doing that. Then, when we get high unemployment, they go around and ask the taxpayers to bail them out. Do you hear them talking about the banks? The banks in this country also went along with the Bank of Canada and the government of Canada in a high interest rate, gradual monetarist, tight money policy.

This government can say anything it wants, but it is in print, over the signature of the Premier of this province, who said to the government of Canada: "We agree with your policy. Carry on."

Interjections.

MR. LEA: It won't wash, eh?

When the minister gets up I'd ask him to deny that his government in their 1978 paper to the federal government did not say what I said it said. You won't do that, Mr. Minister, will you? You won't do it because this government, along with Ronald Reagan and Mr. Bouey, believed that the way to curb inflation is by high interest rates and tight money, to create unemployment and put businesses out of business, creating more unemployment.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, the hon. "Barney Rubble" is at it again.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Name-calling isn't the answer.

MR. LEA: That's a compliment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you for restraint or against it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the biggest giveaway artist the province has ever known. He wanted to give everything to Ottawa.

MR. LEA: Why is it that when the printed word, signed by the Premier of this province to the federal government, is presented to them as a fact — which it is — they get all squirmy and squiggly and say, "Oh, it'll never wash"? Well, I'll tell you one thing it did. It washed away good times — the economics of Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bouey, Mr. MacEachen and this Social Credit government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: All the socialists over there are Ottawa supporters.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it would be very difficult to carry on a debate if the minister were not in the chamber.

I would ask members to remember that they have an opportunity to take their place in debate at the proper time. At this time the member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Social Credit members have been told by their leader to carry this debate on all day. because they've been having meetings going over their latest polling, and they are now deciding — by polling — whether or not it is time for them to go to the electorate. I guess they've had their meeting, because the....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just ask the member for Prince Rupert to stick to the principle of the bill, the same as I had to.

MR. SPEAKER: You ask a lot, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, there isn't really very much more you can say. A policy of Social Credit, articulated in their 1978 paper, is one of the things that has led us into the dire straits that we are in economically at this moment. They can't deny it. It's true, it's fact. It's on record.

It is also a fact that there is not one cent of help for the service community, for that small business person who is not manufacturing, not processing and not in transportation in a resource way — absolutely no help.

I mention in passing that I could have brought a privilege motion in today. I'm not going to do that, but I am going to mention the circumstances of what, I believe, could have been a privilege motion. This bill was brought into the House yesterday at 9:30 in the morning. The bill is in second reading, and even if every Social Credit member voted for it and it went through this House, it couldn't possibly be done before tomorrow. Yet this morning in the Vancouver Province there is an ad outlining the contents of this bill, and saying to the people of this province that it is already a fact that it's a program. Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that that would be a very legitimate point of privilege for this House. As a matter of fact, you will recall that there were questions surrounding the resignation of the federal Minister of Finance for exactly the same thing.

We know that it is all part of the election package. What they are hoping is that the election will be over before the small business community finds out that there is no help for them in this piece of legislation. They're hoping that that little operator of a hamburger stand that I visited with in Kimberley, who is having a lot of problems and who could use some of this money — not as a handout, but as some aid, a helping hand to get that small business person through this current recession.... He is purely out of luck. Visiting in a shopping mall in Cranbrook, talking to those business people who are in dire need of some assistance.... There is nothing in this bill for them, nor for the shoe store in Prince Rupert. In fact, there isn't anything in this bill that will stop the soaring bankruptcy rate and receivership rate in this province. There is no help. It's a sham. Worse than that, it's an election sham.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You won't vote for it.

[ Page 9336 ]

MR. LEA: The minister says: "You won't vote for it." There is some help in this bill for people in the processing industry, in the manufacturing industry and in resource related transportation industries. There's some help in here for those industries, so for us not to vote for this bill would be for us to turn our back on the people in this province who are in these industries. We are not turning our back on them. It's only the government that is turning its back on everybody else.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), when talking about another program, said people don't want a handout, they want a helping hand. I agree with that. Do you know who told me that more than anybody else? The small business community, when we travelled around the province. They said: "We don't want a handout. What we want is a helping hand through these very bad times." Yet for the individual in society, the Socreds gave them a helping hand, but no handout. When it comes to grants to the business community, there are some handouts in here, and very little of a helping hand. If this government is only prepared to give handouts to the small business community — if that's all they're prepared to do — this party isn't going to hold it up. I think we should put it on the table and have everybody know exactly what's going on. A no-interest forgivable loan is a grant, pure and simple. It isn't what the small business community asked for either; it isn't what we've asked for. In our program we have a tax incentive program for this. That's what we have. We believe in letting individuals make up their minds about when they want to go into business, how they want to go into business, and whether they meet the criteria of the tax incentive system. It's up to them. We didn't Big Brother them like this government, and say: "If you want some money, come and see us. We'll decide whether you are able to be in the business world." That's up to the person who wants to be an entrepreneur.

The service industry is left out. During second reading of this bill, I want to make that clear. In committee stage the government is going to have an opportunity, because we're going to amend this bill, to allow the service industry also to be part of it. The government will, at that point — and the government backbenchers as well — have the opportunity to vote to let the service industry in or to keep them out. It's going to be on their conscience what they do. Believe me, they're not going to get through this coming election without the small business community finding out that they've been left out. I watched the news last night, and I'm sure not blaming the news people, because I missed it, too, when first reading it. I missed that the service industry was left out altogether. Last night, watching the news, and listening to the news, it was obvious to me that the media had missed it also. What can you do in five minutes of research? After taking a longer look at this bill I now know that that's the case.

It's not only the small business community that was duped by this piece of legislation; the media were, and I was, at first. I just hope that the media will now go out, as they did last night, about this program and tell them that they're not eligible, because they aren't. Mr. Speaker, as you know, there are businesses in Delta that need some help. They don't qualify; they're not eligible for the program. The bowling alley — there isn't one business in Delta in the service industry that can get a cent out of here, and they're going to be asking you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what your answer is going to be. I know that if you were able to vote in these proceedings you'd want the service industry in. I don't know about the members of the government and the backbenchers, but they're going to have the opportunity to stand up and be counted, and to allow the people in this province who need the help the most today in. They can vote them in, or they can vote them out. This opposition is going to give them the opportunity to vote on that issue. I would like to get to the committee stage so that we can see how they are going to vote.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, it's so interesting to hear the convoluted argument from the member for Prince Rupert. I think he has just typified their standard approach to any bill that comes before this House. If any bill comes before this House that will help any segment, or some segment, or a major segment, of the people of this province, of the community, they tell us that they're going to support it because it will help some people. Then they spend all of their time and all of their arguments in their typical negative fashion, attacking one segment or some group that the bill does not serve.

So we have that member making the statement that it's a sham because it doesn't do something for everybody. At the same time, out of the other side of his mouth he says: "We're going to support this bill because it does something for a bunch of people in this province." Now what is it that they really want? That any one bill is going to help every segment.... So for partisan purposes, I imagine, he'll move an amendment to try and find one segment of society that it does not help, and try to capitalize on that. I think the people of this province are a little smarter than that. I think they can recognize that this bill.... In my previous bill, when they spoke against it they condemned it because it didn't help some groups, and then they all stood up and voted in favour of it because they said it would help some people in the province. Certainly not every program will help everybody. Talk about a sham, their promises to help small business people. Oh, they are ever on the side of the small business people! What do you think the small business community depends on? It depends on the major projects in this economy.

He talks about tax incentives. Let me tell you about the tax incentives that they provided to the mining industry when they were in a position to provide such tax incentives. Now they can promise them, but when they were in a position to provide those tax incentives, did they ever do a job on the mining industry! And did they ever do a job on the oil and gas industry in my part of the province! Oh, yes, there were tax incentives there — incentives for people to leave the province. That's what the incentives were. Their mining incentives, their tax incentives, were for the Yukon. They certainly weren't for British Columbia. Their oil and gas industry incentives were for other parts of the world, and other parts of the country. They certainly had nothing to do with helping the people of British Columbia. How dare they stand up and talk about helping the small business community and the small businessmen, when they remove the business that these people exist on?

For instance, the oil and gas industry. They support the national energy program. They drive out the oil and gas industry, the major companies which do the drilling. When they drive them out, they destroy by the hundreds the small businessmen and small service companies, that depend on those big oil companies to develop the oil and gas industry.

[ Page 9337 ]

And then they say, "we are here to help the small businessmen." It's great to help the small businessmen after your major policies have been to drive them out of business. When they were in a position to provide these tax incentives that they promise now, they virtually destroyed the economy of this province by their negative tax incentives and their attack on the big corporations and the big businesses. What they forget is that every one of those service industries in my area depended on those big oil companies to drill, to sell, to market the gas and oil, and they destroyed them. You can't help a small businessman who has no business to carry on.

There's no use in them making these fantastic promises about helping the small business community. Talk about a sham, those promises. And now again, just last year when the national energy program was touted by the federal Liberals. When that program wreaked havoc on the land, they started trying to link us with the federal Liberals. But when that national energy program was announced, they were fully supportive of it. They were fully supportive of the nationalization and confiscation that the national energy program implied. They were fully supportive of the taxing-through pricing system on gas in order to allow the federal government to try replacing these outside investors who were quite willing to put money into the land. And so they said, "No, let's take it out of the pockets of our own people." Yes, they took it out of the pockets of our own people, and what did they put in? Two hundred people or something in Calgary, just to administer the funds that they would hand out. Taxpayers funds; funds that we paid at the gas pumps, funds that destroyed the oil and gas industry.

I so well remember their leader....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Which one?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The one that goes by the title of Leader of the Opposition. He went to the B.C. Federation of Labour convention and said: "The only thing wrong with the national energy program is that it's not going far enough and it's not going fast enough." His suggestion was 45 percent to the federal government, 45 percent to the provincial government and 10 percent to the industry. What is 45 percent worth when you've driven the industry out? Forty-five percent of nothing doesn't amount to very much. They supported that. And then when that program really destroyed the economy of this province, what do we have? They try in this House and elsewhere to link us with the federal Liberals. This province fought against that national energy program. My people fought against it, this government fought against it; but they were fully supportive of it at all times. Then they turn around and say they help the small business community. For heaven's sake, you can't help somebody who has no business left, and they've taken away all that business from those people.

The member for Prince Rupert talks about help for businessmen in his community. I wonder what all the development that has been generated by the northeast coal project has done for Prince Rupert? When they build that port facility and the rail line there, that brings business to the small businessmen. Yet he and his party have done everything possible to discredit that northeast coal project, to undermine it and destroy it if they possibly can. Then he has the audacity to stand up in this House, or in public, and say that he is for the business people in his own riding. The member from Skeena (ML Howard) said he was against the export of LNG. That is a stimulant to the oil and gas industry. Then, I suppose, he gets together with the member for Prince Rupert and says: "Now what we've got to do is tell the people that we're in favour of helping the businessmen in this province." But they're against the northeast coal project which is providing that sort of business. They're against the LNG project and the pipelines. Then they say: "But we'll provide tax incentives." You can't possibly benefit from a tax incentive when you've got no business to do. Then they talk about sham.

We talked about the restraint program. They fought the restraint program every inch of the way. They're trying to say that we have followed the federal lead on the restraint program, I'd like to say that the restraint program was put in by this government, in this province. We suggested it first of all, and they were against it. They attacked it. Now that the thing has caught on and is across this nation, because it's the salvation of this nation that we're going to have some restraint in government spending and quit trying to price ourselves out of the market — now that that has happened, guess what? They have been completely silent on the restraint program, because they haven't got the nerve to say they were wrong all along. All along they've supported any efforts by any group to say: "No, we will not go for restraint: we demand more." When we get that "more" by some political pressure, what happens when you price yourself out of the market? You don't have an industry when you don't have a market. You don't have a market when you can't possibly sell or compete. Other countries in this world are trying to compete as well. We have a great deal of building going on — actually an industrial building boom in Prince Rupert — and that member is saying that this government has provided no help for his constituents. I wonder what he says in Prince Rupert. Is he against the coal project there? Is he against the LNG project there? Or does he go home and say: "I'm trying to help you"? Then he comes down here and works against all of the things that are designed to help all those people.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He lives in Tweed City. What are you talking about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought he did visit his own riding every once in a while.

They say the policies of this government have hurt the people and the economy. How ridiculous! What has hurt this economy is the socialist economics that they have supported at the federal level. Nationalization programs are destroying the will of investors to invest. They try to do it by socking it to the people — by taking it away from the people and screening it through government channels. That's their answer. When the investors are quite willing to put the money up, they want to do it the expensive way and the hard way. Oh, yes, they're supportive of the National Energy Program which is putting taxpayers' money that we pay at the pumps where we live up into the Beaufort Sea and into all those places, where even if you got the thing down here it would be so expensive that you can't possibly compete. A fraction of that money put into the oil and gas industry right here in the province where we can get access to it, where we have pipelines, would generate far more jobs, far more revenue for the province and for this country than all of those projects. They're great stuff, great spending projects, but what good is it to find gas in the Beaufort Sea when you can't possibly market it anywhere? We're having a difficult time marketing the gas that is available at lower prices. But what are we doing? We're adding taxes. We're adding charges to that gas that we can market

[ Page 9338 ]

from where it's accessible in order to find and develop gas and oil fields where you couldn't possibly afford to bring it south where the markets are. The Eskimos, walruses, seals and the polar bears don't buy and use very much gas. We need to sell it where people can use it.

They have gone out of their way, Mr. Speaker, to destroy the major programs that make the economy work — programs that provide a need for the small businessman, that provide a need for the service industries in this province. They've destroyed the goose that lays the golden egg and then say they're going to find the egg somewhere else. You can't have it both ways. They can't be condemning and trying to undermine and discredit all of the programs that are providing a need for the small business community — need for the people to provide those services.

This bill is not going to do everything, but it is certainly going to encourage growth in the small business community, and that growth means jobs. Those jobs mean people can then afford to live and benefit from the many amenities we have in this province. This bill will help small businessmen in a very real way — certainly in quite a different way than their promises of tax incentives after they have destroyed the need for their existence. I don't know how they can expect to try to sell that project, and I don't think the people of this province are naive enough to buy that.

I indicated that we've come up with this program, with the housing program, with many programs in this government, in order to try to help people recover from the damage done by the federal Liberals with the full support of the socialists, both here and at the federal level. I guess you could say their support worked. And how it has cost us! We're paying and will be paying for many years, when you consider the federal debt that has been incurred in order to bring about this nationalization and confiscation of the industries that were well supported by others under the guise of: "We don't want others to take our resources." Well, as long as the wells and the land exist in this province we have control over that, we have control over our forests, and if somebody wants to put up money to develop them they say that is wrong. Then they say they are trying to help the small business community. Their philosophy and their policy has worked, but to the detriment of the people. Local firms have been hurt by this.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I might even mention that you talk about how they helped small business. When the federal government decided to restrict the import of Japanese cars for their purposes, a member on that side of the House stood up and said: "We support that. We think it's good and necessary." But he didn't get into the fact that it didn't hurt the Japanese that much. It certainly didn't hurt the federal government that much. I think one of the members in favour of that program was driving a Japanese car, saying: "We've got to buy our own cars." It didn't really help anybody buy Canadian-made cars. But what it did was this: for that period of time it hurt the small businessmen, the truckers, the small car dealers. The big car dealers were maybe not in as difficult a position, because they had much more stock to deal with. But I know of car dealers in this province, even in these difficult times, who had made sales and then couldn't get them because of that federal tactic, supported by the NDP in this House. Then they say they were in favour of those small businessmen. I'll tell you, I have had an awful time trying to convince the small businessmen to whom I have talked that that was any help to them — the parts people, the car salesmen, the owners of those small firms. They were hurt by that program, which got the full support of.... . unless those members don't speak their policies, but just talk. I'm assuming that when one of their members stands up and says, "We're in favour of that program, " that is the policy they espouse. So those people were hurt.

When the oil and gas industry got hurt — and we go back to that again — they crowed: "We are certainly hurting those big companies." Nuts, you hurt those big companies! They just moved to greener pastures. What you hurt were the service firms, by the hundreds, as I mentioned. The bit companies, the mud companies, all of these people were hurt. It hurt the road contractors who build roads into those sites. It hurt the people who build the sites, the surveyors, the draughtsmen. Those were the people hurt by that program which they so fully supported.

It hurt the truckers. Many truckers have lost their trucks, not because of this government's policies but because of the national energy program policies which that Leader of the Opposition didn't feel went far enough. I'll tell you, it went way too far for those people. What about the bulk dealers? They're in the oil and gas business; they got hurt. Some firms that had 12 trucks all of a sudden were down to one. With that went 11 truck-drivers' jobs. Your support of that national energy program actually created thousands of unemployed in this province. Then you say we're doing nothing for the unemployed. We're doing everything we can to undo the damage caused by your support of the national energy program.

It hurt the tire stores, the welding companies, and all of those small businessmen, many of them individuals, many employing three or four people. Those are the people who were hurt by your view of the major companies as the bad buys. When those companies move out, it's these little guys who are hurt. These are our people. Those big guys just go somewhere else where they don't have to face this socialist philosophy. It not only hurt those people directly involved, it also hurt.... People had to worry about losing their homes because they had lost their jobs. So the homebuilders lost, and the home service trades — the plumbers, electricians. All those firms had to lay off people, which created unemployment, but it was not by desire. They wanted to keep operating, but they couldn't when there was no business. That business was destroyed by your socialist hate of big industry. What they don't seem to realize is that, by the ripple effect, that hate hurts- the small business people.

This bill is not trying to do everything, but something to help those people stay alive. We know the economy is going to recover. Sooner or later the people in Canada are going to deal with the national energy program type of things. One of these days they're going to realize the cost of nationalization and of socialism, and they'll throw that out. Then we'll get back to encouraging the people who want to develop our resources. When they develop our resources....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, they make a buck at it. Why should they invest their money here if they can't? When they're making a buck at it, then we are getting revenue and our people are working. When our people work as a result,

[ Page 9339 ]

and when the government has revenue coming from that development to provide the services that the people need, that is great. If you say, "Well, we don't want these big oil companies to make a buck...." It worked when you stopped them from making a buck. What happened? All of our people in that industry were unemployed, the revenue went down, and so on. But you don't allow for the ripple effect. You just have blinders on. You're going to destroy the big corporations, but you don't seem to understand what happens to the small business community. Of all the nerve, to say that they are in favour of helping the small business community, when they first drive them out of business through this....

AN HON. MEMBER: They're helping them get back to the United States.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes. So many of our people have had to leave. Some went to Alberta, and then, of course, the economy there also went down because of the world effect. And they criticize us? Just to try to keep some of these people alive, we have created.... And it does help. In my own riding alone, this government has provided some help — $1.4 million towards the rural gasification program, not only to stimulate gas sales — they weren't that large — but to employ some contractors.... We have developed some road building programs. That is repeated throughout the province. To the extent possible, we have tried not to burden the taxpayers of the future by adding extensive interest costs. We have tried to build roads and keep projects going. B.C. Place employs thousands of people; the northeast coal project.... They mention southeast coal. Southeast coal has grown quite a bit in the last few years. I don't know the exact figures, but it has certainly grown extensively.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, they're interested in the economy. They're interested in any economic discussion. They want debate on economic recovery. We're talking about economic recovery. This bill is about economic recovery. Other bills have been about economic recovery; two or three of them have been in the House at any one time. Then we'll have the leader come in and pull this old stunt, some tactic of trying to get around the rules to have a debate on economic recovery. When that debate is before them, where are they? Hiding, as they have been doing for the last few months.

To conclude, that ripple effect that I've been describing went right down to the grocery stores and the grocery clerks who lost their jobs, all because of that socialist penchant for driving out the big investors and condemning the large projects.

Now what would they do with northeast coal? If they seem to be down on megaprojects, what would they do? Haul it out by wheelbarrows so that you have that many more jobs? It would take a lot of fellows wheeling wheelbarrows to haul the same amount of coal as those trains, but it makes no economic sense, just as as none of their policies make any economic sense. It's just a lot of talk.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that this bill is making....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, you want me to talk about the bill. I have been. I have been relating all of this to how it has affected the small business community, because of the ripple effect that comes from the megaprojects, I may have digressed momentarily, but by and large I stuck to the bill.

In conclusion, I would like to say that thousands of jobs were lost in this province, and it wasn't necessary; thousands of jobs that could have continued had we carried on with encouraging those people who wanted to invest in this country. Instead of driving them out. Thousands of jobs on the megaprojects alone would not be in place now if that opposition had had its way. They've been against every one of these megaprojects. They've been attacking every single one of them. Thousands of jobs in this province have been saved because of the policies of this government not to resort to short-term expediency and political expediency, but to keep the long-range plan in effect; to keep stimulating the private sector which can do the job so much better than taking it from taxpayers' pockets and trying to have government do it.

We're doing what we can, through this bill and others, to try and get recovery going in our economy. We're doing quite a bit. We're certainly creating many jobs as a result of these policies — thousands of jobs that never should have been lost but for the socialist thinking in this country.

MR. MITCHELL: While I was sitting here listening to the hate that comes across from the other side of the House, I think of the.... They were really not trying to impress anyone: they were just practising the garbage that they will be spewing around this province when we get into an election.

Let's face it, Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation, and the other bills that have come through, are just political window-dressing, identical to what happened prior to the last election, when this government stood and reduced the sales tax from 7 to 4 percent and said: "Never will it ever rise above 4 percent." They campaigned all through the province, saying how they had reduced the sales tax to 4 percent. What did they when they first came back? The first thing they did when they came back into power — after going through the election and campaigning on the great program of reducing sales the tax — was raise it to 6 percent.

I understand the problems of the small business community. I, too, sat with the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and listened to some of the problems facing the small business community in this province. They don't want welfare grants; they don't want political handouts. They want some economic support for the economy and some protection, so that when the free enterprise society goes up and down they will have some protection, One of the programs that they asked for — and it was a very simple program — was the right, before any bank would foreclose on a demand note, at least to have the opportunity to go before a court and prove that their business was in such economic jeopardy that it could not hang on.

I outlined in this House to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, and in columns in the press in my own riding, one of the problems of one of many small businesses who were running along on a demand note from the bank. That particular business had just been relocated in another section of the community. They had never missed a payment to the batik, had never missed a payment to the provincial government in sales tax, had never missed a payment to the federal government for tax deductions for their employees. Counting part-time employees, they hired ten

[ Page 9340 ]

local citizens in that community. This was just one small, little business dealing in recreational trailers in the community. What did this banking system, which this government supports, with their 18½ percent interest, as advocated by the Premier of this province, do? They advocated higher and higher interest. They support the banking community that can come in — and this was just one of the many, many companies — with a demand note. They walked in at 12 o'clock demanding $107,000 by 3 o'clock. By 3 o'clock the bailiff and receiver were there, and they closed that company down. The owner of that company came and appealed to the minister. He came for assistance. He came for some type of legislation that would at least give him an opportunity to appear before a court to prove that his company was in jeopardy. Did that minister or this government offer any assistance? They didn't offer anything.

The type of legislation that should have been in here then with the assistance that would protect small businesses, medium-sized businesses or large businesses, so that when the economic system goes up or down, they have a chance to hold on, and they are not destroyed by the banks with a demand note that would put them, as individuals, into receivership and ruin, in many cases, as the minister knows. From the large amount I get, I know that there are hundreds of thousands coming into his office asking for assistance so they can hang on, so they can show that they do have the ability to ride out the system and that they should not be foreclosed on a demand note.

But all this is window-dressing. It's all a large amount of promises — promises of this and promises of that. It's very much like the grants for the mortgage repayment. The only thing is, I don't think MLAs would qualify for a mortgage reduction because, I believe, somewhere in the Election Act it says: "You cannot bribe elected officials." I say what it is offering is a bribe.

But getting back to the bill, and getting back to some of the speeches that have been made in this House, those who decry a national energy program and who feel that Canada should be continually depending on foreign oil or foreign control of our resources.... To me, that is destroying what Canada is. Canada must be independent, must have its oil supplies and must be able to stand on its own. The large oil companies have not provided that, because of their multinational connections, and do not believe that Canada should be independent in relation to oil. I say they were wrong, and that Canada must be independent in oil and gas, and that we must also be independent in providing jobs for Canadians.

This is why I rise today, because I listen to the minister talking about all the great jobs that he's providing. He talked about the shipyards, and at the same time, in his program for the northeast coal.... We believe in providing jobs for Canadians, long-term jobs. We believe in providing a merchant marine in this province or in this country. We believe that jobs created building those ships would create jobs in the economy. We believe that creating jobs for those who are employed would be jobs that would be created and would spin back into the economy.

For those who read a little bit about Canadian history, in the last war we had the third largest merchant marine in the world. Today we are shipping our resources out of this country in foreign bottoms. This government supports that. They support the sellout of jobs and opportunities for Canadians, for short-term gain.

As I say, we've gone through these window-dressings of megaprojects. It triggered me to rise in this debate when the minister, in his long diatribe and arm-waving, completely threw the facts out of the window. Anything that came out of his mind was written up in Hansard. In any court I've ever appeared in, and any court in this land, the credibility of the witness is based on the facts as he presents them. I listened to him talking about megaprojects and renegotiating programs in job-creating industries. He referred to the leader of my party. I listened with great interest when he stated that when the socialists came to power in Manitoba they renegotiated the Alcan project promised as another megaproject in the last election — and lost it all. Mr. Speaker, it's facts that count, not wild statements made on a political platform. Recorded facts must be taken into consideration.

In answer to the statement of the minister, I would like to read from the Globe and Mail of June 16, 1982. The writer is Richard Cleroux.

"WINNIPEG — The Manitoba economy and Premier Howard Pawley's young New Democratic Party government were dealt a painful body blow in a decision yesterday by Alcan aluminum Ltd. to scrap plans for a $1.25 billion aluminum smelter and hydroelectric dam project in Manitoba. The surprise decision was announced by David Morton, president of Aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd., an Alcan aluminum subsidiary, who flew from Montreal to make the announcement. Mr. Morton said the cancellation was based entirely on depressed economic conditions. High interest rates have hurt construction, building and transportation — the major users of aluminum, he said."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Aluminum is the best-selling metal in the world today. What kind of hogwash are you trying to perpetrate on the people of the province?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you keep that volatile little man quiet?

"Mr. Morton said Alcan's action had nothing to do with the NDP win in November over the Conservative administration that had originally invited the company to Manitoba."

So I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, that we do have, under the free enterprise system, economic ups and downs that affect all businesses. But the facts that the minister tries to sell — that the project was stopped because the NDP came to power in that province — are completely false. If a minister were to appear before the courts of this land and make those broad statements, his credibility would be completely lost. I listened to him go on and on and on. This is election window dressing. It may help certain businesses, it may build a business, and there may be Canadian workers who go into business. The small business community of this province are workers who spend hundreds and hundreds of hours keeping that business afloat. They may be conned into going into a business, into putting the work and industry and their ability and expertise into building a business. They may receive some grants from this province, from the taxpayers, and they will put a lot of their own money into it as well. But because there is not the supporting legislation to protect them from the rise and fall of the economy so that they have at least the opportunity to prove before a court that they cannot survive,

[ Page 9341 ]

they will be put out of business. The banks will walk in with a demand note and destroy them.

It is nice to make promises, but you also must have other supporting legislation that is going to protect the small business community of this province. We cannot run on promises; we must run on records, we must run on the supporting legislation, the help that is needed. It is needed for every sector of the economy. To make promises to this group and to that group, and at the same time to be cutting down on the education of this province — driving fear into those who are looking for work, who are looking for an education, who are looking for retraining — to those who may be sick when they're shutting down hospital wards because of restraint.... Restraint is some wonderful thing that we must restrain health care, that we must restrain education, training for those who are going to enter this workforce. This is not the way to go. If we are going to have restraint, if we are going to cut wages, then we'll have to have some hold on prices, we'll have to have some help to keep the economy going.

We can't continue to throw abuse, to make it a political issue, because today Canada and British Columbia are facing problems. They have problems economically; they have problems in the workforce. It's something that this Legislature must work on together. It must discuss the problems of economic development. It must provide jobs. It must look to building a merchant navy, to developing the economy so that we are producing our logs instead of shipping them out raw, using our coal instead of shipping it out. This is the type of development that must be laid down. This is the groundwork that we must build to make Canada independent, so that we do not rise and fall continually. It's harder, because we don't have a base of industrial development in this province. This is after 27 years of Social Credit mismanagement. As someone said, right now we are facing a Social Credit-caused depression. And all they want to do is heap abuse on other governments, heap abuse that is not based on fact, but based on political hate. Political hate will not get this country going. Only work, jobs and some type of....

HON. MR. GARDOM: One question, Frank: will socialism do it?

MR. MITCHELL: Democratic socialism will lead this province and this country into independence, instead of being tied in as a branch supply of raw resources for multinational companies and creating jobs in other countries.

The high interest that the present government advocated is causing our problems. The high interest of the banking community that this government supports has led this country into the worst depression we've had since the thirties. This government must stand up and accept the fact that the facts that are there are not to be blamed solely on the three and a half years that this party was in power.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) to not interrupt — and also the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

The member continues? No, the member has taken his seat.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, obviously I'm going to support this very forward-looking piece of legislation, a cornerstone of the economic recovery program for British Columbia. I would have anticipated that the members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, would have played a prominent part in this debate. I would have presumed that he would have been present listening with close attention to every word that was spoken during the debate. I would have thought that would be the case for all the members opposite, and that they would be scrambling to take their turn to voice their opinion of this bill. The reason I say that is that every day the Leader of the Opposition has been taking his place in the House and asking for a debate on unemployment. Now when the time comes for that debate, as usual he is the absent Leader of the Opposition. That is the fundamental problem that the members opposite have in building their credibility as a potential government in British Columbia. They're out to lunch and out to dinner, and during the afternoon they prefer golf to debate.

I don't know about the golf handicap of the Leader of the Opposition, but I certainly know that he carries a heavy handicap as far as the people of this province are concerned. The one aspect of leadership that he failed to grasp as Premier was the responsibility that he accepted as leader of the government to stimulate, activate and motivate employment and industry in this province. We had a depression when he was Premier of British Columbia, all on our own. We didn't need the Arabs; we didn't need record interest rates; we didn't need a collapsing lumber market or the toughest mineral prices in two decades. To bring on a depression in British Columbia, all we required was the presence of the Leader of the Opposition as the Premier and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party experimenting with socialist philosophy, using the great province of British Columbia, with all its promise, as a sandbox for socialist theory. I might say, it was talked about during the election of 1933; it was talked about during the elections of 1937; it was talked about during the election of 1941, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966 and 1969. It was talked about but never put into practice. It was only in 1972, through this dreadful, embarrassing error made when the electorate dropped its guard, for the first time in history indulging too many competing, nonsocialist parties. There was no commitment to socialism. There was no acceptance of the argument. There was only a disastrous oversupply of free-enterprisers, all trying to do the same thing. So what did all the free-enterprisers get in 1972 for their efforts at proliferating parties? They got socialism. And what happened? We got our own made-in-British Columbia socialist depression. Fortunately things recovered in 1975 and 1979. In 1982 — if it's 1982 — and on into the future people will support, in a responsible way, free enterprise, through Social Credit, and will continue to reject socialism as long as they stand in the Legislature, providing the calibre of debate and advancing the arguments they have this afternoon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps in advancing arguments the minister could advance some arguments with respect to Bill 82, the bill before us now.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. member for Skeena rises on a point of order.

[ Page 9342 ]

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, please don't stop the minister. We find this simply hilarious.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member. The point of order is that debate must be relevant to the motion before us.

HON. MR. McGEER: If it's the wish of the House, I'll carry on.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you did anticipate what I was just about to say with respect to this particular bill. Despite the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) from this debate, and despite the lost opportunity that the members opposite have had to advance to the public convincing arguments that they now understand what industry and business are about, we're left with a conclusion that this is an unrepentant opposition.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: "Hear, hear!" says the member. Well, he's certainly one. But that member who has just left the chamber.... As all members of this Legislative Assembly know, no minister ever liked to spend the money more than that minister. I suppose he set records. Those who received the money are extremely grateful to that particular minister — but somebody has to earn the money.

That is what this bill is all about. It is to make it possible for those who go out and earn the wealth of the country, for spending in health, education and all the other services, to succeed and to employ the people that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) wishes to see employed. The member applauds. Well, I want to thank the member for support for that particular concept.

The member wants to build ships in Canada. That is his preoccupation. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to build railcars. Maybe they would like to build carriages for horses, or running shoes or radios, or all the kinds of things which are so difficult to support industry with today. A basic part of this bill, and the one which I was particularly to address, is that having to do with advanced technology. Mr. Member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, there is a worldwide depression today in the shipbuilding industry. There is a worldwide depression today in the housing industry. There is a worldwide depression today in the steel industry. There is a worldwide depression today in the automobile industry. But not all industries in the world are experiencing a depression. We have unemployed in British Columbia in almost record numbers this year, because of declining industry in all of the areas I have mentioned. But how many members opposite realize that our high technology industries, particularly micro-electronics, are experiencing once again boom times, with expansion averaging about one-third this year in those industries? The Arthur D. Little corporation has just estimated that in Europe one million new jobs will be created in the next six years as a result of advanced technology industry and that it will bring approximately $40 billion per year in additional wealth to that common market. How many people are aware that of the new jobs which have been created in North America in the past 18 years, over 70 percent have come as the result of advanced technology industry and only 4 percent in traditional manufacturing, including shipbuilding, forestry, mining, automobile manufacture and steel? All those manufacturing industries combined have produced approximately one-twentieth of the number of jobs that have come from the new advanced-technology industries including computers, the manufacture of chips, the advent of satellite communication, and the technology involving lasers, fibre optics and biotechnology — those areas of industry that are now receiving maximum attention by one of our major competitors, Japan. Economic planners in Japan long ago forgot about the shipbuilding industry and are now in the process of phasing out the automobile industry, leaving those traditional manufacturing industries to countries less advanced than they are. They do that while they turn their genius and industrial attention to those new industries which will generate the jobs, the wealth and the opportunities for the future.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have tried to develop in our province those policies which will allow us to enter that competition for the new industrial wave of the future. The stakes are extremely high. There isn't a nation on earth that does not wish to have such industry in their midst, nor is there any area of Canada that does not wish to do so. There is no requirement at all that such industries cluster around any of the resources which are the necessary part of resource-based industry. The economy of our province, Mr. Speaker, has been built on that kind of industry.

The second type of industry for which we do not qualify in British Columbia is that based on heavy population. So if you live near the centre of population in Detroit or Chicago, you become a logical place to have the steel mills, to manufacture the automobiles, to go in for heavy machinery, to go in for the mass production of clothes or whatever the standard manufacturing of the day might be. Of course, as time passes it's possible for the large nations of Asia with heavy populations to indulge in that kind of manufacturing. For example, you see a tremendous amount of that in areas such as Hong Kong, and until recently Japan.

Mr. Speaker, there's a third type of industry; that industry is knowledge-based industry. It does not have any requirement to be related to resources, nor does it have any requirement to be related to mass population. You can put millions of dollars worth of chips in a small, little package like this and ship it anywhere in the world for a few dollars.

What you must do, Mr. Speaker, for knowledge-based advanced industry is go where knowledge is. That has been the history of the development of advanced technology. In North America the centres are well known; they're the industrial envy of the world — route 128 around Boston, the research triangle in the south, and Silicon Valley in the west. This is why we have embarked upon our discovery parks concept. It was a great pleasure for me last Friday, along with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), to have been present for the opening of Microtel Pacific. I'm sorry that the member for Burnaby was unable to be there because of the delay in adjourning the House.

Mr. Speaker, I recall the member for Vancouver Centre, who has had so much to say about our banking system, vigorously opposing that development when it was first put forward. I was disappointed, too, that when we came to develop our discovery parks in Burnaby, hoping to get this

[ Page 9343 ]

area started as the area for advanced industry in British Columbia, the New Democratic members from Burnaby gave it so little support, even joining the protesters in opposing the formation of the parks as they had opposed the formation of Microtel. The Microtel Pacific laboratory could take its place as a proud member of any advanced-technology cluster in the world. I was particularly impressed....

MR. MITCHELL: How many people are employed there?

HON. MR. McGEER: It was 200; it's going up to 300. You want advanced jobs? They're providing them as they grow. They grow because of the products they're developing.

They showed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who officially opened the building by broadcasting to satellite and back, a chip containing 25,000 transistors that had gone from the conceptual stage to the final product, which worked, in just nine weeks. It's their belief that the turnaround time — from the conception of a chip to its design and production within a few months — can be reduced, possibly to as little as four weeks. The significance of that should not be lost on British Columbia or on the world, because the standard time accepted in the industry for achieving such an objective is 14 months to two years. That becomes the slow step in developing new techniques for robotics, computers and other modern devices. The fact that we have in our midst a company capable of cutting that time by a factor of ten is exciting news indeed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Right here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. McGEER: Right in the ridings of the members who have been opposed to this development, and under the nose of the financial wizard from Vancouver Centre, who opposed the whole proposition in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the semi-conductor material of the future, estimated to grow from the current world business of a few million dollars to somewhere between $10 billion and $30 billion a year in the next decade, is gallium arsenide. Approximately a year ago in Trail I had the pleasure of opening the world's most modern plant for producing this precious semiconductor material. Present, I'm happy to say, was the NDP member from that riding. I think he may even have supported that particular development.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's a small plant, Mr. Member, not employing many people. But as surely as we are sitting in this assembly, there will be hundreds of thousands of jobs created for people working with gallium arsenide as a chip material in the future. We want a share of those jobs here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to have the knowledge base, It is necessary to have the investigative atmosphere. It is necessary to have the welcoming policy of government if we're to get these industries and these job opportunities rather than every other place in the world that wants to have them. That is why policies are absolutely critical. That is why it is necessary for the New Democratic Party, as an opposition, to understand what's going on in the world of industry today. It's why the bill introduced by the Minister of Industry, who understands this whole concept as well as anybody in Canada and who supports it more strongly than anybody in Canada, is so important. You have to be able to compete for investment, just as you have to be able to compete for everything else. If you chase away investment in British Columbia, or in Canada, it will go. High-technology industry does not need to come to British Columbia; it can go anywhere in the world it wishes, and the place that doesn't understand how to promote and welcome such industry with bills of this kind is going to do without and be the poorer because of it.

May I say that this particular bill is the cornerstone of economic recovery, not just for the next few months but for the next generation of British Columbians.

I think the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite need some time to think very carefully about this particular bill and to consider what their position should be. I keep hoping, as time goes by, for just a little glimmer of understanding and appreciation from the members opposite; for some words so that people can understand that they have learned their lesson — as the Leader of the Opposition once tried to suggest — by indicating what their policies are and what they intend to do, not to demand a debate and disappear as the Leader of the Opposition has done. So, Mr. Speaker, in order that the opposition may have an opportunity to reflect on all of this, I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Wolfe, Chairman of the Committee on Selection, presented the report of the committee dated September 15, 1982, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your special committee appointed on November 23, 1981, to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of this House for the present session begs to report that a meeting was held on September 15, 1982, pursuant to standing order 72(a)(6), for the purpose of appointing two members to the Crown corporations reporting committee, to fill vacancies which occurred on August 10, 1982. Members appointed this day are: Patricia J. Jordan, Peter S. Hyndman.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Evan M. Wolfe, Chairman."

Introduction of Bills

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT
ACT (NO. 2), 1982

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982.

Bill 86 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.