[ Page 9345 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Dangerous Health Practices Act (Bill M201). Second reading. (Mr. Mussallem)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9345

An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (Bill M202). Second reading. (Mr.

Leggatt)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9345

An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places (Bill M203). Second reading. (Mrs.

Wallace)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9345

Employee Participation Enhancement Act (Bill M204). Second reading. (Mr. Ritchie)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9345

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act (Subsidiaries Disclosure) Bill M206). Second reading. (Mr. Howard)

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 9345

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

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 9345

Mr. Ritchie –– 9348

Mr. Leggatt –– 9352

Mr. Kempf –– 9356

Mr. Cocke –– 9358

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M205, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, a week ago the government House Leader did the same thing. But I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that he doesn't have that prerogative to hop, skip and jump over the items on the order paper. I draw your attention to standing order 27(1) which says: "All items standing on the orders of the day, except government orders" — and that's what we're dealing with now, public bills in the hands of private members, which are not government orders — "shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper." The order paper gives precedence in this case to Bill M201, moved by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). Debate on that was adjourned, and I suggest that's what the government House Leader should be dealing with — that's what the House should be dealing with. It's in the property of the House right now as an adjourned debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to speak to that point of order. It's one well taken by the hon. member for Skeena. It's one of the first points that he has well taken throughout the session, but it's a very good point. The reason that I went to Bill M205 is that I thought the hon. member for Victoria would have liked to be present to debate this bill. But since he's not here, we're more than pleased to call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M201. I therefore call for adjourned debate on Bill M201, and I gather that I adjourned the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, hon. member, the point of order by the member for Skeena is appropriate and accurate.

DANGEROUS HEALTH PRACTICES ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that debate on second reading of Bill M201 be adjourned until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M202, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE TELEVISING AND
OTHER BROADCASTING OF DEBATES AND
PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

HON. MR. GARDOM: I did adjourn the debate, and I readjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M203.

AN ACT TO REGULATE
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am learning from the very wise remarks made by the proponent. We're slowly getting there. I did adjourn the debate, and I adjourn the debate again until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M204.

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION
ENHANCEMENT ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: It may well be a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker. but I adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M206.

RESOURCE INVESTMENT
CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT
(SUBSIDIARIES DISCLOSURE)

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adjourn this debate until the next sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: After today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Once again, to give the hon. member for Victoria an opportunity to speak to this, if he so chooses, I call second reading of Bill M205. He does not appear to be present. That being the case, I would move to public bills and orders.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 82.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm very happy to take my place and say a very few words in support of this move on behalf of the minister to encourage and assist small business in the province of British Columbia.

Yesterday I listened with some dismay to some of the very few comments made by members of the opposition, particularly the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who challenged anyone on this side of the House to get up and say that this bill will help the service industries of British Columbia. I will accept that challenge and say that this bill will do a great deal to help the service industries in the province of British Columbia. It will help — the member said it would not — the people who sell hamburgers. It will help the people who have shops in shopping malls; it will help the people who sell shoes. It will help all service industries and the manufacturing industries in this province. By helping the manufacturing industries in British Columbia it will certainly provide jobs for many people who then, in turn, will have money to spend

[ Page 9346 ]

with those people who provide services in the service industries. So I say to the member for Prince Rupert, this bill will be a great help to all sectors of British Columbia, including the service industries.

In British Columbia many people seem to think that the megaprojects are the only way to go. Megaprojects are, of course, a very important part of the economic development strategy and of the job creation program brought about by this government over many years. The megaprojects are not the sort of thing that can be turned on as quickly as can jobs be created through harnessing the entrepreneurial efforts of those in small business.

For example, the northeast coal development is the only remaining megaproject in Canada. That project is directly employing many thousands of construction people and people in the service industries in this province. This, of course, is a project which was, and still is, objected to by the opposition, a project which they say would be renegotiated were they the government, just as socialist governments in other provinces have renegotiated megaprojects right into oblivion. The jobs that are being created on a project like northeast coal are things that take many years in planning. This began with this government in early 1976 when we first formed the government after those disastrous three years under socialism in British Columbia. I must congratulate the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development for the leading role he has taken over all these years in pulling that megaproject together. That megaproject not only creates jobs in itself in construction of the coal-mines, the railway extension, the highways and the hydro services to that community, but it also generates jobs in Prince Rupert in the construction of a new coal port that will service all this country. At the same time, all of these major construction jobs have to be serviced, and they have to be serviced by and large by small business people who have specialties in various areas manufacturing tools and equipment that go to work to provide the means by which that megaproject can be carried out. The industry that manufactures the commodities needed on this megaproject will be assisted tremendously by Bill 82, the Small Business Development Act.

Megaprojects will carry on in the future, but at the present time another job-creation measure that is being taken which has been pooh-poohed by the negative socialists has been the northwest development strategy. That development strategy is at the same stage northeast coal was at in 1976. If it had not been for the planning and coordination taken on by that minister and this government over the last six or seven years, we would not have had the many thousands of people working on northeast coal today. I can see, with the tremendous potential and resources and the energetic people of British Columbia, particularly of the northwest, that within a few years — and it will probably be much fewer years than most people think — the northwest development will be at about the same stage we are at with the northeast coal development today. There are tremendous resources to be tapped in that part of British Columbia, and it's the government's role to try to pull together the various players in what will be a very exciting game, to pull those resource companies together, to encourage the establishment of the power, the transportation infrastructure and the port facilities that will be needed to develop the northwestern part of British Columbia. As that planning and coordination takes place there will be many small business people, consultants and otherwise, employed even almost immediately on the planning of that tremendous part of British Columbia which in fact is larger than many countries in Europe. It's larger than our three maritime provinces combined, and yet it is pooh-poohed by the opposition as being a charade, when in fact it is a part of the ongoing planning of the future of this province. The bill before us is not just a single incentive for small business in British Columbia; it's three parallel undertakings which will provide a tremendous lift for the many hundreds of people who are currently involved in small business in British Columbia and who, through the incentives in this legislation, can be encouraged to take those chances that are needed to get into business, and to create jobs.

The first prong of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the small manufacturers development assistance. This is a relatively small part of the total $200 million dollar effort that is being made here. It is a total of $10 million. This small manufacturers development assistance provides forgivable loans to people who have what could be a viable small manufacturing idea — something that can be deemed to be successful in the proper economic climate and can be encouraged to take place right now so that it can create jobs and opportunities not only for the entrepreneur but for the people who will be working for him. Small business in British Columbia is the biggest employer in British Columbia that we have. More people are employed by small business than by all of the large corporations in all of our resource and manufacturing industries in British Columbia.

For example, there is a fellow in the small village of Lillooet in my riding who needs assistance in establishing a woodstove manufacturing business. He has done his market research, he knows that he can efficiently and effectively manufacture these wood heating units, and he knows that he can sell them. He knows that there is a demand for them in British Columbia. I'm sure that the minister will encourage him and that he will get approval to go ahead with this very small undertaking. He'll employ only five or six people, but five or six people in a small undertaking like that will benefit that village; it will benefit that individual who wants to produce, and it will benefit the people who will buy his products. It is only five jobs, and it's not a megaproject by any stretch of the imagination. If you take all of the people in British Columbia who have that type of entrepreneurial instinct, who can see an opportunity and go out there and seize that opportunity and take advantage of it to create something, if you put all of the people in British Columbia who right now are thinking of things they can do and who are just needing a little bit of encouragement, then this particular part of the three-pronged incentive program brought forward by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development can be of great assistance to them. It can create literally thousands of jobs — a few at a time. It's not something where you turn a switch and create 5,000 jobs here, or 200 there, but when you add up all the employment created by these very small people you have a tremendous total.

The second part of this program is the low-interest loan assistance, a total of $20 million. Again, this is designed to enhance the economic base of British Columbia in many small ways. This part of the program will provide loans at one-half the current rate charged by the B.C. Development Corporation. It's the cost of money today which is discouraging many people who have good plans for either expanding or establishing. manufacturing businesses in British Columbia. It is making them put off those plans until money costs are

[ Page 9347 ]

better, and this program will give them the encouragement they need to go ahead now to carry out these programs.

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) yesterday went into great detail in describing the tremendous potential that the high-technology industry has for British Columbia, and the tremendous advantages that we have in this province attracting that type of business to British Columbia. These things can happen almost immediately, providing we maintain a climate in British Columbia where people will not be afraid to invest their money, time, effort and skills in helping to promote and develop this province. This type of assistance will get them to do it sooner, rather than later. If we can solve some of the other problems that have been a discouraging factor to this type of business in British Columbia, then I'm sure this part of the three-pronged program will lead us a long way towards creating jobs and opportunities in British Columbia today, and not at some time in the future.

The other part of this program is the small business development fund. This fund of $170 million will be used not only to encourage British Columbians to start new businesses, but also to help in overcoming some of the problems created by high interest, giving them the assistance and encouragement to hang in there and carry on with the businesses they already have. One of the major problems for small businesses in British Columbia is the loss of their working capital because of the tremendously high interest rates that they have to pay to meet their operating costs, and also to carry the inventories that they need to do business.

I have, in my ministry, a positive and aggressive small business enterprise program in the forest sector. Over the last couple of years in my ministry I have made sure that the small entrepreneur in the forest sector has every opportunity in the world to gain direct access to cutting rights in the provincial forests. This has been successful. We have had almost a thousand sales over the last couple of years in the small business program, sales taken on by small contractors and manufacturers, having direct access to Crown timber, which gives them a chance to create new ideas and innovations to help the future of our forest industry. These people have also been suffering with the high cost of capital, the high interest rates that they have to pay to finance their equipment, particularly those in the log-hauling business — the truck loggers in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Along with ranchers and farmers, truck loggers are really the basic spirit of free enterprise in this province. Many of our truck loggers are having trouble maintaining the high payments on their logging trucks because of reduced work times as a result of this world-wide economic recession, particularly as it affects the wood industry in British Columbia and North America; indeed, throughout the world. This particular part of the three-pronged approach taken by Bill 82 provides assistance to people in the resource-related transportation business. That includes the logger, the truck owner-operator or the truck logger who perhaps has a number of vehicles in his fleet. Unfortunately, because of the slowdown in the forest products industry, these people have not had enough work to be able to earn the money to pay those very high interest rates they have been faced with over the last couple of years. This bill provides them with the possibility of obtaining a loan at something like 4 percent below the rate currently charged by the B.C. Development Corporation. I believe that rate is now 17.5 percent. These people will be able to get a loan at something like 13.5 percent, which, of course, will be much easier for them to manage. It will give them the opportunity of hanging onto their equipment, of replenishing their working capital, so that they can carry on as basic free-enterprisers in this great province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have to congratulate the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development for the way he has thought through this program so that it covers the widest possible variety of business endeavours in the manufacturing and service parts of our industrial base in British Columbia. As the member for Prince Rupert challenged yesterday, I will say again that by generating this activity in the basic manufacturing industries there will be a tremendous spinoff effect because of the employment created and the money put into circulation. There will also be tremendous spinoff effects in assistance to all of the service sectors.

Yesterday the member for Prince Rupert said: "We wouldn't do it that way. What we would do is provide tax incentives so that the private sector can make up its own mind." Of course, this government's basic fiscal policy is that we will carefully control the spending of government, particularly in a restraint period like we are in now, so that we don't have to increase taxes, so that this tax incentive is available for everyone in British Columbia. If we were to instigate a program such as that put forward by the socialists opposite.... What do they call it? "Let's Get to Work." If we were to implement a program like that, with a cost of something like $2 billion to the taxpayers of British Columbia, the taxes would have to go up to such an extent that no end of tax incentives could possibly reduce the taxes back down to the level presently in place in British Columbia. Our tax incentives are in place, ongoing, and through this great extra help — this $200 million of extra help that we are offering to the free-enterprisers in this province — we will in effect create thousands of jobs now, rather than a few years down the road. I think it will be a tremendous help to all those people who have ideas and want to put them into place, but who just can't quite swing it now because of the cost of money.

Mr. Speaker, megaprojects are important. As I said, the only ongoing megaproject in British Columbia — or in Canada, for that matter — is the northeast coal development project, which is really the largest single undertaking in the history of the province of British Columbia, and probably in the history of Canada. It is because it was developed a number 4 years ago that it's in place today. Because that megaproject is in place today we have literally thousands of small businesses.... And most of the service and supply contracts for that megaproject — or for that series of megaprojects, because that's what it is — are being carried out by people here in British Columbia. Where the expertise cannot come from British Columbia. or when British Columbians cannot be competitive, of course some of it is coining from outside the province, mostly from Canada. I don't know of any borders between the provinces of our country which make it impossible for people from other provinces to come to this province to take advantage of the activity that is going on here — activity that wouldn't have been taking place at all had it not been for the minister who has presented this very forward-looking bill to us. It's a bill that will create many jobs and provide many opportunities for the people of B.C.

[ Page 9348 ]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have a habit of not debating what is in a bill. They always like to debate what is not in a bill. That, of course, is the easy way, the way that requires the least effort, the least research and the least thought. Because it requires the least thought is why, I guess, it is taken up by those members. The member for Prince Rupert did not talk about what is in the bill. He talked about what is not in the bill, and that is the fact that the service industry is not directly helped; but it will be indirectly helped to a very great extent.

I would like to read a couple of comments from a news release put out by the B.C. Government Employees Union. It's referring to their settlement. It said: "This settlement was reached against a backdrop of extremely difficult economic times and represents a recognition by the membership of our union that all British Columbians must contribute to our economic recovery." That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that "all British Columbians" should really include those socialists who have been elected and sent to this chamber by their constituents.

Here is another quotation from the BCGEU newsletter, relating to each member of that union accepting $200 in the bonds that are being developed by this province to finance both this program before us and the very positive and forward-looking housing program brought forward by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I think this demonstrates the fact that our public servants in British Columbia are playing their part in restraint. They are positive about the future of British Columbia and really want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. The newsletter says: "These recently approved housing and employment bonds represent an $8 million commitment by our union towards the economic recovery of our province." I have to congratulate each and every member of our B.C. Government Employees Union for taking that positive approach. I would hope that those members opposite would learn from what these union members are saying and, for once in their lives, take a little bit of a positive approach towards something.

I take great pleasure in supporting this tremendous bill, brought forward by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. RITCHIE: I too take a great deal of pride in standing here to support this bill. I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate the minister on his innovative and excellent approach to further stimulate job-creation in this province. My congratulations also go to that committee, which, no doubt, was very influential in some of the plans behind this bill.

I know it would be unparliamentary for me to call the opposition members a group of lazy, do-nothing, good-for-nothing fakes. While the description is very fitting, I won't use it; I won't do that, because it falls on deaf ears. With only four of their members in the House, I can see that it's really meaningless. Certainly this debate on our economy that is taking place also seems to be meaningless.

I think back a few days when the Leader of the Opposition interrupted the business of this House on many occasions to try to get what he called an emergency debate going on the economy. We've been debating the economy for two days, and he hasn't once been in the House. I would call him a fake, if that were parliamentary; but I won't do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the term itself is unparliamentary. I ask the the hon. member to withdraw it. A simple withdrawal will be sufficient.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to withdraw that very fitting remark indeed.

Only those of us who come out of the business sector can understand some of the problems faced out there: the problems created by government policy, such as that brought in by the federal Liberal government, supported by the NDP of British Columbia.

As examples of some activities that really are a sham, that deceive, and that are strictly political, I'd like to read a small article from the North Island Gazette, March 24, 1982, by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). It says: "It is not hard to identify the immediate source of the trouble — high interest rates and credit policies of the major banks." Well, I give him credit: he did identify the problem. It seems to me that each and every one of them, as they get up to talk in this House about some of the difficulties out there, blame the Social Credit government.

Here we have another article from the Daily Free Press, from Courtenay, and the heading is: "Business in Rough Shape, Says Roving NDP Committee." This is a roving committee — a committee of socialist rovers. The article says:

"Independent business people throughout the province are blaming cash flow and bank policies as the two prime reasons why small business is in its current state of decline in British Columbia."

They say that the reason people are having difficulties in the business sector is cash flow and bank policies. One goes with the other.

"That's the summation made by NDP MLAs Graham Lea and Dave Stupich, who have been gathering information at the grassroots level around the province as the NDP standing committee on small business.

"'It would cost money and it would mean borrowing...but we could balance the budget over a five-year period, rather than a 12-month period. The province has a triple-A credit rating on the New York money exchanges and so would not have to pay the high interest rates charged other borrowers.'"

Again, we have to give them credit for recognizing the results of the sound fiscal management of this government during its term of office, which brought about that triple-A credit rating which the business people of this province, the homebuyers of this province, and indeed everyone in this province are now benefiting from. The cost of money is not as high as it would be had we continued under the policies that the NDP embarked on in their short term of office.

Speaking on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I have to go through some of these things because it is such a hilarious joke to listen to the few that have spoken in this House on the economy, and then reflect on some of the things that went on a few months ago as this roving socialist small business development committee toured the province.

Here's an article from the Coquitlam–Maple Ridge paper of Tuesday, March 9. It says: "With only three delegates out of seven scheduled actually showing up to present briefs and only a handful of people in the audience...." This is the message that I think they should take seriously. Not only did

[ Page 9349 ]

we recognize the sham of this roving small business committee; the people out there recognized it. They recognized it by not showing up. They said it's a joke.

It says here that the NDP has to work hard to overcome an image that it opposes business ownership: "The NDP is holding a string of nine open forums throughout British Columbia. It has to work hard to overcome the image that it opposes the small business owner." They'll never overcome that image, because that is part of their philosophy. They don't believe in private ownership of business or property at all; it's a coverup. We know indeed just what their philosophy is as far as business is concerned. I for one, from personal experience, can tell this House, and will continue to tell this House and the people of British Columbia, that they oppose the private ownership of business. They believe in a controlled economy, a controlled business environment, and they cannot do that and keep it free at the same time.

As a businessman, before coming into this chamber as a member, I experienced their type of philosophy in business. Maybe we'll go into that as this debate continues. Again, as I relate the statements made by them, their activities, to this bill that we're debating now on the small business assistance program.... It says here, Mr. Speaker, about this Coquitlam meeting that "the two MLAs attribute the party's negative image partly to a misconception gained when the NDP attacks business, and also to misinformation bred by the Social Credit Party." We don't have to come out with any misinformation; the record is there. The record is in South Peace Dehy, the record is in Swan Valley, the record is in Panco Poultry, the record is in all of those businesses that they bought that were in trouble. We don't have to tell the public; the public knows. It was intrusion. Not only were they desperate to get in and to compete for the business of those small independent businessmen, but they used taxpayers' money to outbid them in the acquisition of private businesses. It's on the record; the record shows that they are opposed to anything in the small business sector that would not give them the right to control.

Mr. Speaker, I can go on. Here we have another article that comes from the Campbell River Upper Islander.

MRS. JORDAN: Who represents that area?

MR. RITCHIE: Who is the representative of that area anyway? He's over there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He's another one who doesn't believe in the ownership of land.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RITCHIE: Again we have a member of the opposition being quoted by his local press on something that must be very embarrassing to him or to his party.

Here is this high-calibre so-called specialist saying:

"'High interest rates, an undiversified economy, irresponsible federal and provincial governments and unsympathetic banks and lending institutions are driving established and well-managed companies out of business,' NDP MLA Graham Lea said in Courtenay Saturday.

"He also singled out the banks, saying that in many cases they were only giving struggling businesses three or four hours' notice when announcing foreclosure."

It's obvious again, Mr. Speaker. to someone coming out of the business world that this person just doesn't have a clue about what's going on out there, about what takes place under such circumstances. He obviously is playing politics, and at this particular time he seems to be hammering the banks.

"He said the government should borrow money for such programs over a five-year period. Lea further added that tax incentives should be made to small businesses to buy new machinery to spark a little economic activity.

"'We're at the mercy of the international marketplace,' Lea said."

That's a real winner!

I could go on and on and on about this sham of an approach of the NDP to try to gain some confidence from the private business sector, but it will never come about. It will never come about. Mr. Speaker. because there are many people out there like myself who have spent almost a lifetime in the business sector. No. they're not for the independent ownership of business or anything.

I said in this House before. and I'll repeat it: I left a country; I chose to come to Canada. I chose to come to British Columbia because British Columbia offered me the opportunity of getting into business and succeeding without a lot of government involvement. It so happens at this moment that I have a sister visiting us from my homeland. They're in business. They're desperately trying to get out of it because of government intervention in their business, because of government involvement in their lives. Socialism, Mr. Speaker, does not go along with private business. Now they're attempting to undo it in that country. They are, and they're making progress. Socialism doesn't work anywhere, and it's not going to work here either.

The reason I'm in Canada, and the reason I'm in British Columbia, is because I could see the opportunities for me and my family....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I will ask the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) not to interrupt the member for Central Fraser Valley. Perhaps if the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley would relate his remarks to Bill 82, we could continue in parliamentary order. Please continue.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 82 deals with assisting businesses. I have not for one moment got away from talking about business. I'm talking, about the approach of governments to business — the difference between the approach of this government to business and the approach of the socialist party to business.

I'm speaking on Bill 82 because I want to talk about it and support it, I'm excited about it because it makes real those beliefs that we had when we decided to come to this great land. When we came to British Columbia we had a Social Credit government here, Yes, we got into our own business and it was highly, successful.

But it was because of the change of government in 1972 that I am in politics today. I'm in politics because I want to do my bit to assist those who want to follow in small business. and to assist this government in telling the people that socialism doesn't work in business: nor does it work anywhere

[ Page 9350 ]

where free enterprise is desired. I'm in politics because I wish to assist this government in making sure that the people of this province will never again expose themselves to the type of economic policies that we would experience under a socialist government.

The member for Prince Rupert said we're discriminating, that we're only helping some businesses. The program, designed as it is to assist in the manufacturing sector, assists everyone. It assists teachers, doctors, farmers — everyone. When you create economic development and activity in the manufacturing sector, the spin-off affects everyone. I come from the manufacturing sector; I know. I can tell you very simply, as one who comes from the manufacturing sector where fairly large activities take place, that the service industries serving our industry prosper. I can prove it by the bills we have covering the costs of trucks, fork-lifts, hoses, gasoline, diesel, maintenance, shoes, clothing, drugstores. I could go on and on. The whole economy benefited because we, as a manufacturing company, worked hard and succeeded and created that activity, and that is exactly what this bill is going to do.

I know we're going to hear from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), the agricultural critic, that it didn't do anything for the farmer in a small business. The farmer knows that a bill of this nature attracts people to our province; a bill of this nature puts money in the pockets of people, money to spend on the products that our farmers are producing. The processing industry of this province, whether it's carrots, cauliflower, turkeys or whatever, benefits, because as you stimulate small business you put money in the pockets of people who can then afford to buy all those things we are producing in this province. Another benefit to this bill is that as it generates business and puts money in the pockets of people, it allows those people, because they're not poor, to pay the farmers of this province a decent price for their products. They're getting a decent income and therefore they feel they can pay a fair price for those products.

I could go on and on to explain the benefits of this bill, and to show how ridiculous and false are some of the statements made by the opposition party. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) says, "Another myth is that the poor private sector is really having a terrible time." I could go on talking about these things, but let me tell you, never will they be able to convince the people of this province. They'll never believe the words they are using, the excuses they're using, the information they're spreading, because it's on the record what they can do.

The member for Prince Rupert stood up here yesterday and pleaded because some shoe store in his town was suffering.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where does he live? He lives in Victoria.

MR. RITCHIE: Why doesn't he go home and show that constituent of his that he could assist him? He could buy shoes there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does the member for Prince Rupert live?

MR. RITCHIE: He's living in Victoria, they tell me. Is that good for your economy?

Mr. Speaker, I never miss an opportunity to get back to my constituency and tell my people how they can help themselves. That's what this bill is going to do, and I can't wait to get back home to tell them what it's going to do. I'm not going to stand up here and say that the shoe store in my town is suffering. Maybe it's suffering because he wasn't there buying his shoes; maybe it's because he's buying his goods here.

Mr. Speaker, another portion of this whole bill is the way part of the money will be raised. I've said many times that the real challenge of this government is to provide assistance, whether it be in small business, big business or home-buying. It is to try to do it with the investment money that is out there and not just sock it again to the taxpayer. We don't want all of these programs developed that are going to place a terrible burden on the taxpayer. Most likely if we followed the recommendation of the NDP, it would place a terrible burden on our next generation.

Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this program as far as raising funds is concerned is innovative, healthy, exciting, and something that we can all be very supportive of. It's going to use money that's now being invested — money that may get into the hands of those terrible banks that they talk about — but rather redirected into an area where we can say: "now we're going to use it to help fellow British Columbians." It's a tremendous program, and they benefit from it too. How can you argue with that? Bill 82 is an innovative, healthy and stimulating bill that will do great things, not only for the manufacturing sector of this province....

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll vote for it anyway.

MR. RITCHIE: They'll vote for it. They've voted for everything that we've put on the floor for the past few days. Where are they? We have three members of the opposition party in the House right now — a party who interrupted the business of this House many times because they wanted an emergency debate on the economy. We've got three in here now and one of them is lying back yawning — almost falling asleep — because he just can't get his thinking going. Where is your leader, who was such an obstructionist?

Mr. Speaker, I'm really pleased and excited about this bill. It's something I believe we can all take out into our constituencies and say: "Here, this is what's going to help you, small businessmen." We can safely stand up and say: "Don't listen to what Swan Valley, Panco Poultry, Dehy and all of those losers that you got into...."

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you just a little bit about one of their business ventures. Some years ago, in 1973 or thereabouts, they decided: "Now that we've got control of the land, we want to get into the food business and we're going to build a new plant that will have high technology as far as the production of food is concerned." It's going to process food in a very special way. So they give the green light. Someone said: "How many dollars is this going to be?" "Well, don't worry about that; we'll find the money. Just go, because we believe this is what we must do. We must get into the food business." So they launched their Swan Valley program. The basis on which they decided the size of plant that they should build was not just the dollars, but how much they could process. They didn't go out into the marketplace and say: "What will the market absorb?" They said: "What can we build; how big can we make it?" So that's what they went on. They took the land, went ahead and used tax dollars and built this massive project. I believe it ran into $12 million or $13

[ Page 9351 ]

million — taxpayers' dollars. It was only because they had this socialistic dream of producing food so that they could say to those people out there: "You do it our way, or we'll cut you off." Or they told the farmer: "You'll get what we say you're going to get, and that's all there is to it." But they got into the process, spent about $13 million, and never sold a thing.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Was it recoverable?

MR. RITCHIE: Not recoverable at all. It's still out there, sitting empty — a $13 million small business venture, the creation of the B.C. NDP, which at one time said: "If we go into auto insurance we'll guarantee you $25 insurance." It reminds me of the $2.50 shoes guaranteed by Tommy Douglas under the same philosophy — "$2.50 shoes if you support us." This bill doesn't work that way. The $2.50 shoes were just about impossible to bring about, so what did they do? They got into the hide business — they didn't build it; they took it. They're still in the hide business — hiding.

I want to go on with my little story. Then, as today, their business ideas were a tremendous joke. In order to provide $2.50 shoes they decided they had to tan their own leather. So what did they do? They went on to get into the hide business. I don't recall all of the details exactly, but they didn't really build this plant; they took it, through manipulations and so forth, and then they were in the hide business. Here they were, manufacturing shoes, producing their own leather, and what happened? The people of the province were going around in terrible weather with rubber boots on, unable to afford the shoes being produced by the then CCF government.

Mr. Speaker, I bring up that little story only because I want to draw a parallel between the policies then and the policies of this opposition. That stupid, silly approach to business was repeated from 1972 to 1975 when they took taxpayers' dollars to get into the poultry business, the drying business, the railcar business.

MR. LEGGATT: How are your BCRIC shares?

MR. RITCHIE: Don't you worry about my BCRIC shares, my friend. I see they're up this morning, and I'm very proud to be a holder of BCRIC shares. If you have any faith at all in your province, and any wisdom and knowledge of it, you will realize that the holdings of that company are such that as soon as the economy turns around and we see the construction of homes in the United States, then look out. We're in great shape. That's a long-term investment. If you bought them and haven't doubled your money by now, I would say you're a fool and you don't know what you're doing. Those BCRIC shares, like any other shares, have moved on the marketplace and have given an opportunity to the investor looking for a quick return.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With the greatest respect — and I understand there was another interchange going on — withdraw the word that referred to the member, please.

MR. RITCHIE: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker. I didn't catch what you said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You made an unparliamentary remark about another hon. member. I realize it was perhaps done in a light-spirited vein; nevertheless, the Chair cannot accept it. Will you withdraw any reference to another hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: I don't really recall....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A simple withdrawal will be fine.

MR. RITCHIE: I try to use remarks that are totally fitting, but if something was said in there I'll be pleased to withdraw it.

MR. KEMPF: Fitting, even if unparliamentary.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, unparliamentary, but certainly fitting. I must apologize....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: An unqualified withdrawal, please, for the record.

MR. RITCHIE: Oh, yes — sorry. I withdraw.

As I said earlier, the reason I left my homeland over 30 years ago was the opportunities this country offered. The reason I left that land was the opportunities socialism took away. The opportunities in this country have been tremendous. I, like thousands of others, have benefited from them. I'm in politics today because I don't want the same thing happening to my children when they follow me into business. We cannot allow that party to spread the type of false political nonsense they attempt to do. We could go on and on. The amount of stuff being spread by those so-called business specialists is unbelievable. Those people over there would say: "My goodness, it won't work."

I am indeed delighted to support this bill to apportion small business development assistance of $10 million. Low interest loan assistance is a tremendous boost to the small business sector. We know that the change that has taken place in business today in respect to money costs — interest — has been devastating to many.

I can recall when the gross profit of a business might run around 15, 16 or 17 percent. You were maybe paying about maybe 5, 6 or 7 percent for your money. That seems to have reversed itself now. The gross is away down close to where the interest used to be. And the interest is away up now close to where the gross used to be. Our member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) understands it, because he has had to balance the books. Yes, he knows what it is to have to meet a payroll. He knows what it is to sit down at the end of the month and say: "These are the bills that I must pay."

MRS. JORDAN: And support a family.

MR. RITCHIE: And support a family, and all those employees. He doesn't go out there negative, talking about the terrible things that this sort of a thing would do. He understands. He's been through it. He's positive — that's why.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia's small business development fund is another, first-class approach. This is one that gives, I believe, a fixed interest rate for a period of time.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Security.

MR. RITCHIE: Security, that's right. There is absolutely nothing worse than investing in equipment, investing in a

[ Page 9352 ]

plant or investing in anything to do with a business and not knowing what the cost of that investment will be tomorrow. That's essential. That's a very important part of this whole bill, Bill 82. Those of us who have experienced business know that whenever you enter into an agreement to invest a large amount of money at a fixed interest cost.... If that changes after just one year or less, you could be in very serious trouble unless the change is down — even just I percent — because, as I mentioned earlier, the gross returns on a business today are not what they were when times were really good.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just a tremendous lift for those people who are out there investing and gambling to create jobs for the people of this province. I could go on and on about the great things that this is going to do. The ripple effect of this is going to affect people throughout our whole system. It's just tremendous — hard to measure.

I will now fold my papers and take my seat. I am delighted, I am proud, and I will get out there and I will make sure that the people of my constituency pay absolutely no attention to the negative things that have been said by the few, only a few members of the opposition who have spoken so far. I will tell them that in spite of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition disrupted the business of the House to get an emergency debate going on the economy, he was not here. He didn't even show up. He's running around the corridors all worried that there could be an election called. That's all he's concerned about. In the meantime we have people out there who are anxious about keeping their businesses afloat, people who are anxious about their jobs. I thought that maybe he would be paying some attention to his episodes in this House when he was trying to get an emergency debate going on the economy, just to find out.... Am I running out of time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes, Hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: Gosh, I'm just getting going.

They must be really and truly confused, with that person holding the business of this House, trying to get a special emergency debate going — not just a debate, an emergency debate. And he's not here. The only time that we get any of them into the House to debate Bill 82 is whenever we say and put into the record that they aren't here. At one point yesterday there wasn't one of them in the House. They were all gone. We've got to shame them to get them — in here to get into the act. I can only conclude from that that they have nothing to say.

Not too long ago there was an announcement made by one of our ministers in respect to a big project for Prince Rupert — a tremendous thing. The member for that area stood up in his place and he said: "Yes, it sounds good and all the rest..." But! He is the butt. He is the socialist bottom line. "But what about the acid rain!" I would love to have the opportunity to be on a platform with any of those members and talk to those people employed on northeast coal, the stadium, B.C. Place — all those projects — to publicly debate with them in front of the people who only have those jobs because we created them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your interest. I support this bill wholeheartedly. It's exciting.

MR. HOWARD: On a Point of order, the member for Central Fraser Valley indicated that he was just getting going a few moments ago and that he had many more remarks to make. With leave of the House, I think we should give the hon. member that additional time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That leave cannot be asked for, hon. member. Standing orders are quite explicit about speaking at length in debate. Standing orders would have to be changed.

MR. LEGGATT: I think there are some things that we can agree on today. One is that small businesses are in very deep trouble. One thing we are unable to agree on is why they're in great trouble. We are now introducing a bill that will reduce interest to a very small part of the small business sector. Nevertheless, whatever modest steps the minister wishes to take, it's in his hands. We'll support those modest, tiny, little, timid steps toward helping the most important segment in our economy, which is small business.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) pointed out in some detail the tremendous hole in the bill, which does not deal at all with the service sector. I want to deal with that later in more detail. But before getting to that, we have to ask ourselves why business bankruptcies in British Columbia lead the nation, why we are in the most disastrous unemployment situation we have seen — I don't think we can even say, "since the Great Depression," because if you add up the hidden unemployed, we're at about the same level of unemployment as in the Depression, and that's hard to believe. The reason is that small business is still the great employer. In spite of all the rhetoric about the expansion of megaprojects and so on, the real victims of this depression and of this government's policy have been small businesses. Small business has suffered as much as anyone. Why have they suffered? Why do we have a bill which reduces interest coming from a government that encouraged high interest rate policies in this country in 1978, that fought on the side of Reaganism from day one, that believed that the only way to solve the inflation problem was with high interest rates? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're in favour of high interest rates, take your responsibility. With those high interest rates you have put small business to the wall. You imported that high interest rate policy from California, and day after day you continued to promote it at the councils of the nation until, of course, the federal government bought it and the Bank of Canada bought it. Now you're running around saying: "But wc'll use taxpayer giveaways, and we'll reduce interest to small business with tax subsidies." That's what this bill is really all about.

It's great for all you free-enterprisers to stand up and say, "We don't want government to have anything to do with business," but you're interfering with free enterprise with this bill. You don't want them to go to the market and borrow at those rates that you have promoted through Reaganomics. You don't want them to do that. You're going to give them a handout, which we're going to support. But please don't hide behind that great cloak of competition and free enterprise and say: "Oh, my gosh, you guys are against small business." We were the people who fought against high interest rates. We fought against them over and over. We said it was the wrong solution to the inflationary problem. This government supported high interest rates. Therefore there is no question that this government has driven small business to the wall.

[ Page 9353 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I want to deal with that. The reason there is not a Conservative government today is a Social Credit vote in the House of Commons at that time; that's what the record shows. There isn't a single Social Crediter left in Ottawa. You couldn't support the Liberals because you haven't got anybody; but you did support them while you were there, my friend.

Let's deal with this whole question of the economy. This particular bill affects only a small section of the small business community — a significant section, I agree, and an important one. The people covered in this bill represent about 4.5 percent of the gross national product of the province. On the employment side they represent about 4 percent of the employment in British Columbia. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be helped; of course they should be helped. They should be helped from the impact of the right-wing fanatic ideology that this government has promoted over and over again, a philosophy which has resulted in high interest rates in an economy in the worst state of depression we've ever seen.

There is some spin-off factor on megaprojects; there is some benefit. But the key part of the small business sector is the service industry: the guy who goes out and tries to sell you a pair of pants, the restaurant that opens up, somebody who has a new idea and takes and chance and invests capital. There is no help for them in here if they're not manufacturing or high technology. Why don't you accept the amendment? Make the bill apply to the service sector. That would be another little step forward in terms of encouraging those small businesses, which have never had it so bad as under this government.

I hear all this rhetoric from my friend from Fraser Valley about the terrible things the NDP government did in the province of British Columbia to small business. I was around and I remember. Small business flourished and was in good shape in those years. They weren't facing bankruptcies and high interest rates, which are driving them to the wall every day.

MR. KEMPF: I was in the business in those days. Sit down and I'll tell you about it.

MR. LEGGATT: And so was I. I watched small businesses opening all over Vancouver and the lower mainland — new businesses, new products, new goods.

MR. KEMPF: I remember what you did to the mining industry, and remember what that did to small business.

MR. LEGGATT: Small business flourished in the province in that three-year period and you can't change history. The figures are there. You can talk all the rhetoric you like about the mining industry. How is the mining industry faring today under the Social Credit government? How is Cominco getting along?

MR. KEMPF: We didn't drive them out of the province. You drove them out by your policies.

MR. LEGGATT: We didn't drive them out of the province either, my friend. You are creating more problems in mining than we ever did. You're taxing them out of business.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we're conducting a debate at this time. I would ask the member for Coquitlam Moody to move along.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, too often we try to debate history, because we always try to recreate it, try to change it. There's a certain Stalinism about the place, where you blank out all the things that happened before.

The record of the NDP wasn't perfect. They made a mistake on mining royalties.

MR. KEMPF: That's the understatement of the day.

MR. LEGGATT: But it wasn't nearly as bad as what the people of British Columbia are facing today. They had an unemployment rate half the present rate. They had a bankruptcy rate which was insignificant; now look at the bankruptcy rate for small businesses in this province. And don't say: "Oh, it's somebody else. It has nothing to do with us — it's Reagan, it's Trudeau." You're the government of this province and you have to take responsibility for the conditions in this province, particularly when those conditions are caused by your promotion of high interest rates in 1978. You don't have any choice. It's there. The people of British Columbia are going to quietly make a judgment, either in the near future or in the distant future.

MR. KEMPF: You can't tell them that. They know we've been against high interest rates.

MR. LEGGATT: The record is clear.

The part of small business that is actually covered in the bill represents about 4.5 percent of the gross national product and about 4 percent of the employment sector. The member for Fraser Valley says he's really excited about the bill. It doesn't take much to get him excited. This bill should have covered the service sector. I hope the minister will accept the amendment to cover the service sector — a very important and key sector. The restaurant business is big business everywhere in this province, a very important business, and it's ignored here.

We are facing all kinds of different problems in the small business world, and as I listen to the debate from the 1930's.... Tommy Douglas' box factory, of all things, being brought into this debate. One of the problems with this government is that they haven't learned anything and they haven't forgotten anything. It's a very big problem when you hit that sort of cement-head attitude.

MR. KEMPF: If you want to learn, you have to remember.

MR. LEGGATT: History changes.

All of those little businesses that we want to help really don't want handouts. They don't want the government to subsidize their money. They'd just as soon be able to get a rate of interest they could pay. Do you know what they need? They need customers: they need customers all over the province. And why haven't they got customers? They haven't got customers because people are out of work. They don't have any purchasing power, and they're out of work because of the

[ Page 9354 ]

economic disaster foisted on this province by this government. That's the trouble with small business — they don't have any customers. They don't have customers because people don't have purchasing power. Purchasing power for people at the bottom — a revolutionary concept? No, it's old-fashioned Keynesian economics. That's new to these guys — the idea that in order to have a successful free-enterprise economy there must be high wages and a good income at the bottom level. If you don't put money in the hands of people to spend, the economy goes to hell in a handbasket.

What they represent is the crumbs-off-the-table theory. If you give the biggest corporation the highest profit, enough will fall off the table so small business will survive. That's what I heard argued today. The same, of course, is true generally: if you direct all of your wealth to the very top, that is supposed to make our economy survive.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Stu, I'm sure glad you're not representing me in the courtroom. I'd end up in jail whether I was guilty or not.

MR. LEGGATT: You probably should; I don't know. After all, we can't be perfect in the courtroom, Mr. Minister. There are some people we can't defend.

In terms of the problems of small business, if you decide to throw the teachers out of work, which the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is threatening to do from time to time.... How do they buy those products down in those little corner stores? If you decide there shouldn't be any wage increases at all for people, and you've forced them to live at levels that are just marginal, they don't have enough money to go out and eat in that restaurant that's going broke, that's bankrupt. I know it sounds simplistic, but it's the absolute key to the difference between the two parties in this House. We believe there must be a redistribution of income to the point where the capitalist system is successful. The backbone of the capitalist system continues to be things that these people have fought against all of their careers: unemployment insurance, medicare, welfare, human resources money. All of that is what lets the small businessman survive. What kind of a situation would we be in now, Mr. Speaker, if those weren't in place? What kind of an economy would there be if people didn't even have a welfare cheque?

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Do you want to talk about deficits? The member wants to talk about deficits. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a billion-dollar deficit next year and this government has squandered $900 million in special funds since they came to office. Now they've got nothing in the sock, and do you know what they have to do? They've got to sneak a bill in — and they've got it in already — and they're going to borrow without coming to the Legislature. From here on in, boys, it's a new ball game.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT: Do you think I'm off the bill, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: We do tend to stray a little bit, but I think at this point we must....

MR. LEGGATT: They kept saying they wanted an economic debate, Mr. Speaker. As soon as I get on to the economy they want me to stick strictly to the bill.

Remember "not a dime without debate," Mr. Minister? That's the guy who made it popular! "Not a dime without debate," and now we're looking at a bill that allows these guys carte blanche on the money markets of the world without being responsible to the public at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we cannot discuss a bill that is on the order paper, and we are now discussing another bill. There will be ample opportunity for that discussion, but at this time we're on the Small Business Development Act.

MR. LEGGATT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's get back to the things that we must do for small business. We'll support this modest little bill. We expect the minister might even go for the service sector. We note, when we look at the minister's estimates, that in 1981-82 there was allocated to grants for small business $7.112 million. Now what, do you think happened to that estimate for the next year? It went down to $3 million. He wasn't even spending the money that this Legislature made available to him for small business. Why was he underspending his budget? Maybe the minister will explain that when he winds up on the bill. I hope he will. This is the minister who is supposed to be in favour of business. His record shows that he's the minister who is against small business. He hasn't even spent the money we gave him. The federal-provincial cost-sharing program was $29 million in 1981-82; it's down to $15 million in 1982-83.

The economic predictions are these: "The faltering B.C. economy is showing little sign of improvement. Conditions in forestry, mining, construction, manufacturing and tourism continue to deteriorate." This is a Social Credit depression. That quotation is from the ministry's own B.C. Business Bulletin, August 1982.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: No, they didn't call it a Social Credit depression. But they confirm what we all know. This crash, this depression, this mess that small business is in has been inspired by an ideological fanaticism and a failure to understand how the western capitalist economies really work. They do not like to see anyone who isn't in the private labour market supported by the state; that's the ideological fanaticism. But government has created the purchasing power that has allowed our western free enterprise system to survive. That is the lesson that the minister doesn't understand. It is a kind of right-wing fanaticism that says: if everything is in private hands, the world will be wonderful. That philosophy is tried in South America all the time.

MS. BROWN: Chrysler doesn't believe that.

MR. LEGGATT: That's right. Lately Massey-Ferguson has had its troubles with that philosophy. If you take that kind of economic system to its logical conclusion, you create a South American banana republic, where there are a few people with fantastic wealth and everybody else is poverty-stricken. That will happen unless government plays its role in the economy. Its role is to see that capitalism has a sense of fairness to the population. If you play no role whatsoever, or

[ Page 9355 ]

if you step right out and say, "just let Adam Smith economics solve all our problems," there are lots of world examples for you to look at. That is what this government is in the process of creating in British Columbia: a banana republic, equivalent to those we've all seen, where there are a few wealthy people and the rest of us, if they had their way, wouldn't even get welfare. That is a part of that right-wing Reaganomics philosophy that is so key to this coalition economic philosophy.

In this bill $10 million would come from general revenue and, as I understand it, $20 million would come from B.C. development bond money. I take it that the minister, must be estimating an increase in....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, I have read the bill. The minister didn't read the bill. He must have made an, error in section 5, because he left out service industries. When he gets up I'm sure he's going to tell us, "Oh, it was just a mistake, my friends; we'll put in the service industries." You had better check with your adviser as to why he left that out. That is 70 percent of small business in this province and they're not included. How are you going to explain it when the minister is on the platform waving this bill around saying what a wonderful piece of legislation it is, when most of the people in that audience are not covered?

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, you'll have your chance to close debate, my friend. You're not going to get up now and close debate. You wouldn't want to do that. I hear you want to talk about the economy for days and days. I think the minister probably wants to have this economic debate go on for a long time. All the members on the opposite side got up and said they wanted the debate to continue, so let's continue.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where's your leader?

MR. LEGGATT: He's engaging in a very meaningful debate with the people of the province of British Columbia, bringing them into the real world. This isn't the real world, you know. This is a kind of an artificial device that's created, where we all get out and pretend we are doing something very important.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to say a word about a small business that has always fascinated me, called McDonald's Hamburgers. It's a very successful business. It's probably the world's largest food franchise, so I guess you could only call it a small business in the sense of the local operation. If this government was really interested in small business job protection, they would have provided some help to Canadian small business to compete against these magnificently efficient franchise enterprises which come here and dominate our market. For example, McDonalds Hamburgers has decided that it will no longer buy McGavin's buns. This has thrown another 44 people out of work. They are going to buy their buns in Seattle. It sounds like a small thing, but McDonalds Hamburgers put a little Canadian flag on their arch. If they continue to grow we might as well get rid of the Peace Arch; we can come under the golden arches when we go across the border.

That is the kind of operation that we must compete against as Canadians, but which this ministry has done nothing about in terms of training Canadians to operate efficiently those kinds of franchises, those kinds of efficient operations, to compete successfully with the dominant U.S. small business franchises that are coming here; I don't want to be a banana republic. I want to be a Canadian. I want to be a distinctive Canadian, not a second-class one, and I don't want to be an American. A part of that economic philosophy must be a sense of Canadian independence.

I keep hearing from across here that this is such a resource-based province. and it is; our income is intimately based on our capacity to produce, raw materials and ship them abroad. We are a very unsophisticated economy.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: I listened to it. I was in the House yesterday afternoon.

If you want to to deal with the question of the B.C. economy, you've got to look to the future. The future is not in northeast coal, in spite of the minister's Pollyanna attitude to the sale of coal in British Columbia. The future lies in a more sophisticated and developing economy in terms of technology, in terms of internal consumption. In the long run British Columbians must look to the problems of Asia as well as to the benefits of Asia. One of the great problems of Asia has been the change that's happening in communist China. The People's Republic of China is moving in a very significant way toward the west, and moving in the same way as Taiwan did some time ago. We now are going to be faced in the future with sophisticated, low-cost technology from China. If you think the Japanese are competing with us in automobiles now, wait until you see what a sophisticated Chinese economy will do with regard to the North American and the Canadian economy.

Those are things that I don't think ever pass the minister's mind. He's still talking about the pure free-trade philosophy of dig it up, ship it out, don't process it. and sell it at any cost. That'has resulted in our negative heritage fund. It's interesting: Saskatchewan was able to develop $4 billion in a heritage fund, Alberta has $11 billion in a heritage fund. Do you know why? Because they got proper resource rents. British Columbia has not only not got a heritage fund: it's facing a $1 billion deficit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: More than that.

MR. LEGGATT: You think it's going to be more? Well, it's probably going to be $1 billion. And the heritage fund that was in place — a small one admittedly — when they came to office was close to $1 billion. It was S900 million set aside for special purposes. That has been squandered, Mr. Speaker. That is no longer there. Talk about managers! Talk about administration! They went around this province claiming the NDP couldn't run a peanut stand. I'll buy my peanuts from this party any day, I'll tell you. I'll put my faith in this party to administer the affairs of this province, because the record is now very clear as to who runs the ship better. The facts are overwhelming. Where's our heritage fund? Where's our

[ Page 9356 ]

heritage? It's gone, Mr. Speaker, it's squandered — squandered on the altar of ideological fanaticism and megaprojects.

How much is each one of those jobs in northeast coal going to cost us, Mr. Minister? Have you costed it out? Each permanent job — I don't mean the construction jobs. How much is each one of the jobs created in the mines costing the taxpayers of British Columbia? How much is it costing B.C. Coal, because of the shattering of its markets that's about to come? How much is it costing the, poor, naive and innocent shareholders of BCRIC, who bought that advice from this government and from their Premier to buy something they already owned. That's one of the special funds. That's a part of the heritage that used to be owned by all the people of the province of British Columbia, and that has been squandered along with the $900 million.

The ant and the grasshopper. These guys don't save, Mr. Speaker. They don't administer, and they don't understand the economy. This economy will not survive unless, first of all, you keep purchasing power in the hands of ordinary people to keep small business alive. And the next move must be a four-year budget. The altar of balanced budgets in the crisis that we have now is nonsense. I believe that you must cyclical-budget, as Lord Keynes recommended. It's now appropriate for this province to take a four-year budget and say: "We will balance that budget. Yes, we may have to run a deficit next year. We might even have to run one the year after. But we will balance that budget in four years and bring prosperity back to the province of British Columbia."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the next member, I would point out that the records will show that during debate yesterday, the minister's debate and debate today we did have a tendency to offer an awful lot of latitude with respect to this bill. The bill is the Small Business Development Act. All members have been asked to speak to the principle of this particular bill, Bill 82.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I fully intend to speak to the principle of Bill 82. Before doing so, I've just got to make a couple of remarks about that which the member who was just on his feet had to say. He spoke of the heritage funds in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Yes, Alberta has a heritage fund, a very good one, and for a very good reason, and from a very good source. In regard to the Saskatchewan heritage fund, where were the dollars from that fund when the new government took over recently?

MR. LEGGATT: They're still there.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, no, Mr. Member, you find out the truth of that matter. You find out where the dollars were. The figures were in the books, but where were the dollars? Answer that question, Mr. Member, before you talk about the heritage fund for Saskatchewan.

I remember the heritage that those socialists over there left the province of British Columbia. I was here in 1976. I remember what we found after three and a half years of socialism in this province. I remember the $750 million deficit that was left as a heritage to the people of British Columbia by those people when they were government.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, during good times. They left us a $750 million deficit as a heritage to the people of British Columbia, a heritage that this government has had to pay off, and it is still paying it off, on behalf of a socialist government, a socialist experiment.

I am happy to hear the member who just spoke agree that this is a debate on the economy. You bet it is. And I've watched your leader get up out of order I don't know how many times in the last two weeks and ask for a debate on the economy. Since the debate on Bill 82 has started, I have never once seen that member in the House. Where is that Leader of the Opposition who wants so badly to debate the economy of the province of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 82, in case there is any doubt in any member's mind. Bill 82 is designed to perpetuate British Columbia's journey on the road to economic recovery, which is within the means of the taxpayers. I've listened to the debate from the socialists opposite, such as that debate has been — an opposition whose leader has stood up time after time wanting his motion on the economy to be called, wanting a debate. Yet the debate on Bill 82 — and it was said by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) — is the debate on the economy, and to date I have not seen him in this House. Where has he been during this debate? There are a few more of them in the House now. We smoked them out, so a few of them slinked back from their offices to appear to be in this debate. Where have they been? Where is that leader, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody?

Bill 82, because of its nature, touches many aspects of our economy, but not if you listen to the socialists opposite. But if you read the bill.... I saw the member for Coquitlam Moody doing that while standing in debate. I would suggest to him that he should have done it before, but he read parts of it at least during this debate. I saw that member, as others on that side of the House have indicated.... The NDP debate has been around what isn't in Bill 82, and other members have said it. They have attempted to say that the service industry will not be assisted by this piece of legislation. Preposterous! That's exactly what those members opposite understand about economics — the great economists, the kitchen-table economists. If they don't understand that to encourage and to assist the manufacturing industry will assist the service industries in this province, they don't even deserve to be opposition, let alone their wish — in fact, it's a disease with them — to be in power, to be the government of British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Why don't you do some work — some homework?

MR. KEMPF: The Bigmouth from New Westminster has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That term is unparliamentary. Withdraw it.

MR. KEMPF: I withdraw that term. I'll let the people of British Columbia decide what he is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: The best minister we ever had; that's what they decided.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I remember that well. I remember when that member, as the Minister of Health in the province

[ Page 9357 ]

of British Columbia, came to my home town — that dictatorial minister with his goon squad. I remember that, but I won't go into that, Mr. Speaker. That's a question for another day.

Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite don't believe that this bill will assist the service industries of the province of British Columbia, just let them go out into the business community. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talked about the service industry and said that he was in it at one time. Well, so was I.

Interjections.

HON. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the poor, soft-spoken member from Omineca is having a difficult time being heard, as the members opposite keep heckling him. I'd like to be able to hear his speech.

MR. KEMPF: I was just going to bring that to the Speaker's attention. It is very difficult for a very soft-spoken individual like me to make himself heard over that barrage of innuendo from the other side of the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that if those members opposite would only go out into the business community and see what an economic downturn in the manufacturing industries has done to small retail outlets.... The industry that I was in from 1972 to 1975, the accommodation and food industry.... See what a downturn in the manufacturing industry does to those service industries. Let them go out into the community and find that out. Let them go out into the small communities in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, where the main manufacturing industries are hurting due to falling export markets, and due to a total downturn in world economy. Those manufacturing industries are hurting. Nobody doubts that. Everybody in this chamber knows it, and I've heard it from both sides of the floor. Mr. Speaker, let them go out into those communities where manufacturing plants have either slowed down or closed. Then let them come back to this chamber and tell us with a straight face, and without innuendo, that small business and the service industry will prosper when there's a downturn in the manufacturing industry.

Mr. Speaker, everybody prospers when the manufacturing industry is healthy. You don't have to prop up small business. I agree with the member for Coquitlam-Moody when he says this. You don't have to prop up small business with taxpayers' money. You have only to assist the manufacturing industry, as this bill does, for the service industry to prosper. Small business doesn't need, or want, government involvement in their businesses or in their lives. They only want a climate and a manufacturing industry which prospers, allowing a climate for them to make it on their own.

MR. LEGGATT: Give them some customers with money.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Member, that's right. And how are you going to do that? You're going to assist the manufacturing industry so that jobs are created, so that people have money to spend. You don't understand that, Mr. Member. I'm going to take him out in the hall and explain it to him further. That's clear; we've heard that right here this morning. He doesn't understand that.

Mr. Speaker, the free enterprisers in this province don't want government handouts. They want a climate in British Columbia that encourages investments, not the PetroCans of this world. They want development; they want a climate that encourages investment — that's all they want — so that jobs are created, such as with northeast coal. Six thousand new jobs in the province of British Columbia: that's the kind of development they want. They want job creation. Yes, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody, it will provide them with customers with money in their pockets, giving them the opportunity to make it on their own.

I remember the situation back in the years 1972 to 1975. The members say: "Don't look back — look ahead." Well, in order to look ahead — the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) smiles — at times you also have to look back. I remember the situation from 1972 to 1975, when those socialists over there....

MR. LEA: You were just a kid.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I was just a kid when it came it came to politics, but it didn't take many years of socialism for me to make up my mind as to what I was going to do in this province. When the socialists over there were government, from 1972 to 1975, they drove the mining industry into the ground — Mr. Speaker, that's a pun. I well remember the Yukon development act. They drove the mining industry out of this province and drove the developers into the Yukon. They didn't want to spend their money in B.C. and have the government take it all. I remember those years.

This bill is designed to assist the manufacturing industry in this province. The mining industry suffered badly during those years of socialism. It wasn't until recently that exploration for mineral deposits in this province has returned to normal — returned to what it was in 1972. The mining industry was devastated during those years.

That was only half of it. This must be said when debating the bill before us today: the service industry, of which I spoke previously, was also hurting in those years. The member for Coquitlam-Moody said it wasn't. Well, I was in the industry in those years.

MR. COCKE: You've never done a day's work in your life.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, yes, I remember you and your goon squad, Mr. Member for New Westminster, cramming socialist programs down the throats of the people in my hometown.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member to order — Bill 82.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, during those years I was in the small business service industry, which relied for its livelihood on the activity created by our manufacturing and resource industries. I know what it was that that industry had done to it during those years. I know what it is that fuels the service industry of the province of British Columbia. It's the very manufacturing plants that Bill 82 seeks to assist. I know what the policies of that socialist group over there, aided and abetted by the member for New Westminster, did to the manufacturing industry during those years. I also know what a downturn in that industry did to the small businesses, the service industries of this province. I say it right here in this

[ Page 9358 ]

House: to assist the manufacturing industry in the province of British Columbia is to assist the service industry in the province of British Columbia. That's what the socialists opposite fail to understand. I realize why they don't understand it. They say that to assist the manufacturing industry in the province has no effect on the service industry. Well, that's absolute hogwash.

Those members opposite whose debate on Bill 82 has been almost non-existent, have a leader who has for many days stood in this House, out of order, wishing to debate the economy. He isn't here. He doesn't show up. Here's an opportunity in debating Bill 82 to debate the economy of the province of British Columbia. Where is the leader? Maybe more properly, Mr. Speaker, who is the leader over there? When they're given an opportunity to debate the economy, to put forward what it is that they would do to assist the economy of British Columbia, where are they?

This bill, Bill 82, and its ripple effect on the total economy of this province, gives us a golden opportunity to debate all aspects of the economy of the province of British Columbia. It opens the floodgates, Mr. Speaker. You shake your head, but it does. Where are the socialists? They are almost non-existent, particularly....

MR. LEGGATT: No, we've got five of them.

MR. KEMPF: Well, there are only four over there, Mr. Speaker, and even four socialists are four too many.

My colleague the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) mentioned the old CCF getting into the hide business. Here we are in 1982, debating Bill 82, and the socialists are still in the hide business, as they were then. I remember 1977, I believe it was, when they were in the hide business when debate was going on regarding the funding of private schools. They were in the hide business then. They were in the hide business in the thirties. They were in the hide business in 1977, and they're still in the hide business. I wonder where they're hiding today.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned interest rates. Yes, interest rates are high in Canada; they are also high in France and Italy. These are the three countries in the so-called free world where interest rates are the highest. It just happens that they are also the three countries in the free world that presently enjoy a socialist government: Italy, France and Canada.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Canada, Mr. Member. It's very interesting, Don't tell me about socialism.

Bill 82 isn't perfect. Certainly nothing is perfect. We strive daily to be perfect. Few of us are, and nothing ever is. But what we are saying through Bill 82 is that we as a government, with the means at our disposal, are attempting to assist the industries that will do the most good — that will have the most ripple effect on the economy of B.C. We're attempting to assist the manufacturing industries so that the ripple effect will have a positive effect on the service industries during a time of worldwide economic downturn. It. Is for that reason. that I fully support Bill 82.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) doesn't like me.

MR. KEMPF: I do! I remember you.

MR. COCKE: What have I ever done to bring such ire to that man's speeches and his psyche?

MR. RITCHIE: Get your hands out of your pockets, Dennis.

MR. COCKE: My hands will remain wherever I want them to be.

Just before the member for Omineca moves out, as usual he was wrong on virtually everything he said. Italy has a Christian Democratic government, in which that member would find himself very much at home. It's a very conservative government and certainly has no relationship whatsoever to social democratic policies. Holland, on the other hand, with a social democratic government, is in the best shape of any Western country in terms of employment, interest rates and every aspect of their economic direction.

West Germany and Sweden are also in good shape, compared to us. Japan, on the other hand, is also in an excellent state. Japan is not a social democratic country at all, but has a paternalistic government, quite different from either; nonetheless, it is in excellent shape compared to the western world. However, the Minister of Industry and Small Business in this province deems it necessary for B.C. to subsidize the Japanese steel industry. Well, so be it. Here we are struggling to beat the band. Why are we dealing with this bill at this time? In the first place, this Social Credit government went to Ottawa in 1978 with their plea that we go in a monetarist direction with high interest rates. They said tight money and high interest rates were the only way we could possibly cure the disease of inflation that was going on. That policy has thrown hundreds of thousands of people out of work in this country. So we turned around and we're going to give grants or loans to small business to create jobs that our economic policy destroyed in the first place. I can't believe it! Every move we make is to throw people out of work in this damn country. Now we're trying to put them back to work — or some of them — with these little band-aids. Imagine! In this beautiful province there are over 200,000 people walking around trying to find a job. I never thought I'd see the day. That member from Omineca talked about the dark days of the NDP, for crying out loud. We were saving jobs in that little recession. Mr. Speaker, we would be doing exactly the same thing now. The ridiculous, monetarist group over there are party to Pierre Elliott Trudeau's policy that has wrecked this country.

When the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) opened debate for our side on this particular bill, he talked about what we consider to be an inequity. The inequity is that you don't provide care for one part of the small business community and not for the other part. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says that all you have to do is help the manufacturing and the service industry will flourish. He talks about the ripple effect. I'm not at all sure that the service industry sees it that way.

Over the years, some people in the service industry have been helped by this government. I recall the Waddling Dog hotel on the highway. During the years 1972-75 it had up signs that changed on a weekly basis, criticizing the NDP government of the day. When this group became government, their reward was a $3 million loan. I read the order-in-council, but nowhere did I see where it gave their payback,

[ Page 9359 ]

their interest rate or anything else. I asked the Minister of Small Business Development at the time: what's going on? It's good economics to make a loan to a friend.

I believe we have to be fair. In my view, this bill does not provide the fairness that I believe it should provide. I believe the loans should be made available to those people in business in this province where there's a need and where it can actually provide assistance, to the extent that we keep people working and businesses going. Yes, it's a tough time. There's no question that we need to give whatever assistance we can to the economy. But I don't think we are giving assistance to the economy when we do it on an inequitable basis. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is going to get up and say: "We just couldn't possibly manage it." What are we doing here? The member for Omineca says: "The people in business don't want anything from the government." He then turns around and says he's going to support this bill. I suggest: let's be equitable and provide access to those who are in the most need and can provide what is considered to be the best results from a bill like this.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I rather suspect that the bill is not very much more than window-dressing, preceding an election. In any event, if that's what it is, then maybe the window-dressing would be a little better if it were seen to be more equitable.

Mr. Speaker, I am so sorry that so many of the major countries in the western world adopted those three principles that have taken us into a very bad depression. Those three principles are: monetarism, high interest rates and tight money. I want to tell you that the exact same principles were adopted in the 1930s. If you go back and look at what they were saying at the time, the conservative governments of the world in those days were saying precisely what we're faced with now. The beginning of the end of that depression came when Franklin D. Roosevelt stood up and said, "This is just a crock, and we're going to move in the other direction," and brought in the New Deal. That's precisely what happened, Mr. Speaker, and that was the beginning of the end of the depression.

In any event, we're in the shape we're in. The reason we're in that shape is that these people, Pierre and Bill, got together and decided that the way to go was to adopt the Reaganomics, high interest rates and monetarism that were rejected by any progressive economy in the world. They were totally rejected by your friends in Tokyo too, Mr. Minister. You know it and I know it.

Isn't it a shame that we fell into the category of those who wanted to get lost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Trapped by the socialists in Ottawa. You're in bed with them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that is more disconcerting to the Socreds than for somebody to stand up and tell the truth, and the truth is that the Socreds have been in bed with the federal Liberals for years. There's one of them right there. There's a zillion of them over there. There are only one or two true Socreds left — there's the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.