[ Page 9361 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government brochure. Mr. Howard –– 9361

Property rights. Mr. Leggatt –– 9361

Housing and employment development bonds. Mr. Stupich –– 9362

Deterioration of B.C. economy. Mr. Howard –– 9362

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

Mr. Cocke –– 9363

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 9363

Mr. Levi –– 9365

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9369

Ms. Brown –– 9371

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 9374

Division –– 9378

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9378

Mr. Stupich –– 9380

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. STRACHAN: I'd like all members of the Legislative Assembly to welcome to the precincts today Mr. and Mrs. Art Siddals from Valemount. Mr. Siddals is the former mayor of that great little community of Valemount.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like the House to join with me in welcoming a class of grade 11 students from Esquimalt high school. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the House to be on its best behaviour, because this class is made up of the gifted students from the greater Victoria area. they are here under the auspices of their teacher, Mr. Bowker. I wish all members of the House to give them a good welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT BROCHURE

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Premier: I ask the Premier if the particular brochure — which I'm showing to him across the floor now — containing his picture and the picture of a large number of his cabinet ministers, if not all of them, is being mailed today to a number of people on the Premier's mailing list through the services of the government. Can the minister say whether this particular brochure was paid for, or is to be paid for, from public funds?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that's a government document to do with government programs. It's not being mailed to anyone on my particular mailing list. It's going to the institutions in which inquiries would be made regarding the programs contained in the brochure.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps that answer of the Premier explains why the government was ashamed to put its name on the document and thus fail to indicate that it was printed by the government. I'd like to ask the Premier if he could apprise the House of what the cost of printing this document was, how many were printed and whom it is going to.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll be glad to get that information and bring it to the House. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) might have it. If the government's name isn't on the document, we'll make sure it's on the second printing of the document.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: There's Depression Don again.

One of the reasons the government's name is not on this document is so that the Social Credit Party can glean it and put their name on it. Is it government policy that money attained by cutting back on health care and education in this province should be used in this most blatant fashion to advance the cause of the Premier's own decrepit, deceitful political party"

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question was in order right up until the last. Members familiar with the rules of this House.... I would caution that in phrasing a question that kind of language would in fact make the question out of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's a government document that will assist the people of British Columbia to take advantage of the economic-development and job-creation programs this government has introduced: the new mortgage assistance program, programs relating to high technology, industrial expansion and the job-creation program. All of those new programs, and existing programs, are contained and outlined in the publication. They'll assist people to get help and to get B.C. going. They'll help the private sector create jobs. As we have an expanding economy and additional jobs, there'll be much more money for government. The important thing in this province is to allow the people the information so that they can take part in helping to build the economic recovery. The government's restraint program requires the cooperation of all British Columbians; they have been invited in. We have a positive response from the BCGEU and the doctors. The only ones voting against it are the NDP — I wonder why.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: There's Depression Don Phillips again.

Would the Premier mind telling the House how many children requiring special educational care in this province have had to forgo those educational opportunities and how many people requiring special health care? How many people were denied health care in order to pay for this blatant political fund?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can give the member the exact figure: none.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. It's on another aspect of the northeast coal question, and addresses particularly the minister's very high concern about property rights.

What steps has the minister taken to protect the property rights of Mr. John Terry, who has had a homestead in the Wolverine valley for 31 years? As the result of construction, he has lost his livelihood from trapping and hunting, and is now bankrupt. What steps has the minister taken to compensate Mr. Terry for his loss of property rights in the northeast?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad to see that Moira Farrow has done some research for the official economic critic. One thing that Moira Farrow forgot to mention in her little article is that one man is not entitled to a third of British Columbia.

Evidently the gentleman in question was in my office while I was away. He has not since contacted me. He has made no contact with either of the mining companies, because I have checked that out. However, being the soft-

[ Page 9362 ]

hearted, humble servant of the public that I am, I have asked the agencies to move forthwith to contact this gentleman and to see that he is not hurt in any way by the great development that is providing jobs for 5,000 British Columbians this summer.

HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
BONDS

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to check very carefully the figures cited by the member in the preamble to his question, because I'm not certain that they are entirely correct. I will take the question as notice, therefore.

MR. STUPICH: Since agreement has now been made that $100 bonds are part consideration for the preliminary BCGEU agreement, there must be a value assigned to these bonds. Since the interest rate is such an important factor in determining value, is the Minister of Finance now prepared to tell the House what interest rate these bonds will bear?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm pleased that the member has asked the question again. I apologize to the House for being absent yesterday, but I think I have been present for most question periods over the past several years.

The point is that this government will not make the mistake made by the federal government last year with respect to Canada savings bonds. That error has been admitted by representatives of the federal government, Mr. Speaker: an interest rate set too early in an environment of falling interest rates, and a situation which has caused great difficulty for other borrowers, both sovereign credits and the private sector.

I can't tell the House today what the interest rate will be, because I don't know. The interest rate will be assigned when we are ready to issue the bonds. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite understands that, and surely those who are interested in the bonds understand that. I am not withholding information, but would it not be foolish today, in a volatile interest rate environment, to say that the interest rate shall be this, on these particular bonds, which cannot be ready for distribution for some little time yet? Therefore I am not taking the question as notice. I'm simply indicating to the member who asked the question — to you, sir, and to the House — that it is impractical to set an interest rate on a bond some weeks or months before it is issued. The member knows that.

MR. STUPICH: I agree that the question was asked yesterday, but the Premier and the Minister of Finance have been giving different answers lately, and I wondered what we'd get from the Minister of Finance today.

The Minister of Finance will have to agree that the BCGEU employees are being asked to take a pig, in a poke, when they don't know what they're getting with that $100 bond. Can I ask further with respect to these bonds: since the employees getting these bonds will be interested in knowing how long they'll be obliged to keep them, is the minister prepared to tell the House what will be the term of the bonds?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that is a matter of public knowledge.

With respect to the first, I reject the inference — particularly during the time of ratification — that the employees of the government of British Columbia are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I think their negotiating committee clearly understands the nature of the bond, and the purpose. As I indicated earlier, it is not possible to identify the interest rate. But most of the other information is already public knowledge, and I think the member knows so.

DETERIORATION OF B.C. ECONOMY

MR. HOWARD: I run the risk of asking a question which is going to bring question period to a close. I'll take that risk anyhow and ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development a question: can the minister in charge of the depression in this province confirm that the faltering B.C. economy is showing little sign of improvement, and that conditions in the forestry, mining, construction, manufacturing and tourism industries continue to deteriorate during this Socred-generated depression?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'm sorry that the member was not in British Columbia in 1975. While the rest of the world was experiencing growth, British Columbia had its own mini-depression, brought on by the socialists who had reigned in this province for three years by that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why wasn't he here?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's his business. You'll have to ask him.

I would like to point out to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that we have a plan for economic recovery based on employment and policies which you have usually voted against. You have been against everything we've tried to do to bring about economic recovery. Mr. Member, I would be quite happy to send you a number of brochures outlining this government's plan for economic recovery so that the member can have them in his constituency office. I know that he'll want to distribute them widely in his riding to help the small business community in Skeena and the area, which was on the verge of bankruptcy when I first went there in 1975. It has shown great growth under the policies of this government, particularly in Terrace and Kitimat, with further economic development to come.

As I outlined the plan for the development of the northwest just recently, that member over there pooh-poohed the plan and said there was nothing happening immediately. He hasn't the foresight to see that the development of the northwest, which this government has committed to, will provide thousands of jobs for his constituents in the years ahead.

[ Page 9363 ]

MR. HOWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order I want to raise with respect to the blowhard from South Peace River is that with respect to the question I posed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, the words thereof were taken from a document that he and his department produced — word for word.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The expression "deliberately misleading the House," or "misleading the House," is of some controversy. It's certainly been found to be unparliamentary. Two or three days ago, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development held a press conference to launch the northwest package. He admitted at that time that it would not create one job. It had the same cover on it as this new pamphlet we're seeing today, which I suppose entails the same economic recovery package. If the minister is saying one thing outside and another inside this House, it should be brought to the House's attention. It could be misleading to the members of this Legislature; we won't know how to properly debate the issues before us.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will give the matter consideration.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before putting the question, I hear several noes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, on such an important question I would hope that you would put the question so that we'd know who was voting no.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is well made. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 82.

Leave granted.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT

(continued)

MR. COCKE: Before the luncheon adjournment I mentioned that the Small Business Development Act, as it's named, did not provide the kind of parity one would wish — parity, and clarity in the way it was presented. The lack of parity is enjoyed by those people in the service industry. This is a very small band-aid to assist some people who are in manufacturing — fair enough. But I do think it should assist people in small business across the board.

The problem, however, is as follows: in 1978 that government went to Ottawa to present its proposals on the economy of the country. What did they suggest? In the document they took to Ottawa they said exactly the same words that Pierre Trudeau has been using ever since: the only ways to deal with inflation are high interest rates, monetarism and tight money. As a result, they have thrown more than 200,000 people out of work in Canada. That's why we're now in a position where we have to provide some band-aids to undo the terrible wrong that was done.

High interest rates, monetarism and tight money have killed this country. Holland and a few other countries in the world, which have turned their backs on that kind of depression orientation, have fared much better. The sooner we get away from the stupid ways they tried to cure the problems in the 1930s, the better off we're going to be. In the 1930s they used the identical cure that they're using now. If they don't know that history, then the whole country suffers as a result.

That government is a party to everything that's wrong in this country. They have pushed for high interest rates, and we have all suffered as a result: businesses unable to raise the money to keep inventories or to produce the jobs this province needs. They're a party to it. They went down there and insisted, as they always do, that a very conservative response was the one to take: and Pierre Trudeau, their partner, took it hook, line and sinker and has taken us down to the depths of a severe recession.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: No giveaway! Mr. Speaker, this government, who give away resources and subsidize the Japanese steel industry, had better keep their words to themselves with respect to that kind of outburst.

Sure, a little adhesive plaster, deathbed repentance. But it's not good enough. I sure wish they hadn't made their original mistake, which has placed us in the position we're in now.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: In support of this bill I would like to answer a couple of questions: briefly, why is this program necessary; what have other jurisdictions done that is comparable; who is it going to help; and how long will the first cycle of the program be in place" In answering those questions, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to enter the debate, the subject of which has been entered by members opposite — perhaps not directly related to the four questions I have stated, but related to the principle of the bill.

Why is a program like this necessary? As has been mentioned by both sides of the House today, small business is the backbone of our economic strength and provides by far the majority of jobs. We talk about how many jobs are directly related to resource industries. In the workforce of British Columbia, 97,000 jobs are directly related to forestry. We believe that forestry is our major industrial plank. Strange as it may seem, in the resource industries agriculture ranks second, with 42,000 people directly employed in the primary food-producing industry. I never thought that agriculture was that large an employer, to be rated second in all the province. But if you add the two biggest ones together, regardless of how many are still left to be mentioned, you have hardly a fraction of the number of jobs required so that each British Columbian can have one. That means that somebody somewhere is picking up the major slack so that buying-power, as a member opposite mentioned this morning, can be placed in the hands of the citizens — so that you, Mr. Speaker, and I and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) can each have some.

Why is it necessary to provide some kind of support, crutch, or assistance while we have a trough in our economic cycle? It is important because small business is the key to

[ Page 9364 ]

recovery. Why is it necessary? Because through monetary policies over which the province has no control but over which the federal government has control — which power was ensured by that party opposite.... It's sad enough that its power was ensured by that party opposite, but the critic who talked this morning about placing buying power into the hands of individuals was in Ottawa to be sure that the policies of that little opposition over there were felt by the government which they made sure was in power, and that the true will for economic decadence — not recovery — which they had in mind was in place. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that what we've got in Canada today was ensured by that party right over there; make no mistake about it.

It seems to me that when they say "unless we have employment we cannot have economic recovery," and that employment.... You remember, Mr. Speaker, the cycle that was drawn up for us this morning by the member for Coquitlam-Moody. He said that unless we have employment, we do not have the buying power in the hands of the individual, which buying power can be utilized to buy the product which is being created by small business and by the manufacturing industry, which in turn takes its product from the primary resource in which we are rich in British Columbia. There's only one problem. There is a hiatus in his whole cycle. It doesn't make too much difference how much employment we have if the buying power that we place in the hands of our individual citizens is usurped by some other force and they are given a disposable income which is not adequate for their style of living. I will give you an example of the kind of robbery that I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: High interest.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You better believe it. You got it bang on. In order to make it understood, let's take an individual who has a home mortgage of $60,000. He has committed himself for a long period of time, and when he entered the contract it was at 10 percent. Now I'm not too smart, but I've got this figured out: $60,000 at 10 percent in the first year will be $6,000 of interest earned, not buying a thing. You're not buying any real estate, improvements or fixtures. You're not buying anything except the right to buy. It's already bad enough that it should be $6,000 for the year, but enter the villain. You change, in the middle of the contract, that 10 percent to 18 percent. You figure a $60,000 mortgage at 18 percent. You've got to have $10,800 in the first year just to cover the right to buy. In a given year, that's $4,800 of buying power snatched out of the hands of the individual. That's unbelievable! You can see what weight that puts.... At $4,800 a year, 12 months in a year, that's $400 a month that I've got to spend, because I've got a $60,000 mortgage, that I didn't plan on spending, nor do I have the strength to spend it, nor did:1 commit myself to spend it. But all of a sudden I am spending it. Guess what I'm not spending it on if I'm spending it on the right to buy. I am not spending it on refrigerators, suits, automobiles, tables and chairs, shoes....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You noticed that, did you?

All of a sudden the buying power that that member was talking about has been lifted out of the hands of the people, where it belongs, and it's done by high interest rates. That's the hump that I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker, which we don't believe is going to last forever. It never has before. However, somebody has got to do something to be sure that every individual in this province has a chance to make it over the hump. There are a few who committed themselves to what some people call 100 percent financing theories. They didn't have any equity in their industry; they didn't have any financial strength. The minute that the cash outflow was greater than the cash inflow, and they didn't have any equity to make up the difference, guess what happened. They had to give up. Some of them have already given up — and I feel bad about it. There are some in my constituency today who are no longer operative because they couldn't make it over the hump.

Somebody has got to do something. That is why this kind of program is necessary. That's one question — my time is racing on and I've got four questions. What have others done to try to help those who can't make it over the hump?

We have our brothers to the east. We have the province of Alberta. They have a heritage fund. That member for Coquitlam-Moody said they've got a heritage fund in Alberta and Saskatchewan. And he said: "How come we don't have a heritage fund in British Columbia?" You want to know why? When those people were in power, and they had the opportunity to put the primary industries on the map, they said: "Let it stay in the ground. Leave it in the ground." When markets were good and we could have sold our primary resource at a markup, which would have returned us a reasonable profit, they said: "Leave it in the ground."

Where is our heritage fund, Mr. Speaker? You know where it is; you're smarter than that. That heritage fund is in the ground, where it was left. Alberta has a program — I don't know whether it is as good as ours — in which they are using the dollars that they put in reserve. Their program is over two years. It is a grant, a subsidy, a net cash outflow to help something like 60,000 small businesses; but it is not recoverable, and it reduces the rate to a fixed rate — 14 1/2 percent. If the hump doesn't last long and interest rates go below 14 1/2 percent, how much help are the people in Alberta going to get? You answer the question. I like our program better, but that is a comparison with what is being done by other people, other jurisdictions.

Enough of that. Who's it going to help? It's going to help that manufacturer in my constituency who is involved in putting together a product that is not put together anywhere else in Canada, or anywhere else in the world. He's putting together a piece of equipment used to make endless single seam corrugated pipelines. It's ingenious. He invented the machine. There is only one problem: it takes forever to build one, and it takes an unbelievable amount of equipment and material. It also takes an unbelievable amount of man-hours to put one together. Add up the material and its cost, the manpower and its cost, as well as the length of time, and by the time that machine is available to be placed with the person or company — like Saudi Arabia, which has ordered one of those machines — it's forever. Somebody has got to provide the financing until you can realize the real value of that equipment.

Under normal circumstances, under a 10 or 12 percent program, it's bearable; the company can operate. Put that together with an interest rate that says you've got to pay 2, 3 or 4 percent above prime, and you've got somebody who can't make it over the hump. That's the kind of individual this program will help. I'm proud of a minister who has the

[ Page 9365 ]

ingenuity, the creative thinking, to say: "Let's find some bucks somewhere that we can make available to these people at a preferred rate so that they can make it over the hump." Because if they don't.... A lot of people in my constitutuency are depending upon that particular manufacturer for their jobs. If they lose their jobs, not only are they not going to be able to pay the $4,800 they didn't expect to pay, but they're not going to be able to pay the part they have to pay to keep a roof over their heads.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fantastic program. Who else is it going to help? It's going to help a processor...the only way I can relate it is to give you an example. I've got a processor in my constituency who provides fresh duck to the Vancouver market. That's d-u-c-k, the ones with wings and a bill.

If somebody says: "Which is correct, Bill or William," you say: "Have you ever heard of a duck with mud on his William?" Bill is right.

These ducks are provided to the Vancouver market — I want you to hear this; sober up, sir — and no one else is providing them to that market. The problem is that the processor has only himself as a supplier. He's has to hatch — at least, somebody has to hatch them — the eggs that some duck somewhere has laid, so that you can have ducklings, and so that these ducklings can grow up into big ducks that he can provide to the market. Time is involved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Which came first, the duck or the egg?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You ask the man out there and he'll tell you which came first.

This processor cannot operate, not because he doesn't have a viable product, not because he doesn't have a viable industry, but because he cannot bear to pay the 18 to 20 percent interest from the time he starts out until the time he can realize the cash return for his product. This kind of program is going to help that kind of processor; it's going to help manufacturing and processing. I'm proud of this program that's been put in place. It's not just the two I've given you as examples; hundreds, maybe thousands, of businesses are going to be assisted by this program.

How long is this program going to last? Is this forever? Is this money that is going to be extended going to be out there forever or is this a recoverable program? It's both. If you look at the bill — and I certainly don't want to transgress the rules of this House — there are several sections in the bill. If I could have the attention of the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), I have some fantastic things to say that I'd like her to hear.

This bill has three distinct parts. One part says that we're going to spend a small portion of the entire provision on those who are in dire straits. I want you to know that they haven't the strength to pay. back any interest, so they are going to have a forgivable loan. But you would expect that any free enterprise government wouldn't have the major portion of the program in that category. Five percent of the entire program is set aside for those in dire straits who have to have help now and who can't possibly make any repayment now. Five percent is for forgivable loans. Then there is a further 10 percent provided for those who can't even afford to pay a reasonable rate of interest — a low-interest investment. Perhaps they can't pay the principal now, but at least they can cover the small amount of interest and accept the responsibility for their share in this recovery program. The greatest percentage by far, 85 percent of the program, is recoverable. That's why I say that our program is better than the Alberta program. This is recoverable. It doesn't teach industry and small business to be reliant upon government. It teaches small business and small industry, medium-sized business and medium-sized industry, what they already know to be the truth — that is that everybody has to accept responsibility for his share in the recovery program on which we are embarked.

I don't know of too many people in the province who are not willing, on this date in late September 1982, to carry their share. There may be a few, but I'm not aware of many. Give it just a few more days, until it dawns on each one of us that this recovery program will work best if everyone puts his shoulder to the plough to make it work. I like this program because it's a teacher in that respect: it's recoverable. Perhaps the dollars recovered can be used again. Who knows? I'm going to leave that to the imagination and creative thinking of the minister who thought up the program in the first place. Anyone who can think up something this good I can trust with it when it's finished.

I think both sides of the House recognize the value of this program. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if every individual in this House supports this program. I think that the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who has a hiatus in his economic thinking.... He doesn't understand that you've got to have more than jobs to have buying power. You have to have disposable income to have buying power. Even that member, I think, will vote in favour of this bill. The quicker it passes this House the quicker we can get on with this recovery program, and the quicker we'll return to the kind of British Columbia to which we had become accustomed, where jobs would be available for everyone and buying power would be left in the hands of those who need it, and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) would have enough money to go home from time to time to visit his constituents.

MR. LEVI: It's very nice to hear from the renewed member for Chilliwack. In the past seven years we've missed those golden nuggets he dropped in debate, his sense of humour, and it's nice to have him get up every now and again and say something. He was coming out with such quasi-Biblical aphorisms as: "Somebody has to do something." A few minutes later he said that everybody has to put himself behind the plough. He can't get over being the Minister of Agriculture — its very difficult for him. He did talk about disposable income, but he forgot to mention that liquor prices just went up 20 percent. That really upsets both you and me, Mr. Speaker. That's going to make some difference to my disposable income.

If you examine the bill very closely, and listened to the minister's introduction, it's actually a piece of creeping socialism. This is the government's first sane attempt to do something about the economy. We've waited the seven years that the government has been in power for it to come up with an economic strategy that would not just tackle one aspect of the economy, or one section of our community, but would look like a plan made up of a number of entities. In the last few days the government has brought down a mortgage plan, a borrowing plan and assistance to the small businessman — seven years afterwards.

I'd like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we all know that somehow we're standing on the brink of an election. The only thing is that I don't think it's ever going to come. We've had

[ Page 9366 ]

so many false dates that I think maybe they've given up on the idea. However, we've had three pieces of an economic plan that took seven years to put together. I refer to the minister, in an endearing fashion, as Old Hiccup — that's how he sees the economic problems in this province. The economic times in this province are tough, but it's just a hiccup. Two weeks ago he couldn't find anybody who was unemployed. Seven years ago he sounded a little bit like the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and kept talking about jobs. The reason he did that was because one of the major planks in his party's platform in the 1975 election, which is so graphic.... This paper of December 3, 1975, with a picture of a very attractive-looking Premier, says: "This province has the people and the resources to lick any problem." That was seven years ago. All the minister has given us is northeast coal. In the body of the advertisement he said: "All it needs is a government to manage its affairs." So they got the government. Then they said: "We're going to put British Columbia to work." That was in 1975. And that's what the Premier said this afternoon in question period. This incredible hiatus! We've been waiting for seven years for the government to do something.

Further on in the advertisement it says: "To do this we'll provide a responsible, well-managed government that will earn the respect of taxpayers, the respect of our worldwide customers, the respect of investment dollars." Well, that's an awful lot of respect. To find out whether in fact they have the respect of the taxpayers, the greatest test the government can make is to call the election. Then we'll find out what they've thought about you since the last election, and in the seven years you've been in power. Then he said: "Social Credit is committed to getting our prime resource industries moving forward again in order to increase tax revenues, and to create jobs and opportunities." That was the plan seven years ago. "We will remove the punitive legislation and restrictions that have frustrated our major employers and stifled expansion. We will restore confidence in British Columbia." The mining market was down then, and it is down today. But we get different explanations from the government.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: If you want to debate, sit in your seat and wait your turn.

He goes on to say: "Our efforts will not be made at the expense of our environment or in reduction of benefits to people. Indeed, only through a healthy economy can we provide more services to our people and more help to those who need it and deserve it." Services to people and assistance. For the first four years all they did was cut them back. They've never quite caught up. This is all in their manifesto. This was their creeping socialist manifesto. "Governments must serve the needs of the community. We will put an end to waste and mismanagement of public funds and stop spending foolishly." We know that didn't happen. To this day we've been dealing with a government that's the biggest in terms of its ministries and its bureaucracy. It's the most expensive we've ever had. It's the most wasteful. It's incapable of managing this economy. That's the major thing we've been able to find out: you are, and have been, absolutely incapable of managing this economy.

We heard from the minister that the important thing about the bill is that we have to. save small businesses. This is not new. Two years ago in this House we debated and had questions in question period about when you were going to do something about the small business sector, when you were going to give them some help. All we got back from over there was: "We are not going to put money in that we don't have. We are not going to run this province into debt and leave a dead-weight burden of debt for the coming generations. We are going to let the free-enterprise system take care of the needs of the people." That statement is fundamental to the difference between that group over there and the group here. We have no great confidence in the free-enterprise system.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Today out there, without even an election, we have some 260,000 people who are unemployed and who also have no confidence in that. And almost at the last minute, here we are repenting. We bring in a bill, and we're going to help the small business people, when over here, over three years ago, we said to them: "It's not MacMillan Bloedel or the companies that BCRIC owns or is thinking of buying that create the new jobs in this province." It's the small business people; they create 60 percent. That's not new. Those figures aren't new, and we didn't discover it yesterday, although one would think that the minister did. He's the great free enterpriser. He constantly said: "Nobody needs any help. Everybody wants to do it on their own." In the best of all perfect worlds, that would be the way it should be. But we don't live in the best of all perfect worlds, because in neither this province nor this country do we have control over the levers that manage our economy. That's the great tragedy. That's the difference in what we say is an approach.

So finally he comes in with a bill that is incomplete, in terms of the benefits that are going to be dispensed. My colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has made the argument: where, other than in manufacturing? After all, the service industry is the major employer in this province; they employ far more people than any other industry. But there is no help there.

My office received three phone calls this morning. Two of them were in service industries, and they want to know about the program. I told them: "Get in touch with BCDC; they're going to administrate it. But if you're in the service industry, don't look for any help; however, phone anyway." Those are the kinds of calls that every MLA is getting. We have people out there — we have debated this in this House endlessly — who have cash-flow problems. Why is it that we have the largest bankruptcy rate in the history of this province? We're not alone. I was recently in the United States, where they have bankruptcies in the same proportion as we have.

Now denying all of the suggestions that came from this side, or just getting up and mouthing this business about being negative or saying: "What suggestions did he have...?"The very thing that we said, in terms of how you help small business people.... It is by giving some help, by providing some money and incentives. Their answer was: "People who are in business do not want any help. They want to do it all by themselves." Suddenly we are faced with this bill. Why is it that they've suddenly discovered that there was logic in the recommendations that were made from this side of the House?

They took their first tentative step two years ago towards a socialist solution. They had a mortgage plan — $200 million.

[ Page 9367 ]

That helped small business people. Housing and the spinoff from housing. Some 5,000 units were built. They got a lot of sales tax, personal tax, and corporate taxes back from that effort. What did it cost? The government had to put $200 million into the mortgage market, pick up the subsidy for the mortgages — which was another $9 million — and the program not only paid for itself but the $200 million is coming back. Then they stopped. They didn't do it again. They didn't really care to examine the validity of doing that kind of government infusion into our economy.

They went back to the old arguments that somehow the free-enterprise system will work. All of them over there said when they answered: "The economy is not going to stay the same. It will improve." Of course it will improve. We know that eventually we'll reach the bottom of the trough and we'll be able to get out of it, but that may take an extended period of time. One of the things that they've found out is that in peaks and troughs, the troughs broaden out, and it's not long until you get into the peaks. In the meantime you face the reality of doing something about the basic question that we have in this province — jobs. It's remarkable. Seven years ago, before this government came to power with all of the rhetoric that they heaped on top of the other government.... They never had more than 110,000 unemployed at the worst times. There was a period in 1973-74 when the unemployment was down to less than 5 percent. But it's been a constant problem with this government. They haven't been able to get below 8 percent. They're constantly in the 10 percent bracket, and nothing happens.

I said to the very noisy Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) during his estimates: "Why not call the forestry committee together, get a group of people forward and ask them to offer suggestions beyond the ones that you can come up with, if you can come up with any at all?" That never happened. He simply became an excuse maker for all of the problems.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development to come to order, and also the member who is not in his seat.

MR. LEVI: Of all the money that went out the back of that so-called truck, not one nickel went to tickets for some crazy musical in New York, or Pouilly Fuisse wine. It went into people's stomachs and made them live better. So don't compare the two, because there's no comparison.

Back to the bill because that's where we have to be.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: What are you talking about? He should withdraw that.

MR. LEVI: What did he say?

MS. SANFORD: He said it went to marijuana.

MR. LEVI: Marijuana. The minister said it went to marijuana. Don't worry about it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Seriously, if a comment from a member has offended another member....

MR. LEVI: No, I'm not offended. My gosh, what could I expect? There's a minister who's got an IQ of 89 when it's a hot day, What are we talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Now we're really getting unparliamentary. That is a personal allusion.

MR. LEVI: Tit for tat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to take his seat or withdraw from the chamber. I'm sure he is aware of that.

MR. LEVI: Let's go back to the bill. The minister, in closing the debate, should explain in more specific terms the question put to him by my colleague: why is it only the manufacturing industry? Look at the figures, look at the analyses; he knows where the jobs are created. If the manufacturing industry at the moment is on the low ebb because the economy isn't moving, because the major industrial enterprises in our province are shut down, what is wrong with also looking at the service side of our economy, which is soon to become the largest part of the economy anyway? It is very high still. There is no indication in this bill at all. That's its great shortcoming.

I This is coupled with a number of efforts that the government is going to make, but they are predicated on one basic theory, one which for seven years that minister has denied they would ever do because it's not the Social Credit way. It's all based on debt. These are the people who years ago called debt contingent liability. But we know today, even before we get into this or the mortgage program, which has got to be a spinoff for small business, that it's debt; it's deficit financing. Soon we'll probably be legitimizing that. I won't get into the other legislation before the House. That's how long it's taken it to come from really what must be considered a crazy ivory tower that they live in at the top of the free enterprise system, in which they say the government has no role in the economy, can make no infusion into improving things, yet denying....

I'm sure the minister doesn't read any of the Gallup polls

I know they're reading a lot of polls right now — but Gallup has been saying for three years that more than 60 percent of the people in this country believe governments can assist in the business community, that they should be involved in doing that kind of infusion of capital. When they say that, what they're doing in fact is rejecting the basic free enterprise principle that somehow the market will take care of itself. The essential part of the market has not been taking care of itself because investment has been low. Then, of course, we have the world crisis. I don't find, Mr. Speaker, in examining this bill in respect to small business, at this time it is any different than it was nine or ten years ago in this province. Regardless of what the minister might say about the previous government, the reality is that we were always touched by world economics. Everybody has problems. The only comparison you can make is the degree to which a problem affects individuals in terms of employment and small business, and that's what we're dealing with.

The comparison is that things are worse now than they were before. That's not to say that previous government is going to take some pride, and this one's going to hang its head. The key question is do something about it! That's what we've been saying over here for seven years. Don't get up in

[ Page 9368 ]

debate and trickle out this terrible rhetoric and poison that comes out from time to time. We're all in this together, so we can have a reasonable debate about what the problem is. Let the minister get off his arm-waving. Let him say to himself as Minister of Economic Development in this province.... It's a sad thing when he says, in a joking fashion, that our economic problems are just a hiccup. They're not just a hiccup; they're a very bad case of pneumonia. The only remedy right now is for the government to do something about it. I know that comes very hard for many members over there. Some of them were in business, but we have people over here who were in business. My friend the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) came here because he wanted to get away from socialism. He says we don't believe in ownership of land. My god, what's the matter with him? I own a home; my colleagues own homes. They take one statement and turn it around, and that's the basis of their argument in laying down that their philosophy is better than ours. It's not a basis for an argument at all. It's not accurate, and it really has nothing to do with the problems the province is facing.

The solution is something else. This solution is a partial socialist solution that's been talked about on this side of the House for seven years. There is a role for government to assist, but unfortunately it falls terribly short, particularly in a major part of the small business sector. The minister was committed to only one plan, northeast coal, and from that was going to flow all of the spinoff that was going to create all of the business those people would need. Well, we know it hasn't worked. It's the one big megaproject, the quick fix, and in the meantime, while ministers have stood up in this House and read off every year.... I notice they haven't done it this year. Last year 15,429 new businesses were registered in the province. We haven't heard anything this year. They know they can't say that.

It's not a pleasure to be able to speak back to them about how many bankruptcies we have and how many people's lives are ruined. We asked them earlier to help those people, make provisions for cash flow and talk to the banks and the real estate people and the mortgage people. We said it three years ago, two years ago and a year ago, and we got no answer. All of sudden, as in a deathbed repentance, they come in with great piles of legislation. This is one of them, and it falls short. As I said before, it's all based on debt. I don't know whether the minister's mouth is a little ashen-tasting because he's having to swallow some the things he denied several years ago. He's always denied it.

If governments have no role in the free enterprise system and people want to help themselves, why are they suddenly deciding to help people? It must be a coincidence — there must be an election coming down the pike. It's done with a great deal of cynicism, and people are treating it with a great deal of cynicism. In this one we have grants and forgivable loans, and in another program you have to pay it back. Where's the logic? You give it to some people, and you make some people pay it back. There's no great overall plan; it's as if several pieces of sticking-plaster have been put over the economy. There is no cohesive plan for what they're going to do after the implementation of this program, which falls far short.

We have waited seven years for ministers to get up when their estimates are on and spend 20 minutes or half an hour talking about their philosophy, where they want to go in terms of their ministries, and where the government wants to go. We've never heard a thing. We have never had a comprehensive statement from any member on that side of the House about how they view the economy, how they view long-term planning and what they're prepared to do. Everything has been done in a crisis. It denies what the plan was when they set out. "We're going to put B.C. back to work," they said in 1975. "To do this, we'll provide responsible, well-managed government that will earn the respect of taxpayers, the respect of our worldwide customers and the respect of investment dollars." What happened? Three years ago what could the small business sector have done with the $16 million that the former Minister of Health washed down a rat-hole about some stupid program?

The hard-nosed Social Credit philosophy is based on no deadweight debt for future generations. In seven years they have doubled the deadweight debt on every citizen in this province, an I d if they get their way in the next little while with the bills they've brought in, I don't know where we'll be, if they haven't got a plan to go with all that money they're going to put their hands on. If this bill is an example of the plans.... It's incomplete, because it only deals with one aspect of the small business community. The minister should look at it again. It's not too late; we haven't passed the bill. He can bring in amendments to involve the service sector. Don't keep viewing only the manufacturing sector.

Look at the unemployment figures in respect to both sides of that economy, service and manufacturing. Look at them and do something. Don't ignore the most significant part of the economy. As things move they improve; then the major interest in terms of assistance will go to the industrial people. At the moment the service-industry people, the so-called mom-and-pop stores — all of those people who are crashing every day.... It's a great tragedy that that happens, and the bill falls far short of that. It's something; it's not everything, but it's something. Sure, it has to be voted for, but it's incomplete. That's why you have to have an opposition — to point these things out. It's tragically incomplete. I would hope that when the minister gets up he will understand that.

It would be different from what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) was saying if the government had a philosophy that the Premier was an individual that would be able to go around and encourage people, as he said, to put their weight behind the plough. Not one of them over there is capable of doing that kind of leadership. The minister of economic development's long-thought-out explanation for the state of the economy is to shrug his shoulders, wave his arms, and say: "It's a hiccup." How can one really have any confidence in a government that makes those kinds of ridiculous, spurious observations about it? That's how they view the economy. Then they come in with the bill, and we've got another bill out here, and then they've got something else. Then they've got the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Curtis) saying one thing about one bill and the Premier saying something else about the bill. I doubt very much if the Minister of Finance even saw the bill.

Nobody knows what's going on over there. There are more rumours flying about this place in the last three months than there have in the last 13 years that I've been here. My gosh, every day there's a rumour. Yes, we're going to have an election, no, we're going to have a bill that's going to help small business.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I heard you're after Barrett's job.

[ Page 9369 ]

MR. LEVI: There we are. I want your job, never mind Barrett's job. Boy, I want you badly, baby.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where is he?

MR. LEVI: He's over at the UBCM, that's where he is. Where's your minister? Is he over there? Or didn't they invite him again?

MR. RITCHIE: He's been gone all week.

MR. LEVI: He hasn't been gone all week. He's so slim these days you don't even notice when he comes into the House. He's been here every day.

The low-interest loan aspect of this bill. The minister's had a program called LILA; that's not new. LILA's been there right since 1976 — low-interest loans. So what's new about it? That's the key thing. It's new, it's different, and it's inadequate, and that's the major criticism.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister to explain to us in more detail than he did when he opened the bill exactly why it is that he's gone this narrow route in terms of this piece of legislation, and has not dealt with the people that every member of this Legislature has to deal with almost every day: people who have very small businesses and who need some assistance. It misses those people completely. He has an obligation to tell us that. We want to be able to say to these people that there is some hope out there for you.

This morning I spoke to two of them and said: "The only suggestion I can make to you at the moment is to call BCDC" — I presume they now have a number that is going to answer these inquiries — "and find out just whether you can get any help. And I will undertake" — as I told them when I was speaking to them this afternoon — "to point out to them that the major shortcoming of the bill is it will not cover those people." It's not a question of money, because you're making all sorts of provisions to lay your hands on more money than was ever created. You've found the Midas touch now. You've suddenly muffiered everything that you've said over the last seven years, and you're going to dig real deep into the pot, and we'll never hear about the dead weight of debt on the next generation. It's about time they came to this kind of consideration.

I would urge the minister to tell us why this bill is so narrow. Let's give some hope out there for thousands of small business people who need some help at some time. Then I'll feel real good about supporting this bill. I feel that it's inadequate. If from time to time you were to bring in a piece of legislation that we could in a very fulsome way vote for, we'd vote for it, and you'd get the credit. Right now you get only 50 percent of the marks because you're only dealing with a little less than half of the business community. I'd ask the minister, in closing the debate, to tell us whether he is prepared to change his mind and reconsider this, in view of all the arguments that have been put forward. Don't just listen to your own members, because they've just repeated what you've said. You're getting practical, positive suggestions from over here; do something about the rest of the people in the small business economy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill, I'm going to begin by quoting an outstanding Canadian. "Let us confess the truth: in self-confidence and self-confidence alone, we have gone downhill since 1867." These were the words of Bruce Hutchison when he wrote of Canada's centenary. It's strange that the people of a nation that was founded on boldness, hope and very little else should from time to time show a serious lack of faith in themselves. What we're doing in this country and province is, unfortunately, showing a very serious lack in ourselves in these past months, when we have been challenged by a world recession in a province that has the most remarkable natural resources. The most remarkable of all is the natural resource of our people. When people lose their confidence and sense of direction, then something must be done by some area in the province, or in that community, to give them hope and confidence and a sense of direction. I'd like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development for bringing to us in this House a formula for success for those people who are in that position today in the small business community.

Members on both sides of this House have said that the small businessmen and business women in our province are the backbone of our community. I think we can say that although we don't often have unanimous opinion in this House, both sides of the House look with great respect and admiration to those people who put their lives on the line each and every day, open the door of a small shop and greet their few employees — sometimes one, sometimes two, fifteen, perhaps three, whatever. They keep the doors open each and every day, and at the end of the week perhaps — just perhaps — they'll be able to have a day off and be in their homes with their families, and then start it all over the following week. Most of them don't have the luxury of even a five-day week; they usually give it their all, and they usually give such a tremendous amount of activity just to keep other people working. Many people of this House have been there, and they know what an effort it is. But in the past few months, when the forces that are at play in this country and worldwide have come to wreak their havoc in this nation and on this total North American continent and throughout the world, those businesses have suffered.

This bill addresses a very insecure part of our B.C. economy, those in the past who have had a tremendous capability of keeping their heads above water. I want to give credit to those people who started with very little capital and, with just their efforts and their faith in this province, have been able to keep people working for a very long time in this province. This bill comes at a time when those people need a sense of confidence and a sense of direction.

The member who has just taken his seat talks back six or seven years; I have just quoted back to 1867. He talks back six or seven years when he tells us that the people of the province have been shortchanged because of this government. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are people working in small business today, getting their paycheques at the end of the week, opening the doors of the small businesses throughout the province and serving the people in the service sector and in other more basic industries in small manufacturing, simply because of the fact that we have had an economic blueprint in this province which stands us in good stead right this moment, right this year, right this month,

If it were not for the economic blueprint of this government, there would not be men with hard hats working on northeast coal, Mr. Speaker. If it were not for the economic blueprint of this government, there would not be men and women taking paycheques as they build in the city of Vancouver the most effective stadium that this North American

[ Page 9370 ]

continent will see. If it were not for the economic blueprint of this government, we would not have an ALRT, with people working today, last week, tomorrow and next month, building a communications and transportation system which will see more housing built in the lower mainland of British Columbia, around the Vancouver area. If it were not for the economic blueprint of this government for this past seven years, we would not have people working in those areas and small business flourishing in some areas of this province. So I can reject entirely the argument that has just been made.

I'd also like to say to the member who has now left the chamber, but who made the point.... The service industry surrounding those areas which I have just mentioned, and I have only just mentioned a few.... We can go on to talk about the initiatives in Nanaimo by this same minister, whose responsibility is this bill before the House. We can talk about the initiatives that have happened in Terrace; we can talk about the initiatives that have happened in Prince Rupert. Just the ones that I have mentioned — all of the hotels, all of the restaurants, all of the small businesses, the little manufacturing places that are manufacturing things to put into the stadium and ALRT, all of those people.... All of the small businesses and the service industries which the member is asking about are all working attached to those projects; they are spinoffs.

We know, too, that the bill that was before our House earlier is going to address itself to giving help to small business as well, and the service industries which that member has just made a plea for — that is, the landscapers, the contractors, the painters, the wallpaper people, and all of those people who will be attached to the homebuilding which will be created by the mortgage program that was introduced and passed in this House earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of things in this bill; I don't think they've been mentioned by other members that have been on their feet. In relation to my responsibility for the Ministry of Human Resources, I want you to know that this bill is very important to the people whom we serve and who a very large portion of our ministry serves with income assistance. All of those endeavours which this bill will seek to help — all of those industries and businesses — are the very businesses which will give assistance and work to those who find themselves on income assistance or on welfare when they do not want to be on income assistance or welfare. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that's the majority of the people who are on income assistance.

What we have in this bill is a reinforcement of the ideal of having businesses that can in some way or another help people either on a part-time or a full-time basis. It will create employment. It is the kind of employment which our people who use, and come from, income assistance, and who want to work.... Sometimes they don't have some of the skills that they could use, and sometimes they need the kind of job which they can just fit into by walking into the job. I really think that because of that, this is very important to our ministry. It will give us an opportunity for small business to employ a great number of our Ministry of Human Resources clients and provide the kind of casual, part-time work which our clients very often need in order to assist in the raising of their families.

Also, this bill, as we have all said, is addressing small business, which really drives the engine of economic growth in this province and in this nation. There are far more small business people than there are big forest companies and big mining companies and large industries, which we have traditionally relied upon.

It also pays tribute to the fact that when those businesses lay off and are in a recession, huge blocs of people are laid off all at once. In helping small business, we will be able to help businesses which will be able to give the continuity of assistance and work to many employees. Instead of large layoffs, they will have people being hired in small businesses to give them a sense of security.

I want to talk also about a comment that was made this morning in the House. It was in reference to the megaprojects which I have spoken about. I think it's a misnomer to say megaprojects. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) was on his feet this morning and said that our government had a fanaticism, I think was his expression, for megaprojects. If we have a fanaticism for megaprojects, we have a fanaticism for job creation. B.C. Place, the stadium, the ALRT and northeast coal are all good, sound projects. If we didn't have that economic blueprint and weren't building those things today, the men and women wearing hard hats who are working on those projects — driving trucks, constructing those projects — would not be working today. We have paycheques in pay envelopes for people at work. That's what those megaprojects are doing in the province of British Columbia.

I'm interested to know that we're in the midst of a debate on the economy. It's fascinating that we are, because as I'm speaking there are only two people from the opposition in the House. For the past week they have been crying for a debate on the economy. In fact, there are resolutions on the order paper asking for a debate on the economy. The opportunity is very clearly here in this bill. I am very surprised.

We cannot underestimate what this bill can do for the people of British Columbia, coupled with some of the other initiatives we've announced that are already being enacted — the ones I've mentioned; also the ones already on the drawing board or presently going through the House. It seems to me that we cannot underestimate the effect they can have on the economy of British Columbia,

In the past few days a letter was put out by the Royal Bank. I noticed that one of their spokesmen, Mr. T.W. Bleockley, has been quoted in the newspaper as seeing "a very chipper future." What a great headline, after all the doom and gloom. For the past 14 or 15 months you would have thought that those who produced the television news and wrote the headlines for the daily papers were all members of the New Democratic Party, because they sounded consistent with them. It's exciting to see a headline saying that a banker sees a chipper future. Mr. Bleockley said: "To suggest Canada's economy is somehow beyond repair, that we are on an inevitable slide to economic ruin, is absolute nonsense."

I'd like to quote from another commentary by that same bank:

"A nation founded on boldness, hope and precious little else" — this is in reference to Canada — "...then there are Canada's abundant natural re sources, which continue to hold great potential for the future. Historically the discovery and development of the natural riches of this harsh and inhospitable land have been among the stiffest challenges Canadians have had to surmount. We should never forget that the national bounty in which we all indirectly share would have remained in the ground and under the water if our

[ Page 9371 ]

pioneers had not risked their lives, limbs and money to release it from the hard grip of nature. Canada's good fortune in this respect was not given, it was earned.

"To discover the reserves of strength in themselves, present-day Canadians could do worse than look back to those who have come this way before them. These were the people who shot the rapids, climbed the mountains, cleared the forests, dug the mines, broke the sod, and built the dams. They did not let adversity get them down for long. How could they, in a land of such ruggedness and loneliness, such cruel weather, such endless distances to conquer? They had an abundance of the combination of faith and hope that makes confidence. When they came together to form a nation, critics called it a triumph of confidence over common sense."

Before us is a bill that only calls on us to draw on the best of the people we have, the good people in the province — the small business person in the province, those who strive each and every day but who are having a little bit of a problem with having that sense of confidence that our forefathers had in building this country. Surely it isn't asking too much of the opposition to be excited and enthused about giving some assistance to them to get them over this very difficult time. It's difficult for them; it's difficult for everyone in this province.

If we can get through these next few months, we can once again see ourselves in that position. How can we lose that position? Those of us who know we are in the most blessed part of the North American continent, where the opportunities for the Pacific Rim are right at our feet.... We are in the best place, at the best time in Canada's history, because the challenges and opportunities ahead for our young people are there to the east of us. We are in the right place at the right time to take advantage of them. It is really western Canada's time. There is no question of that.

So we have a delay before we can take full advantage of that. This bill says: "We will help you through that time — that little delay." This bill says: "Yes, we expect repayment, as good sound British Columbians with faith in the future of this province, the same faith that had you invest in your small business. You're going to be able to pay that back; we're going to give you a break on the interest rate. We're going to be able to assist you in that regard." There is no question that this bill will give a lift to their spirits and a lift to their sense of confidence going into the future of this province. We can't underestimate, as I said, the good news that this brings, and the psychological impact, because we have unquestionably put ourselves and this nation in the position that the consumer in this province and in this nation will determine when this recession is over. What we need is that sense of confidence back. What this minister has brought to us in this bill has been that sense of confidence, that lift that we need.

So, Mr. Speaker, could I just say that I'm pleased for those people whom I serve in the province, those people who need special assistance. They will have special opportunities now because of this bill. I'm pleased for the small business people who have really tried very hard to keep going and are having a little difficulty. This, coupled with those other initiatives that we have taken, will have us on the road to recovery in a very short time. I predict that this province, which was the last province to feet the recession across this nation, will be the first province to get out of the recession.

I quoted Bruce Hutchison as I began my few remarks on this bill. I'd like to say that in taking some of the statements that have been made by Mr. Hutchison in the past, both from his book and these statements that have been done by the Royal Bank — which we have found in not as large a quantity as the negative statements over the years.... We have seen some people who have had the vision which our forefathers had for this country; we have seen a few spokesmen in that regard. I would hope that in this House we can put aside those kinds of political differences for the good of the people, because that is why we're in this House.

The members talked about having an election and rumours abound that there may be one, Mr. Speaker. I guess there just may well be. There's bound to be one some time between the last election and when our mandate expires after five years, which will give us until 1984. Every time we come in with a bill that's as good as this one, we're accused of going to an election or having an election. I recall many bills that this Social Credit government has put forward in this past six or seven years when we were told that it was an election gimmick. If it's an election gimmick, so be it. Let the people of British Columbia benefit from all the election kind of legislation that we can possibly put before them, because that was what we were sent here to do — to do good for the people of British Columbia.

So may I once again congratulate this minister who has brought this bill to the House, and congratulate all those who will get up and vote for this bill. I hope that it will be unanimous in this House. But with some of the statements that have been made by members of the opposition, I am afraid that perhaps political things will get in the way, and we may not have unanimity on this bill. So let us hope that if that is the case, those people who built the country and have left us a fantastic legacy will not be disappointed by us on this side of the House. Let us go forward, in the words of Mr. Hutchison, "with boldness, with faith, with hope." If ever there was a time that the people of this province needed boldness, faith, hope and leadership, it is certainly today during this downturn in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support this bill and the government's initiative to bring forward a bill which has so much optimism in it. I would hope that all members of this House would put forward a very positive vote in support of it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I was really interested to listen to the comments not of the previous speaker but of the one before, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), as he spoke in support of this legislation. As I listened to some of the virulent and partisan comments he made, I kept reminding myself that not long ago in his role as Speaker of the House he was expected by this Legislature to make nonpartisan decisions and rulings on matters affecting it. I just want to say that his speech certainly made a mockery of any ideas we might have had that he was being fair or nonpartisan at any time during the term of his office in that role.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With the greatest respect, a comment about the behaviour of the Chair would be unparliamentary, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: No, I was commenting on the behaviour of the Minister of Agriculture.

[ Page 9372 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's fine. Thank you.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation.... I'm sorry that while it's being debated the minister responsible is not in the House. As the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) just pointed out, we've been trying to get a debate on the economy going for some time, ever since we were brought back to the Legislature under false pretences to vote for the Social Credit welfare legislation to give themselves some more seats in the next election. Now that we've finally got a debate going on the economy there are only two government members over there, and the minister responsible for this bill is not even interested enough to be in the House. Of course, we have to remind ourselves that on the three or more occasions when we tried to get permission for a debate on the economy those members of the government over there voted no, so it doesn't surprise us one bit that now that we are debating the economy there are only two government members in the House and the minister responsible for this legislation is not even interested enough to be here.

I wanted to say a few words about what this legislation does not do for the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. Most of the small businesses in Burnaby-Edmonds fall into the service sector. They are retail, laundry, repairs, restaurants, some real estate, women's dress shops, shoe repairs, comer drugstores, those kinds of things. There are some that will benefit. Some are into manufacturing, and maybe high technology; I'm not sure, I haven't come across any of those yet. But mostly they're in the service sector, and they're not going to benefit one bit from this legislation. The minister responsible knows that, because in July this year — I think it was July 12 — he received a letter from Mr. Laurie Taylor, the president of Burnaby Kawasaki, explaining his particular dilemma and why it was so important that some kind of relief be introduced by the government on behalf of the small business sector in the service area to slow down the number of them who were sliding into receivership and bankruptcy. This is the response that that sector of small business is receiving — absolutely nothing.

Mr. Taylor pointed out that he started out on April 1, 1971, as a one-person operation selling Kawasaki motorcycles. By working six days a week, very long hours, taking incredible financial risks, doing all the things he was told spell success under the private enterprise system, he managed to build his business up. He ended up with three stores and a total of 27 employees. As a matter of fact, he was doing so well that in April he was voted Dealer of the Year and was regarded as the largest Kawasaki motorcycle dealership in all Canada. He wrote all this in the letter he sent to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, so the minister knows it.

He pointed out that it's been a struggle; he's been hanging on by his fingernails. But because he believes in the private enterprise system he continued to work six days a week, to take financial risks, to go without holidays.... I think he said he has had one holiday of two and a half weeks in the last three years. But now he found himself on the verge of bankruptcy. He wrote to the minister because he had just received his tax notice from the municipality, which, as a direct result of this government's policy and practices, had been forced to increase his taxes by 35 percent. He pointed out in the letter that in 1981 he had paid $6,882.12 in taxes. He had just received his tax notice. This year he was going to have to pay $9,259.22 — an increase of 34.54 percent on his municipal tax alone. In addition, his hydro rates had increased, as had a number of other service fees — such as his business licence — levied on him by this government. He was being forced to the verge of bankruptcy not by what the previous speaker, the Minister of Human Resources, referred to as the "forces at play around the world"; he was being forced almost into bankruptcy by this government, directly through the increases in their fees and taxes which were being levied on him, so much so that he now found himself having to close one of his stores, on the verge of closing another, and reducing his staff to something like 13. He said he was going to try to operate with a skeleton crew. Even so, he couldn't guarantee that he would be able to keep them working fulltime; they'd probably have to go on a seasonal basis or work part-time. In his letter he referred to himself as "treading water" — not as a result of international forces at play, but as a direct result of fees and taxes levied on him by that government.

He took pen to paper and wrote the minister a letter asking that there be some tax relief, that there be some program introduced that would help people like him, who believed in the system, to stay afloat. He pointed out that his credit rating was so good that when he borrowed from the bank he got bank rate, plus prime. He also pointed out that property values had been dropping, including those of the properties that he had his own business in, over the last nine months and that he really needed some assistance.

When this bill was first introduced, the first thing I thought was: "Thank goodness. Maybe Mr. Taylor will be able to open up all his three stores again and rehire the employees who would have been laid off." There would be 27 people in Burnaby back at work. But I read the bill. There is no assistance whatsoever in this bill for Mr. Taylor or for any other of those small business enterprises involved in what is referred to as a service sector — the little laundries, the corner stores, retail stores, the restaurants.

One of the largest restaurants in Burnaby, which used to serve lunch and dinner.... A treat for the residents of Burnaby was to go there for a smorgasbord dinner on Sunday evening. Less than two months ago, when my family and I tried to go there for dinner, we found that they weren't serving dinner there any more. They were having to cut back and lay off their staff. Now the only time they were open was during lunchtime. They served a lunch, and that was it. They could not afford to continue the excellent service they had been giving the residents of Burnaby. They were feeling the pinch of the large increase in their municipal taxes, in hydro and other utility rates, in their business licence and other government fees. They were being forced to retrench, to cut back and try to operate on a skeleton crew. They would have welcomed some assistance in this legislation, but there's absolutely nothing in the bill for them.

The little dress shops, the flower shops: the plant shops, signs of bankruptcy and closing out. Some are businesses that had been in existence for over 25 years. Others are staying open, but going further and further into debt to the bank each month while they do so. They were looking to the government for some assistance and relief. Most of the problems they're facing are not the result of international forces at play, but the direct result of being overtaxed and overburdened as a result of the financial policies of this government. There's no relief in this legislation for them. I'm hoping that when the minister stands to close debate, he will explain to us why.

[ Page 9373 ]

What was the reasoning behind his decision not to help this very important part of the small business community? Why did he decide to ignore the service sector?

In her speech, the Minister of Human Resources said this bill is going to be really great for the people for whom she is responsible. She talked about people on welfare who would rather work. She's right. I know that people on welfare would rather work than receive income assistance. They are not working, for the most part, because they have not been able to find jobs. As a direct result of this government's policies there are, we are told — in the statistics bulletins coming out of the Ministry of Labour — 84,000 fewer jobs in the province today than when this government took office in 1979. We also know, by looking at the statistics coming out of Human Resources, that the largest increase in people going on to income assistance is for single, employable males. Men who want to work and can't find work are showing the largest percentage increase in terms of now applying for income assistance. If we look at the statistics coming out of the ministry we find, for example, that in June 1981 there were 17, 942 single males receiving income assistance in this province; in June 1982, that number had risen to 26, 326 single. We're also told that British Columbia registered the largest number of people going on to unemployment insurance in Canada last month: a 94 percent increase, a direct result of losing their jobs through layoffs, cutbacks, plant closures or whatever.

The other thing we know — and I know the minister will not deny this — is that most of the people who work in Canada work for small businesses. The small business community is responsible for the creation of more jobs than anyone else, with the possible exception of the Social Credit bureaucracy. So when the minister and the government turn their backs on small business, they are deliberately deciding that it is cheaper for the government to keep people on welfare and unemployment insurance than to create jobs so that they can work. There's something hypocritical in having one government member stand up and say people would rather work than be on welfare, and another government member doing absolutely nothing about the creation of jobs. As a matter of fact, a third government member, the Minister of Finance, is taxing the small business community out of existence, thereby ensuring a further loss of jobs. There are 84,000 fewer jobs in this province as a direct result of Social Credit policies and Social Credit actions, not as the result of international forces at play, as the Minister of Human Resources would like us to believe.

When we look at the statistics coming out of the Ministry of Human Resources, and the number of family heads who would rather be working but who are being forced to apply for income assistance — 37,995 in July of this year; single parent heads, 25,252.... As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you add the dependants to that, we find that this government would rather support 152,000 people on income assistance than create jobs so that those people can work and support themselves.

This piece of legislation could have addressed itself to that matter. Assistance to the small business sector which is being forced into bankruptcy and foreclosure as a direct result of being overtaxed by this government could have brought some relief under this piece of legislation. They were not assisted; there is nothing at all for them.

Another thing that this government does, Mr. Speaker, which is really quite interesting is that the small business community — even those who do manage to survive and stay in existence — is continually being double-crossed by this government in terms of jobs being exported rather than being allowed to remain in the province here. I have a letter from Mr. Watson of Watson Mobile Home Sales in Burnaby, who would have benefited if, when he applied for one of the contracts to supply homes on the Tumbler Ridge project, he had been accepted. What happens, Mr. Speaker....

MR. KEMPF: What happened to your red dress?

MS. BROWN: I am discussing the dilemma of the small business community in Burnaby; the member for Omineca is asking me what happened to my red dress. I want this to be on the record, so I hope that Hansard is reporting it, that when I rose on the floor of the Legislature to bring to the government's attention the dilemma of the small business community in Burnaby-Edmonds, the only questions put to me were about where my red dress was. I hope Hansard has made a note of that, because that, my friend, is going to get into the hands of a lot of the small business community in Burnaby. The minister sat through all of that. He's now reprimanding his irresponsible colleague.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: He's congratulating him. If the government paid as much attention to the needs of the people of British Columbia as they paid to the clothes I wear, I think the people of British Columbia would benefit.

However, the decision was made not to support the application of Watson Mobile Home Sales on Kingsway for the contract for housing at Tumbler Ridge. That contract went to an Alberta company. So not only is there overtaxation, not only are they overburdened by government fees and licences, but even when it is possible for them to compete for contracts here in British Columbia the government does absolutely nothing to assist them to win those contracts, and the jobs are exported out of the province. The contract for the mobile homes went to Alberta. Watson Mobile Home Sales in Burnaby, which submitted an application, went by the boards: they lost the contract.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, in discussing this piece of legislation I want to remind you that this is the minister and the ministry which, as one of their first acts after taking office, wiped out the women's economic rights branch. Just to refresh your memory about some statistics, Mr. Speaker, all the statistics that we have point out, first of all, that most of the poor people in this country, as in this province, are women. In 1982 Stats Canada told us that as far as incomes are concerned, women average half the income — working women that is — that men do. So keeping, that kind of information in mind, Mr. Speaker, in 1973, the then Minister of Industrial Development introduced the women's economic rights branch, including within its mandate assistance to women who wanted to open their own small business.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The position was never set up, so don't give me that malarkey.

[ Page 9374 ]

MS. BROWN: Not only was the position set up, but there was also a person in that job. Eileen Caner was a director of the women's economic rights branch, which was introduced in November 1973. I can't believe that the minister doesn't even know that much about his ministry. On November 8, 1973, she was appointed director of the women's economic rights branch. Part of the responsibility of that branch was to assist women who wanted to go into small business or who were in business and having problems keeping their heads above water or who wanted to expand. That was part of the mandate; that was one way of dealing with the poverty that so many women in this province experienced.

I One of the very first acts of that minister, when he took over his portfolio, was to wipe out the women's economic rights branch. He was questioned about it, and he explained that they would be fitted under something known as a socioeconomic analysis unit, the economic analysis and research bureau. Put them under that umbrella and the job would be done. Obviously it wasn't done. If that branch had done the job, the minister would have had the information that would have told him that any kind of legislation to assist small business, if it is really to be of benefit to women, has to include assistance to the service sector of the small business community. It has to include assistance to the retail businesses — laundries, restaurants, corner stores, dress shops, shoe-repair stores. That's where most of the women are: in the service-sector component of the small business community. If the Minister of Industry had not been so anxious to destroy the women's economic rights branch...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How can you destroy something that was never there in the first place?

MS. BROWN: ...which was introduced on November 8, 1973, and whose director was Mrs. Eileen Caner, if the minister had not been in such a hurry, as have other ministers in his government, to immediately start eroding any kind of assistance or service to the women of this province, he would have had the information that would have made him include in this legislation to help the small business community assistance for the service sector as well. By wiping out the women's economic rights branch, he lost statistical information, because part of its mandate was to monitor and to prepare statistics and information for the ministry. He has also lost the review of available programs that do exist for women and any understanding of the gaps that exist and the need for the assistance they must have.

What we have is an instance of chickens coming home to roost. The minister has made this very serious mistake. Today, in 1982, we have legislation with a very serious flaw in it — a direct result of his actions in 1976 and again in 1979, when he phased it into the socioeconomic analysis unit, the economic analysis and research bureau. It disappeared from the face of the earth after that.

So I am hoping that when the minister stands up to close this debate he will tell us that he has amended the legislation so that any assistance in it will be extended to cover the service sector. Manufacturing and processing, high technology, and resource-related transportation is too narrow. It just doesn't cover most of the small business community in Burnaby-Edmonds, as I pointed out. There is some manufacturing and processing there, but for the most part they are service industry people who are feeling the pinch of overtaxation and increases in business licences. As a matter of fact, I think it was the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses which documented something in the neighbourhood of 131 such increases in excess of the current inflation figure.

When the minister rises to close the debate I hope we will find that he has amended the legislation to broaden its mandate to include the service sector. He's nodding his head in agreement; I hope that means he has seen the light. By doing so he will be helping the people about whom the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) spoke: the 151,000 people presently in receipt of income assistance. He would do something about the 94 percent increase in people receiving unemployment insurance, and it certainly would be of benefit to small business in Burnaby and to the many women who depend on the service sector for employment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it's been a good debate from this side of the House, but not too much has emanated from the socialist benches, as I had rather anticipated. They're so full of "me too" lately that it's astounding. They're going to support the bill, but they want a little more added to it. It's very interesting, because they thought there was going to be an election last spring. So they came out with what you might call a great economic program to woo business: let's get moving. What's the date? March 26, 1982.

When I say "me too," it's amazing, because I've gone over this economic program that they unveiled to woo the business community, and there was not one single, solitary word in their whole program about assisting the small business community with lower interest rates. Yet, by gosh, today you'd think they had invented it and that it wasn't big enough. They came out with the great NDP economic program to woo the business community. There was not one single Word in there about assisting small business with lower interest rates.

I had to listen with a great deal of interest to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who, when the socialists were government in that short time between 1972 and 1975, rambled on tirelessly about the small business community. He mainly brought up questions that I had already answered in the House yesterday afternoon. That has been typical of the debate for the last three or four years. The NDP do not stay in the House; they do not listen to the debate. Then they come in from outside, wherever they hide, under the telephone books in their offices, and go over the same things that have been explained to them time and time again in the House.

If I may be so bold as to say so, Mr. Speaker, I think they're over at the University of British Columbia trying to find some socialist students. The pendulum is swinging, not only in British Columbia but all over North America. Young, intelligent people today are sick and tired of socialism. Young people growing up today are sick and tired of union bosses and unions, when they can't get a job in their own province. The socialists over there and the NDP union bosses have been in bed together so long that they're almost one.

The NDP are a little tired today and a little scared that an election is going to be called. The union coffers are down a little bit, and they may not have all those union stewards out driving around in union cars, putting union gas in them and going all over the province. I think they're a little concerned. They're going through the phone book, phoning their constituents who have children in UBC and saying: "How come your young son, your young daughter, is no longer a socialist? What happened?" You can peddle that stuff only so long.

[ Page 9375 ]

The young, intelligent people who are going to our universities and schools today are not buying your socialism any longer.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to reiterate, for the benefit of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who has just arrived in the Legislature from his busy, busy duties, that when the NDP laid out their economic recovery program last March — when they thought there was going to be an election, they brought out a 26-point program — there wasn't one word about helping with the interest rates that the small business community was suffering. Now that we're bringing it in, they're saying: "Oh my gracious. We want more. We want it enlarged." You'd think it was their idea. But that's typical of them — not one word. I'll have a little something to say about this later.

Do you know where they're going to get some of the money for this economic recovery program of theirs?

MR. RITCHIE: Out of the trees.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, they're going to get it out of the petroleum industry. What a laugh! The socialists who supported the socialists in Ottawa to drive the petroleum industry out of British Columbia. Talk about a heritage fund. They have driven the heritage funds from all of Canada, not only British Columbia but even the poor province of Alberta. The socialist philosophy, and getting in bed with Marc Lalonde, who was the Minister of Energy, drove the petroleum industry out of Canada at a time when we needed new petroleum resources. That's the type of experience we had in this province between 1972 and 1975. After the world energy crisis of 1973, when there was demand for the petroleum products in British Columbia and prices were increasing, they managed, through their policies, to drive the petroleum industry out of British Columbia.

As I've said in the House, the fellow from Vancouver East who used to be Minister of Energy should have worked for Warner Bros. or RCA or Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. He created more ghost towns in the northeast section of this province than they ever dared think about. And they dare to talk about a heritage fund. We're talking about this bill to create a climate to help the small business community, and they're yacking over there like a bunch of chickens that are in the com.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, orderly debate and parliamentary language.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They've said that we have nothing going in this province except northeast coal. They seem to forget that one of the first major projects that we brought in to get the petroleum industry back into British Columbia was to build a pipeline and a new refinery in the northeast section of the province. The experts over there stood up and said: "Don't ever build a pipeline, don't build a gas-processing plant, because there's no gas up there." They fought it; they were against it. That was one of the first projects that this little government started, to put people to work. We brought in policies to put people to work in our gas fields, and in our oil fields in the northeast. Lo and behold, we just get it going nicely — Fort St. John was the fastest growing community in all of Canada, thanks to the policies of this government — and what happened? The socialist philosophies came emanating out of the benches opposite carrying over into the socialist benches in Ottawa. What happened in six short months? They killed the industry; they killed the northeast section of this province they killed Fort St. John. They talk about a heritage fund, and they're going to take money from the petroleum industry to help the small business community. You know. Mr. Speaker, they're great people to help the small business community.

Oh, what else are they going to do? I want you to listen, my friends. They're going to have a three-year phase-out of the corporation capital tax. Who brought in the corporation capital tax? I ask every, small businessman in British Columbia to help me answer that question. Because I remember standing on that side of the House, telling them that it was punitive taxation on the small business community in British Columbia. Who has relieved the small businessman of the corporation capital tax? Not the socialists opposite who brought it in, but this government. Who has reduced the income tax on small business to one of the lowest income taxes in Canada? I'll tell you, it wasn't the socialists opposite. It was the Social Credit government. What did their financial expert over there say about the reduction in the small business income tax when it was reduced from 10 to 8 percent? Now they're all in favour of the small business community, but what did the financial critic have to say when we introduced that measure to reduce taxes on small business? This is the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) speaking, their financial critic:

By reducing the tax on the smaller corporations to 8 percent, what we are really saying to the people who own small businesses is that you, who already have certain advantages in the income tax legislation that are not available to individuals, can claim expenses and deductions that the ordinary individual receiving salary or wages can't claim, In addition to having those advantages, we're going to give you one more advantage.

They were against the reduction of income tax on small business. They say to the small business community: "You can juggle the salary. wages and dividends you take out of your company. The net effect will be that the receiver-general will get less money. If you play the rules the way they're written. To that extent I don't support the reduction in taxes."

That came from the benches opposite — the socialists opposite — who today stand up and want to claim what great supporters of the small business community they are. You talk about deathbed repentance, my friends! Mr. Speaker, I want to read this into the record again: "To that extent I do not support the reduction in taxes to the small corporations, because it is disturbing the relationship intended to make it fair to taxpayers generally." They didn't support the reduction of taxes to the small business community when we brought it in a year ago last spring, Mr. Speaker. I want that to be emanated to all the small businesses in this province.

They say we haven't done anything for the small business community. Well, I'll tell you what they did for the small business community when they were government. They tried to tax them out of existence. because to them profit was a dirty word. "Oh, we can't have anybody in this province making a profit, and we can't have anybody building new buildings and building up assets." I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, what did they want to do when the owner of a small business died or passed away" Would they allow it to be passed on to the son or the daughter? No. I'll tell you, when we eliminated

[ Page 9376 ]

the death taxes and succession duties, who was against it? The socialists opposite were against it. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this little government here has done more to detax the small business community in British Columbia than any jurisdiction. All they did when they were government was add punitive tax after punitive tax onto the small business community, and every time we have relieved the small business community of some of those punitive taxes, they have been against it.

I'll tell you, they want to tax the small business community while they're alive, and they wanted to tax them into their deathbed, and when they went to their deathbed they wanted to tax them again! Oh, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they're great me-tooers now. They're going to help. They want the relief that we're bringing in, the interest rates. They want to me-too-it; they want to add to it. As I say, when they brought in their great economic recovery program last March because they thought there was going to be an election, was there one single thing in that program to relieve the small business community of high interest rates? Absolutely not. Where were they going to get the money from? Oh, they were going to get it from the petroleum industry, which they drove out of the province. Then they were going to get it from the extra economic activity it was going to create. In other words, they were going to spend the tax dollars before they even made them.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, our restraint program combined with our economic recovery program is going to do more for the small business community than the hot air emanating from the benches opposite for the small business community. I'm surprised to see so many of them in the House again because I thought they were all over at UBC looking for socialists. They can't find any socialists at UBCM anymore.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. Premier and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to come to order. The minister continues.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I just have to wonder, when we listen to the socialists opposite who supported the Ottawa government, what western Canada would be like today had the socialists in Ottawa and the socialists opposite supported with the same vim and vigor, the same courage, and the same determination the Mackenzie Valley pipeline that we attacked the development of the northeast coal with. I want to tell you, where would western Canada be today? Every program that this government has ever brought in has been opposed by the socialists opposite.

They have the audacity to stand in this Legislature and tell us that all we've done is bring in northeast coal. In a time when there is a worldwide recession, and no great demand for a lot of our materials, what do we have going on the drawing-board, not even started yet? What do we have? We have a new $1.2 billion LNG project, which will supply thousands and thousands of opportunities for our small business community, not only in the Prince Rupert area but in those communities that line the pipeline route where they will be spending $550 million on the pipeline. Not only along the route, Mr. Speaker, but also in the northeast section of our province, where hopefully the petroleum industry will come back again because we have to have the gas.

Through this great project we are diversifying our market. And who was against the LNG project? Last year the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) stood in this Legislature and chastized the then Minister of Energy, because he said the LNG project shouldn't go ahead. They said the Grizzly Valley pipeline shouldn't go ahead, the Pine River plant and the scrubbing plant shouldn't go ahead. Every single project that this government has ever tried to bring in has been opposed by those negative, harping, carping critics — the socialists opposite.

On the drawing-boards is another coal-mine in the northeast. Monkman coal project, the third major mine in the northeast coal project, is now in stage two. But I want to tell you it will never go ahead if those birds ever again form the government; neither will the LNG project. I've mentioned just two projects that are in the planning stages and will go ahead now in a time of economic recession.

I want to talk to you for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, about some of the other projects that are going ahead in British Columbia at the present time, long-term planning projects developed in our economic blueprint some five and six years ago which are proceeding today. I stood in this Legislature last year when they said we were building monuments to Social Credit. I said: "We're building monuments to the people of British Columbia." At that time I named about 24 projects that were proceeding, all projects for the workers of this province. I never heard them mention monuments again during that session. But today, because it has such a bearing on the small business community, I'm going to have to talk to you for just a few moments about the other projects that are going on. Member after member opposite has stood in this Legislature and said: "The only thing they've got going for them is northeast coal."

MR. LEA: Nobody said that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, nobody said that. Speaker after speaker over there has said it. Some of them whined a lot worse than that.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I stood here yesterday and talked about the thousands and thousands of jobs created by the British Columbia Development Corporation — not megaprojects, but happening all over the province. People are gainfully employed.

MR. COCKE: The Waddling Dog?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the member for New Westminster. I want to talk about that. That member said we gave a political advantage to the person who built the new hotel and owned the Waddling Dog and the Imperial Esso station on the way to the airport. He said we gave him a political advantage...

MR. COCKE: No, an economic advantage: three million bucks.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: All right, economic and political advantage.

...because he used to put up signs condemning the socialist policies of the NDP. We loaned that man some $3 million-plus, and we were so hard on him, so high with our interest rate, and made so many demands, that the gentleman went elsewhere and got his financing and paid us out. That's

[ Page 9377 ]

the way that party over there continues to twist the facts. When they were running the British Columbia Development Corporation they shovelled money out the back end of a truck to anybody who held an NDP card. There was no sense or sanity about anything, whether the business was viable or not. If they held an NDP card they got a loan from the British Columbia Development Corporation. It's not so any more. We had to write off literally millions and millions of dollars that you lent out for political purposes, my friends, when you were running the corporation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could return to orderly debate on Bill 82, and members could not interrupt the minister now speaking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In closing the debate, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to answer some of the questions raised by the socialists opposite, because otherwise they would be critical of the minister for not answering.

Another monument, or project, that is ready for economic expansion was built by this government through the Development Corporation: one of the greatest industrial parks on this Island, Duke Point at Nanaimo. It was talked about while they were there; nothing was ever done. It took this government, this ministry, to get the project off the ground, now ready for economic expansion and jobs here on Vancouver Island.

In the not-too-distant future somewhere we will be starting another project which will employ a thousand people in a high-technology industry. It happens to be a little engine plant. We worked with Canadian Pacific here, kept it in British Columbia instead of it going to Manitoba where it would have been heavily subsidized by the socialists in Ottawa or Toronto. We managed to talk to them and put together a package. Now a great new economic activity will soon be starting here in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you can't stand the heat, get right out of the kitchen, my friend. To the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), if you can't stand the facts, just go run over to UBC and look for a socialist on the campus.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, nobody complains about you, my friend. They've never heard of you. You go answer your phone. Then come in here and stand up in debate and don't know what's going on. If you don't want to hear the facts, you go answer your phone.

There are thousands of people being employed by the redevelopment of New Westminster, thousands of people being employed by the development of Lonsdale Quay. Those are projects that are going ahead today. Do you know why they're going ahead today? Because they were part of our overall economic blueprint. And they have the audacity to stand up and say that nothing is going in the province except northeast coal.

Our shipyards are today employing thousands and thousands of people, selling ships to many other countries in the world, in part because of the work of this ministry in assisting their sales people to break into the international markets.That's why we're selling tuna boats to Mexico and the PhiIlipines. That's why our shipyards are busy.

We have a program in my ministry and it's called financial assistance for developing markets. It is an aid program to assist the business community in the offshore market. A number of industries in the province of British Columbia are so busy today because of the assistance that we have given them to break into that very competitive international marketplace. We have what we call our export-promotion assistance. That's a market development program, whereby we assist firms in finding new export market opportunities. We have an incoming buyers program, whereby we assist potential buyers to come into the province and meet businesses from which they may be interested in buying some goods or services. We have a trade show program. All of these programs assist the small and medium-sized business community in British Columbia. We have a program for assistance in developing new products, whereby we give them technical assistance to analyze the market. We have a product-development management program. We have a management assistance program for the small business community, whereby we give management assistance, assistance to associations and small business counselling. We have an advisory information service for small business counselling, audiovisual seminars, regional economic development commissions, publications, and on and on. All these programs were developed by this government in the last six years to help the small business community.

What, I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, did the socialists do for the small business community when they were government? I'll tell you what they did. They taxed them almost out of existence. They created an economic climate in British Columbia in which there was no new investment coming in, no new opportunities, no projects on the drawing board. In 1975, when the ship of state was almost on the rocks, the then social welfare Premier and Minister of Finance deserted the ship and passed it over to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in a last-ditch effort to try to save it. It was too late. It had created in this province no confidence for the future. Nobody was investing. There were no opportunities for the small business community.

Mr. Speaker, they say that we haven't done anything in this province except megaprojects. What else have they got in the NDP's new economic program? What are they going to do? They are going to establish a tourism development fund. They must have been going around this province with their eyes closed for the last five years. We have a tourism development fund. Who in heaven's name do you think assisted the tourist industry to establish British Columbia as a 12-months-a-year tourist area? It was this government. We didn't just go out and talk about developing the ski areas in this province; we've done it right here, up Island at Mount Washington. Who helped Mount Washington get off the ground? It was this government. What has that done for the Courtenay-Comox area? It has brought in opportunities for the small business community in that area. Now the motels not only get summer tourists, but the motels and restaurants are full in the wintertime. That is the policy of assisting the small business community. Did they do anything? No. They talked about it. How do you think Hudson Bay Mountain in Struthers came into being? Not because of a lot of hot air and promises, but because of a program this government brought in.

[ Page 9378 ]

MR. STUPICH: Look what they did with Mt. St. Helen's.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the member for Nanaimo, who was against reducing income tax for the small business community, asking frivolous questions.

I want to talk about a few more projects that are presently going on in British Columbia. I cannot allow the socialists to go around this province and perpetuate the myth that the only thing this Social Credit government has done for the economy is northeast coal. As a matter of fact, northeast coal certainly is a major project, and a lot of planning went into it. It's part of our economic blueprint, but only a very small portion of our total economic blueprint. All you have to do is go around this province to see the other projects going on to realize that in spite of an economic recession there are many projects at the present time. Thousands and thousands of people are employed today, people who would otherwise be unemployed. Of all the projects that are going on today, those socialists opposite were against every one of them.

They talk about the small business community. What did they do for the small business community when they were government? What did they do for the small contractors? They said: "If you're going to bid on any government work, you've got to be unionized." That's a great help to the small business community. First they bring in heavy taxes on them and then they tell them they have to be unionized before they can bid on any government project. Now they're all for the small business community.

Today there is a major expansion going on at Roberts Bank which will triple the coal-loading facilities in that area. Thousands of people are employed. The Canadian National Railway is upgrading....

MR. LEGGATT: You'd better sell more coal.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the member for Coquitlam-Moody again. Thousands of people are gainfully employed in that development.

MR. LEGGATT: Are we going to need it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly we're going to need it, but you'd never think so to listen to you negative socialists opposite. You'd close down the province. When you were government, all you did was run around and shovel money out the back of a truck to welfare recipients. You stand up here and pontificate about what you'd do. The people of this province and the people of Canada are sick and tired of the socialist policies that emanate from you people and from Ottawa.

I could go on and talk about the other major projects going on all over the province, whether it's a new trade and convention centre, a new grain terminal at Ridley Island, a new petrochemical storage area on Ridley Island, the new ALRT being developed on the lower mainland, further expansion at Duke Point or at Roberts Bank, the Annacis Island bridge, the Ocelot plant at Kitimat that just opened. It doesn't matter where you go. I was in Quesnel not long ago. What's going on in Quesnel? A new pulpmill opened up there a short time ago — an $11 million expansion. Nothing going on! All of the activity going on in this province is a direct result of the policies of this government. It's a direct result of the longterm planning of this government. It's a direct result of our blueprint for economic stability in this province. When times are now tough in the rest of the world, are we sitting back talking, huffing and puffing a lot of socialist propaganda? No, there are plans going over my desk for development and investment in this province. But it will never come if that group over there are re-elected. They are against money coming into this province. They're against foreign investment. They and the socialists in Ottawa have brought in punitive legislation which keeps foreign investment out of this country and prevents expansion for the many jobs we need. And they stand up here in this Legislature and tell me that they're interested in the small business community.

I take great pleasure in moving second reading of this great bill that will do so much for the small business community in British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 82, Small Business Development Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, under standing order 8, each and every member is obliged to be in this House unless he has specific leave of absence. The Leader of the Opposition has been away for some considerable time. I'm wondering whether he has leave of absence. I raised that point, Mr. Speaker, when the little fellow was away in Europe a few weeks ago as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 81.

RATE INCREASE RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to this chamber today Mr. Marvin Shaw of San Bernardino County. I had the opportunity earlier this afternoon to compare what they're doing in housing programs with what we're doing. We exchanged some very good information. Before Mr. Shaw has to leave I would like the members of this House to give him a grand welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's with pleasure that I take my place again with adjourned debate of second reading of Bill 81, Rate Increase Restraint Act. I move second reading with respect to this particular bill.

The other day I indicated that this is good news for all people in British Columbia who are users of services provided by government directly, but particularly by Crown corporations and agencies. The bill is another significant step

[ Page 9379 ]

in the very broadly based and carefully considered program of restraint announced by the Premier of this province on February 18, 1982, Members will recall that the announcement of February 18 led to Bill 28, the compensation stabilization program, which was debated at length. I am not reflecting on that vote, I say to the member for Nelson Creston (Mr. Nicolson) ; I'm simply alluding to that piece of legislation and to this as its companion. A number of us on the government side spoke at that time of the need for fairness, which was built into compensation stabilization. Once again, fairness in the program is to be made possible by this legislation.

During earlier debates I emphasized the need for fairness, so this next step, as shown in Bill 81, ensures that the people of British Columbia will be protected from major price increases in a variety of services which are rendered by the government in a number of its Crown corporations and agencies. That is particularly important at this time. It will be seen, obviously, as another aspect of restraint to which this government has directed its attention for a good number of months — not too late, as in some other provinces, but throughout much of this calendar year.

In the spirit of province-wide restraint, under a program which is working demonstrably well, we have these measures which I trust will receive the endorsation of members on both sides of the House and, perhaps more importantly, will receive the endorsation and cooperation of the various chairmen, directors and management of the agencies set out in the bill. I say, Mr. Speaker, that some of the corporations or agencies may experience a little difficulty in meeting the goals set out in this particular bill. We know, and in fact the government is determined, that the more efficient and leaner operations which will be the early result of this measure will have not only short- but long-term benefits for the people we are all here to serve. It imposes a discipline on Crown corporations and agencies at a time when others in British Columbia are very keenly aware of the need for continuing and broadened restraint. I think that is the key message we carry from this House to the Crown corporations and agencies concerned in the bill, and also to the people who make use of the variety of services which are dealt with in Bill 81. We limit increases in the prices of services provided by Crown corporations to 6 percent for the next year. The legislation covers those services provided to the public: electric and natural gas rates, ferry and transit fares, automobile insurance rates and Workers' Compensation Board assessments. I've indicated already that the action is clearly in line with the government's compensation stabilization program. We continue, Mr. Speaker, to take a leadership role in limiting compensation, and it is now time to take a similar leadership role on price restraint. Mr. Speaker, anticipating some comments which may come from the members opposite, this is realistic price restraint and not price restraint that has been rushed into this House, as was the case a few years ago under a socialist administration. An announcement was made when in fact it was known that it would not work; Mr. Speaker, this will work. Already, since it was introduced and announced, and since it has been understood by the agencies affected, we are aware that it is going to work, and work very well.

There may be some who will suggest that it should be a zero increase at this particular point in British Columbia's history. We've considered that. We considered an absolute freeze on the variety of rates, charges and levies — those items which apply in the legislation. Clearly that would not have worked. That would have been an impossible burden to place on the Crown corporations concerned and the other agencies which must recognize and cope with the continuing inflation which we have throughout the country. So for those who may say, "Freeze everything," and those who said, "Freeze everything with respect to salaries," under compensation stabilization, that was examined and found to be completely impractical. We demonstrate here, therefore, fairness not only to the people of British Columbia but fairness to the agencies that must live within the limit which has been placed on them in this bill.

Apart from the direct benefits which all British Columbians will receive through this restriction on public-sector price increases. we know that the legislation will have a number of other beneficial effects. It will cause Crown corporations and agencies to become more efficient in their total operation, to examine every single aspect of their expenditure operation — every single item of expenditure — to determine if, in this environment, it is absolutely essential. They will be unable to pass on unreasonable increases in their costs to the users of their services, whatever that may be. It will encourage, we believe — the key word here is "encourage," not "force" or "impose upon" — private-sector employers and employees to limit the increase of prices of their products, services and wages to a similar level. The government's action will also help to reduce fears which people have concerning future inflation and will reduce the rate of increase in the cost of living for British Columbians over the next 12 months.

Again, anticipating comments which may be offered in second reading debate. this question could be asked: why for one year? When I introduced the legislation, and in answering questions from the press, I made it very clear that, yes, there is a termination date embodied in Bill 81. But that is not to say that a similar restriction could not apply in a second or a third year; indeed. for a considerable length of time. The point is that for one year the people of British Columbia understand that those services, which they must use from government or government agencies, will be limited to a maximum of 6 percent.

I spoke earlier about the temporary difficulties or the awkwardness with which some Crown corporations may face this legislation. If the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is to break even on its operations, when the average increase for basic insurance is limited to 6 percent, then it's going to be incumbent upon the corporation to function in a more lean and efficient manner. And it will also be important for all British Columbia motorists to continue to improve their driving habits to reduce the number of claims to be paid by the Insurance Corporation.

There's another aspect in this bill which is very similar to CSP, and that is the ability to have it administered in a flexible manner in accordance with the principles in compensation stabilization. The Crown corporations will be expected to impose average price increases of 6 percent, or less. over the next year. This does not mean that increases for some individuals, in a certain activity, may not rise by more than 6 percent. As an example, a motorist with a particularly bad driving record cannot expect that he or she will be protected from higher rate increases — higher than 6 percent through this program. The program need not, in order to be effective, encourage inefficiency. poor safety practices or poor driving habit While mandatory controls have not been imposed on all Crown corporations. this restraint program

[ Page 9380 ]

does cover the major services provided to British Columbians, for which the people we serve have no alternative source of service or supply. At the end of the one-year period, the program can be reviewed to determine whether, and for how long, mandatory guidelines should be continued for some or all of the agencies covered in the bill.

I believe the people of B.C. welcome this legislation. I believe the chairmen and directors of affected Crown corporations understand the need for this legislation. They understand that if the government did not take action to continue to reduce the rate of inflation in the province, many other building blocks that have gone into our total restraint program since the announcement of February 18 could be in some jeopardy. We have here, therefore, the clear recognition of the need for modest increases in the fees, the rates, the levies applied by the corporations covered by the bill, and at the same time it is a clear signal to those agencies that they also must feel restraint and must contribute towards restraint, and towards B.C.'s economic recovery.

With those few remarks, I move second reading of Bill 81. I look forward to the debate and will attempt to answer members' questions as they are raised over the course of the next several sitting hours.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to congratulate the minister on bringing forward this legislation at this time. As he said, it is good news. The legislation he describes is very good news for the people of British Columbia: that the government is actually going to impose upon itself limits beyond which it will not go in increasing charges for various government services and for the services offered by various Crown corporations.

I have one little problem; that is, the legislation he describes is much better for the people of B.C. than the legislation that was described in the press release. As I read it, the press release issued by the minister on September 21, 1982, made absolutely no reference to services provided by government. It referred only to those services provided by various Crown corporations or Crown authorities. Obviously in his remarks the minister was talking about a piece of legislation that he didn't have in his hands when he prepared this press release. Even the press release, good news for the people of B.C. and worthy of support, was welcome, but the press release itself was prepared without reference to the bill that had been distributed among the opposition members. I wonder whether there is another bill in existence that we just haven't seen — one that the minister was talking about in his remarks, but one that has not been distributed to the members of the opposition. Perhaps I would ask the minister to check.

In his report, when he was talking about the good news, he referred to the Premier's speech in which he talked about the need for restraint, and pointed out that that was in February 18, 1982, which is some seven months ago. At that time the Premier did talk about restraining wages and said it was effective immediately. Since then the government has imposed increases in some 150 rates directly under its control. The estimate was that it was going to bring in an extra $500 million to $600 million this year alone. Those rates are still there. There's no proposal to roll any of those rate increases back, although there certainly have been proposals and near agreements reached in many instances to roll back many salary increases, that had been awarded, many increases for services that had been awarded, in spite of the fact that the Premier in his February 18 speech did say that there would be no rollback of existing contracts. There have been many rollbacks of existing contracts since that date.

The minister, in introducing the bill about which he was speaking — not the one we have, but the one that he was talking about — said that it imposes discipline on government. As I pointed out, the bill that we have imposes no discipline on government. It imposes discipline on a number of Crown authorities: on B.C. Ferry Corporation, on B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, on British Columbia Steamship Company, on British Columbia Transit, on the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and on municipalities and regional districts in respect of rates imposed under the British Columbia transit act. Those are the only authorities on which any kind of discipline is being imposed. There is no discipline on government itself, except the discipline to control its own appetite for increasing the rates in these various Crown authorities over which it has indirect but complete control. There's no discipline on government that I can see in the legislation before me. I would invite the minister to table a copy of the bill that he's talking about, or else in his closing remarks to show us how discipline is imposed upon government itself. There's no discipline with respect to those charges that are directly under the control of the government.

The minister couldn't help but refer to what he called the socialist plan imposed in November 1975, and he said that it didn't work. He's got an inconveniently short or distorted memory of what happened. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister gave his Thanksgiving Day address in 1975 and imposed wage and price controls — started that program — the reaction from the government of British Columbia was to say that, in order to give this wage- and price-control program time to get operative, the government of British of Columbia was imposing a freeze — not on everything; we didn't try to freeze the whole economy. We said that there would be a freeze for just three months, for our economy to absorb and digest the direction taken by the government of Canada as announced by the Prime Minister — time for that program to get operating and off to a good start. We said there would be no increases in that three-month period in the price of food, drugs, energy and transportation.

There was a reaction from the community, and generally there was a positive reaction from the community. I can recall one food chain saying they were going to pay no attention to it, and that was Super-Valu. The other food chains said that they would accept the direction from government, and in the event that there were increases in their costs they would absorb those costs and they would live with no price increase to consumers for a period of three months. That one food chain that said they wouldn't cooperate very quickly came into line. There was cooperation from the retail food industry. There was cooperation from drug stores and drug chains, with one exception, and that was London Drugs. That drug chain very quickly abandoned its opposition to the program announced by the government and fell into line. There was cooperation. We controlled energy. There were no increases in energy costs in that period. We controlled the costs of transportation generally. There were no increases in the cost of transportation in that three-month period, except that the three-month period expired during the election campaign, and with the election of a new government all of these people then knew that there was no further restraint.

The government of the day was not interested in restraining prices to the consumers — prices such as I mentioned. The price-restraint program that was imposed by the NDP

[ Page 9381 ]

government in October of 1975 was abandoned with the election of the Social Credit administration some two months later. Thus the history of that program. Mr. Speaker, you'll recall and the minister will recall it well, although he preferred not to when he introduced this particular bill.

Those services which people must use from government, or from government agencies, will be limited to an increase of 6 percent for a period of one year. The minister didn't mention that it applied only to the various Crown corporations that are listed in the copy of the bill that the opposition has. He forgot to make any reference at all to medicate, the premiums for which have increased by more than 30 percent this year. There's no assurance in this legislation that government is going to hold down the increases in medicare premiums, no assurance that they will not indeed double or triple in the year that we're in right now. There's absolutely no discipline imposed on government with respect to a medicare freeze.

Business licences. I had horror stories told to me of business licences increasing not by 10 or 15 percent this year, but by 150 percent. There's no assurance from the Minister of Finance that business licences are not going to be increased again within this year, or even within the current calendar year. Did anybody ever hear anything about property taxes?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Gloom and doom!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether he's trying to contribute to the debate or.... I think not.

Property taxes. You will recall that when the Premier issued his statement on restraint, he gave no assurance that property taxes would be held within reasonable bounds. Legislation was introduced as part of the April 5, 1982, budget which provided for a 20 percent increase in the rate of rural taxation on top of assessments that in some cases were 350 percent in excess of what they were before. Those are examples that were brought to my attention, but there might have been some even higher.

Discipline on the government? What is the minister talking about when he says: "This imposes discipline on government"? There is no assurance here that assessments or rates of property taxation will be held within any kind of bounds, let alone reasonable bounds.

Water licence fees. You'll recall that water licence fees were increased by an amount calculated to bring into revenue something like another $120 million this year. Would that that were the end of it. The order-in-council which gave the government the authority to increase water licence fees to bring in an extra $120 million — all of which has been passed on to consumers — also gave the authority to review the rates in December 1982, and again in December 1983. There is nothing in the bill before us that imposes any discipline on government when it comes to review the rates for water licence fees in December 1982 and December 1983. There's no discipline and no suggestion in the bill before me, the bill I have, that the government will impose any restraint on itself when it comes to dealing with any fee levied by government directly, only with respect to some of the Crown corporations. I hope that the minister has a different bill in his hands, one that will be distributed to the members of the opposition on an early occasion.

The minister did say that he's not guaranteeing that everything will be held within a 6 percent increase. He suggested that in the case of ICBC, for example, some people might experience rate increases of greater than 6 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: The bad drivers.

MR. STUPICH: There's a comment from across. I'm not quarrelling with what the minister said, but I am raising the question of whether or not he's talking about the same bill I have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote for the bill?

MR. STUPICH: Which one? Is it the one I have, or is it the one the minister was writing about in his news release, or the one that he talked about today? Let's see what the bill is before we decide to vote on it.

The wording of the bill that I do have seems to me very precise: "...limit any increase in one or more rates of the following corporations...." As I read that, Mr. Speaker, any one rate imposed by ICBC.... The government, if it's bound by this, can't increase any single rate by more than 6 percent. Except, of course, the "may" is there, and the "may" doesn't limit them in any way at all. The minister was talking about a different bill, because the bill he was talking about when he spoke today did say that these conditions are going to be imposed upon government. There was no if, and, or but. They had no choice other than to live with the 6 percent limit in the event that this legislation is passed by the House before an election is called.

Mandatory controls were not imposed on other government agencies. I believe he said that in the case of the ones they have imposed controls on in the bill that he was reading about, they imposed controls because these are monopoly situations. Mr. Speaker, what can be more of a monopoly than medicare premiums" What can be more of a monopoly than business licences, property taxes, or water licence fees? And we can go down the list of the 150 fee increases that have been imposed by this government. Every one of them is a monopoly, controlled completely by this government. If they're going to impose upon themselves some discipline and limit themselves so that they will not be able to increase any of these rates by more than 6 percent, then they have to extend that provision so that it applies to all rates levied by government, if that's what they really want to do, if they really want it to be the good news the they"re talking about for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we would all like to see rate increases restricted in this period of restraint. Everyone is in favour of restraint. But I do have some genuine concerns about the effect of the imposition of limits on some of these Crown corporations. I look first at the first one listed, B.C. Ferry Corporation. Last weekend I had an occasion to travel to the mainland by car, and lined up at Horseshoe Bay waiting to get on the ferry to Nanaimo was a stream of cars that would seem to be long enough that the last ones in the line would have to wait for three ferries — the schedules have been cut back recently.

You will recall that this government, in its wisdom, abandoned its own formula for the ferry subsidy and reduced it by 25 percent. They instructed the B.C. Ferry Corporation to get along with the lower subsidy, and without going into a deficit. They're trying to do that. They're cutting back on the service, on the number of ferries travelling. They talked earlier about tourism. We had a debate on another bill. I'm

[ Page 9382 ]

not reflecting on it in any way at all; I'm simply saying that if tourists are going to be encouraged to use the B.C. Ferry Corporation to travel to Vancouver Island — the best part of B.C. to come to — then surely making them line up for miles and wait for hours for a ferry is no way to encourage them. It's all very well to tell the residents to buy a bunch of tickets ahead of time to get priority in loading and to finance the B.C. Ferry Corporation so they'll have the use of the funds, but what about the tourists who see these cars going by them in the lineup while they wait, ferry after ferry? If the Ferry Corporation has to live with a 6 percent limit in fares, does it mean they're going to have to cut the service even further, have fewer ferries travelling and even longer lineups, and that a ferry won't make the trip until it's completely loaded. I'd like some assurance from the minister that when he tells B.C. Ferries — if he says it; the bill simply says that he "may" say it — to keep their rate increases to a maximum of 6 percent, he also tells them to provide a reasonable level of service, with a reasonable number of sailings, so there will not be long waits.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation has already laid off hundreds of staff workers as part of a curtailment in service, and even beyond. Services on the ferries that are travelling have been seriously cut back. There are long lineups for the cafeteria and the coffee bar, where the service is very slow because of the cutbacks in staff. When the minister tells the B.C. Ferry Corporation to keep its rate increase within 6 percent, is he also going to tell them to keep the food price increases within 6 percent? Or will they be able to make up some of their deficit by charging higher prices for food? Is he going to tell them to keep on a reasonable number of staff so that the ferries travelling across the Gulf of Georgia will be able to provide a decent level of service to the full loads of people they'll be carrying?

I would think that these questions should be discussed with the B.C. Ferry Corporation. In all fairness, they should have been discussed with the B.C. Ferry Corporation before it was ever suggested that they might be limited to a 6 percent increase in fares. From the reaction of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, I gather there was no such prior consultation. That's the action of an autocratic government, but it's not the action of a government that....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm enjoying this debate between the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, all hon. members will have an opportunity to participate in the debate. But right now the member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, everything that I have seen or heard about the situation so far leads me to believe that the B.C. Ferry Corporation was not consulted and that the first news they heard of a possibility of a 6 percent freeze on increases of rates was when they heard it on the radio, saw it on TV, or....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling me that that's not correct, and I'm pleased to hear that. I really am.

I go again to the list of questions that I put to him. I hope, rather than simply telling them that the rate increase is going to be limited to 6 percent, he talked about the other problem that I mentioned: the problem of maintaining a reasonable level of service on the ferries. In asking them, or telling them, or whatever, to keep their fare increases within 6 percent, is the minister going to ensure that the increase in costs that they experience will not exceed 6 percent? They buy a lot of supplies within the province. They buy some supplies from outside the province. They buy oil. They pay salaries. Are all of these items going to be limited to that 6 percent? Or will everything be unlimited except salaries? Does it mean, Mr. Speaker, that in supporting this legislation — that is, the legislation the minister talked about when he said that these limits will be imposed, not just that they may be imposed.... But if they really are going to be imposed in the case of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, is the minister telling us that whatever all the rest of the costs are, the cost of salaries has to be reduced so that the total increase in costs is no more than 6 percent?

There's another question I'd like to ask. Alternatively, is he telling us that B.C. Ferry Corporation, during this one year, will be permitted to operate at a deficit? I'm not suggesting that's right or wrong. I'm asking the minister: since some of the costs are so unpredictable, since there may very well be a good case put forward for salary adjustments in this period, since we have to maintain a respectable level of service, and since we do have to keep employees on these ferries so that service can be maintained, is he telling us that if the cost of all that is either an increased subsidy or a deficit, either of these or a combination of both will be permitted so that we can continue to run a respectable ferry system? I would like to know.

The next one mentioned, Mr. Speaker, is B.C. Hydro. I touched on this previously, when I said that water licence fee increases imposed this year are costing B.C. Hydro an extra $120 million, for a portion of 1982, because they weren't imposed at the beginning of the year. That was the estimate. With cuts in electricity sales it may be a little less than that, but I'll have to use that figure because it's the only one I have. It was provided that in December 1982 — that's within this one-year period — cabinet has the authority to increase the rates again, and provided that — this is outside the year — the water-licence fee rates may be increased again in December 1983.

Is the minister telling us that the increase in water-licence fees, if there is one at all, will be controlled within the same limits? That is a very significant cost to B.C. Hydro. What about staff? We've all heard of layoffs at B.C. Hydro. It may well be that there are many people in the glass tower who can be laid off without any curtailment of service. But what about the production workers out in the localities? We're heading into a season when we regularly have power outages because of weather conditions. We can't go looking for people to repair lines that have been knocked down after the snowstorm occurs. Has the minister discussed with B.C. Hydro whether or not they can live within the 6 percent increase? The head of B.C. Hydro said he had no prior knowledge of this. He may be just as wrong as the head of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I invite the minister to tell us whether there was any prior consultation with anyone in B.C. Hydro. He said today that

[ Page 9383 ]

the increase would be limited to 6 percent and he said in the press release that it would be limited to 6 percent, but he tells us in the bill that it may be limited — only "may," which also implies "may not." In any case, was this discussed with anyone in B.C. Hydro to see what the effect would be upon the service delivered by B.C. Hydro? I think that's a question the minister should be prepared to answer in closing debate on second reading.

I'm concerned about staff layoffs, at least the production workers, the ones who are responsible for maintaining the service offered around this province where B.C. Hydro exists. I think it's important that we do maintain sufficient staff to make sure we have people there to make the repairs when necessary, as well as conducting all other work that is done by these people. But we have no assurance that B.C. Hydro, which will certainly want to operate in the black.... If the only way they can do it is by laying off the production workers, then how is the minister going to look after service? How is B.C. Hydro going to maintain the level of service that the people of B.C. demand? What about their costs? Is it possible to control the costs of B.C. Hydro? They buy a lot of supplies, and a lot of them they buy internationally. Can the minister control those costs? Can he control all the costs in B.C. Hydro, with the one exception? Are all of these costs going to be allowed to be uncontrolled, since it's impossible to control most of them, and the employees will have to take up the balance by taking whatever cut is necessary so that the total increase in costs will be limited to 6 percent? Are we saying there'll be no more bargaining with B.C. Hydro employees? Is the minister telling us they will get whatever is left, if there is anything left? If there isn't anything left, might they even have to take a rollback in order for B.C. Hydro to live within this 6 percent? It is a question, Mr. Speaker, that I think is worth knowing the answer to.

Is the minister saying that in the event he can't control the costs, in the event that he prefers not to roll back wages, prefers not to deny any adjustment in wages, B.C. Hydro in this period, if the cabinet decides it shall impose this 6 percent.... It must be a misprint in the bill, because everything he's said about it, everything we've read about it, says he shall impose that limitation. Is the minister saying B.C. Hydro may operate at a deficit next year in order to live within the terms of this increase? If that is what he's saying, does he anticipate that it will have any effect on B.C. Hydro's triple-A rating when it comes to borrowing money? Even with a curtailed expansion program, B.C. Hydro is borrowing money; there's no question about that. Does the minister actually contemplate that B.C. Hydro — in order to live within the proposed guidelines — may run a deficit, and is he concerned about the effect that that will have on the credit rating of B.C. Hydro?

B.C. Steamship Company. Once again, many of the costs and supplies are international in origin; they have no control over the increase in costs other than wages. Is B.C. Steamship Company going to try to control its increase in costs by curtailing service? It operates as a tourist-promotion vessel. If the service level is curtailed even further, it's not going to do very much to promote tourism. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) tried to do something about this a couple of years ago. He decided he could get along very well without the Marguerite. To his horror, he found that his alternatives were so unpopular that he had to reverse everything he'd said, everything the Premier had said, and everything the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) had said about this subject, and put the Marguerite back into service. But there's no use keeping it in service unless you keep a sufficient level of staff on it to maintain some level of service, if indeed you want to use it as a tourist-promotion scheme.

What did the minister say to B.C. Steamship Company? Did the minister discuss with anyone in B.C. Steamship Company this limit on the increase in rates? If so, did they give him the assurance they could live within 6 percent and maintain a decent level of service? Will there be staff layoffs? Will there be cuts in staff pay in order for them to live within this, or will B.C. Steamship be allowed to operate at a deficit in the year that is coming up?

B.C. Transit. I have a couple of pages of notes left yet. I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjourned of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.