[ Page 2825 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 23). Second reading.

Mr. Lea –– 2825

Mr. Cocke –– 2826

Hon. A. Fraser –– 2827

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 52 2828

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Lea

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1983

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, some of these clauses really call for some examination more in committee than in second reading, but there is one major principle in this bill that we have great concern with, and that is the elimination of motor vehicle testing in the populated areas of the province. I think the government has gone wrong. They are saying: "We are going to shut these motor vehicle testing stations down in the lower mainland and in Victoria where there is a high population." I've got news for them — that doesn't mean a great deal to those of us who come from rural areas of the province, because we have never had that kind of program. We have had people come in periodically. I know people who have tried to test their cars in Prince Rupert and have had to wait months in order to get it done. There is a travelling road show that comes through to do that sort of thing. So the program that has been in effect — the government is right — hasn't worked that effectively in some areas of the province.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right — we thought it was Great American Shows coming to town. But I think they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this case. I think there is a need to continue the program of motor vehicle testing as it has been done in the populated areas, and this act that is being changed could apply to the rural areas of the province. In other words, why not keep that part that is working in the lower mainland and in populated areas and change the act to allow what this act is going to allow only in the rural areas? That would make sense. This bill does not make common sense. Surely that's what we are trying to achieve when we talk about legislation. We're trying to get some common sense into the statutes and the administration of the province. This bill is not going to do it.

Let's take a place like Chetwynd....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Or maybe we shouldn't. You can have Chetwynd.

Let's use Chetwynd as an example. There is no service there at the present time for motor vehicle testing. It makes sense to change the act to allow the private operator to do the job for government and for the public. Change the act so you can go into the local garage and have your car checked out, get your certificate and your sticker for the window, and that sort of thing. That makes a lot of sense for rural areas, where they don't have access to the kind of service previously offered in the motor vehicle testing stations. But it makes absolutely no sense to do it in the highly populated urban areas of the province. In fact, this act could have exactly the opposite effect to what I think the minister wants. If people do not have those motor vehicle testing stations I'm convinced a great many of them will not go through any sort of motor vehicle testing; therefore, even the small operators in the private sector who have been getting work out of the motor vehicle testing branch won't get as much business.

I don't know whether the minister follows me, but what happens now is that when you go to the motor vehicle testing branch they test your vehicle and say, "Okay, something has to be done with your brakes," or: " Your steering apparatus is loose; get that into the garage. Come back with a certificate that it's been fixed, we'll put you through again and then you'll get your sticker." In other words, the motor vehicle testing station is forcing people — or at least using friendly coercion — to take their vehicles in, have them repaired and come back to the motor vehicle testing station again. That creates business for the small service stations. I prophesy that the small business operators aren't going to get as much business out of fixing vehicles with those kinds of small defects as they have in the past. So this doesn't really make any sense at all. We're talking about testing and keeping safe vehicles on the road, and about who is going to get the business of fixing them up when there are some defects. That's one part of the bill. As the bill is going through, I don't think it makes any sense between rural and highly urban areas, and that is one reason I can't vote for this legislation.

I would like the minister to answer this question when he gets up to close debate, and I'll be asking him again when we get to the committee stage. It's my information that different agencies of government have run computer projections as to what the possible fatality and accident rate in B.C. will be without the motor vehicle testing stations. It is my information that ICBC has done such a projection, and that their findings are not good for this legislation. ICBC has done some projections and has come back with some figures that are astounding in terms of the increase in fatalities and accidents because of this section of the motor vehicle testing act that we're looking at. It is also my understanding that the report is on the desk of deputy ministers in Consumer and Corporate Affairs and in the Attorney-General's office. I don't know whether it's on the desk of the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways, but I would be surprised if it were not. I also understand that it isn't only the ICBC section of the government that has done this kind of projection. I understand there have been other projections done, and each and every one of them spells out disaster for us if this legislation goes through.

We can't always rely on projections from computers, because they do make mistakes. Look at the last election. They had us winning for the first five minutes.

MR. REID: They can be wrong.

MR. LEA: They can be wrong, Mr. Member, but I think we have to pay a great deal of attention to these kinds of projections. I think it would be absolutely irresponsible for government not to share those computer projections with the members of this House and with the public before this act goes through this Legislature. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) are both in the House, and I'm sure the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

[ Page 2826 ]

will be in later. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be immoral if we in this Legislature were to vote on this legislation in second reading, or on any part of it, before the government brings forward those computer projections that I know have been done. I know for sure that ICBC staff have done one and that the projection has been forwarded to government.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, the assumption, as far as I understand it, is what would happen if this act goes through and private testing goes into effect. They're projecting how many people would get their cars tested and what loopholes are in it. I could be absolutely wrong on that, because I haven't seen the report, but I have had a report on the report. I feel hamstrung in having to debate this bill without having had that information in front of the Legislature. I wonder whether the minister, before we go any further — because there are other members who are going to be debating this bill — couldn't get all of the studies that have been done, so that we can make an educated assessment of what this act is all about. Unless we have those figures and projections in front of us, we're really debating in the dark. We're going to be voting in the dark not only on this side of the House, but I would suspect that many of the ministers and probably all of the back-benchers on the other side of the House are going to have to vote on this legislation without having prepared information in front of them. We have the right, I would think, to see that kind of government work — all of us private members in the House, whether we're back-benchers or in opposition have that right. To ask us to vote on this piece of legislation without having the work that taxpayers have paid for within ICBC and other areas of government is absolutely wrong to me.

I don't think we can debate much further without having that information. I wonder whether the government wouldn't be prepared to hold this bill back a little to bring in those studies — or at least have the minister look to see whether those studies are there. I can give him a hint: deputy minister's desk, Consumer and Corporate Affairs; deputy minister's desk, Attorney-General. Bring them back in today. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[10:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 16

NAYS –– 24

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

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, as this bill really affects a number of different ministries, I wonder whether it would be in order at this point to see whether the minister could answer my point of order.

What I would like to do is have some latitude in committee stage to question other ministers about different areas of this bill that fall under their purview.

MR. SPEAKER; Hon. members, it would appear to the Chair that permission is being asked to instruct committee to allow latitude in third reading. If that is the wish of the House, the House may express its wish by saying "aye."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, on occasion it is not unusual for a bill which has several principles to be allowed some additional latitude in committee. If that is the wish of the House, the House may express its wish by saying "aye".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: I heard some noes, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the opposition were asking that the bill be given additional opportunity in terms of its perusal in committee stage. Under those circumstances we were quite prepared to reduce the amount of time taken in second reading.

It is most unfortunate that the government have taken this position — or at least one of the government members who obviously said no to the request for leave. It is a wonder to me that a government that is always asking that there be a cooperative effort put forward by the opposition.... We did exactly that on Bill 35, and Bill 35 was given that kind of dispatch with one or two of the areas that were relatively contentious.

But in any event we have before us a bill that is changing the entire direction with respect to testing of automobiles. There have been reports respecting automobiles around the province that indicate very clearly that there are a number of dangerous automobiles on the road. That's not to suggest that the opposition would necessarily countenance setting up one of those very involved and highly sophisticated testing facilities in small communities. What the opposition is saying is that, in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island and some other areas, we do have this form of testing. We now have the order to close them down, and then going beyond that we have a further committee established to discuss the whole question of private enterprise doing the whole thing. We've argued that private enterprise doing it all is going to be a very costly proposition to the people who are driving those cars. They will probably avoid at all costs, or probably avoid as much as they possibly can, going to the testing station. In the urban areas, the testing of an automobile has been $5 a shot. Very rarely do you get through with $5, because they always find something wrong and you have to go back for a further test and a further sum of money has to be expended.

In any event, it strikes me that what the government should have done was to expand the kind of facilities that we have in full recognition that we have carnage on our highways. In those areas where it is impossible to put forward or to establish a facility which would have the numbers going

[ Page 2827 ]

there that the large ones do, then certainly go to the private enterprise people in those particular areas. But at the present time, rather than try to put something together in a coordinated way the government has decided to close down what they now have and then proceed in another direction in due course, whatever that might be. I heard the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) make that remark yesterday about tabling a document. I don't want to hold my breath, knowing that "in due course" when it comes from that side of the House means maybe never. That's the situation. We've established a committee, and I'm not even sure that the committee can meet, because it is called during the times that the House is sitting, and since this House is sitting relatively irregular hours it's very difficult for any of the House committees to meet. I suggest that we made a number of arguments when the committee was in the process of being set up, and it is most unfortunate that there hasn't been the kind of agreement, with respect to the government, that we would like to see.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who is leaving the House at the moment, has a major stake in this particular bill, as does the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and any of the cabinet who are directly involved in the whole question of safety on the roads. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), along with a number of other ministers, does have the kind of responsibility that we could have had an opportunity to draw out some kind of discussion that would have been far more rewarding, I think, than droning on in a debate of this nature in second reading. I don't know how those particular ministers feet. Whether or not they will answer questions is going to be up to them.

I only heard one "no" from that side of the House, and on that basis I would conjecture that there might be some cooperation, with or without the approval of the House, in terms of a request by the opposition for that leave to be given. In this matter I'm going to use a little more faith than I usually do and suggest that those ministers who are involved in the whole question of auto safety at least give us the time that would be required — and I don't think that would be terribly much. There are going to be other discussions in different areas, particularly since there's going to be a standing committee discussing the whole question. There are some areas of discussion where I believe the ministers responsible should at least take part.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I cannot support the bill in its present form. I don't agree with what it's doing. I wish that there were a more cooperative effort with respect to this bill, and hopefully when the bill is called in Committee of the Whole House the ministers involved, such as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will be in their place, in order that we might engage them in some kind of productive communication.

Having said that, I just want to say that there are a lot of people right now who are driving vehicles which are not safe as a result of the fact that there is no compulsion for them to have those vehicles tested. I do wish that the whole question be proceeded with very quickly so that we can get it ironed out as quickly as possible. I cannot support the bill as it stands.

[10:30]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, we've had a little more than three hours of fairly good discussion on this important bill. I've listened to it all and it has been much appreciated. The purpose of the bill is to privatize the function of motor vehicle inspection, and of course, coupled with that, the downsizing of government.

A lot of debate has gone on regarding cost, and now that the excellent superintendent of motor vehicles has retired, I want to say on his behalf that he advises me he was misquoted when he told the press an increase of 50 cents would look after the actual cost. I don't think we should get into a lot of that discussion, but that increase is a long, long way from recovering the cost. It would take about three times that amount to recover the actual costs of inspecting vehicles in the stations that we operated for a long time.

Referring to the opposition, there are requirements here that aren't in many bills. A standing committee of the Legislature has been set up, and certainly a lot of the things they are asking should come out then. The committee has already met; as a matter of fact, there is a notice on my desk that they meet again shortly. It's a good place to air further things.

Another item came up in the debate: what was the status of the motor vehicle inspection stations related to the real estate side? I would just say that we are leaving those. Our landlord is B.C. Buildings Corporation, and I imagine they will be looking for tenants, or a sale, or whatever. But the situation regarding where the stations were is the responsibility of the landlord of the provincial government, B.C. Buildings Corporation.

In talking about these testing stations, a lot of our province didn't have any testing at all. I want to refer to a remark made by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). Again, he's talking about reports that exist. I don't know whether or not the report exists that he's asking for, Mr. Speaker, but it probably does. We get scads and scads of reports. Maybe our ministry has got this, but I think he's really referring to an ICBC report. They've got a staff there writing reports five-a-minute. We can't keep up with all those. They've apparently got all kinds of time and money to do these things. I can assure you that I haven't seen the report.

I would make the observation that I have, seen reports regarding mechanical failures and accidents. Apparently about 7 percent of accidents occur through mechanical failure. When I say that, I would remind this Legislature that it is the individual car owner's and operator's responsibility, regardless of the inspection stations, that their vehicle be kept in proper mechanical order at all times. That is part of the Motor Vehicle Act and always has been. So don't think for a minute that the individual motorists are on their own because we haven't got testing stations. They still have the responsibility to look after their vehicles; if they don't they will be caught by the authorities while out on the streets and highways of the province.

In view of the fact that it is going to committee, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

[ Page 2828 ]

NAYS — 13

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

Bill 23, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

On vote 52: minister's office, $158,426.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman and colleagues in this great Legislature, I'm very happy to be able to present my estimates to this Legislature for approval.

Before we get into the nitty-gritty of dollars and cents and where they will be spent, I would like to spend a few moments talking about the economy of British Columbia, how it fits into the Canadian scene; indeed, how it fits into the worldwide scene. In order to do that, Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to talk for a short time about international trade from a British Columbia perspective. I think that it is very appropriate that my estimates should be before the House this week, because this week — from October 16 to 22 — has been set aside in Canada as International Trade Week. So I think it's very appropriate that I have the opportunity to discuss international trade in this particular forum.

As you know, I and other provincial ministers responsible for international trade quickly endorsed the month of October as Export Month. The British Columbia government, through my ministry, has mounted a full range of export promotional activities during this month, which include seminars, trade missions and an export award program. Export awards in recognition of exceptional performance were presented to five British Columbia companies by Lieutenant-Governor Rogers and myself in a special ceremony at Government House on October 5.

The five recipients of the British Columbia export awards were selected first of all from the resource industries, manufacturing industries and the high-technology industries in our province and from those who export industrial services and those in the engineering sectors, which we sometimes refer to as invisible exports.

Conair Aviation Ltd. received the award for the industrial service export; Conair Aviation, Mr. Chairman, is an Abbotsford-based service and manufacturing company involved in aerial forest fire control, reconditioning aircraft and manufacturing specialized equipment in conjunction with these aircraft. Their equipment has been exported extensively to the United States, France, the Middle East, Mexico and Europe. I would suggest that there are other very worthy companies in the industrial service export business, but Conair happened to be the one that received the reward this year.

We hope that this will be an ongoing service so that other industries will be fighting for this coveted award.

[10:45]

International Submarine Engineering Ltd. received the high-technology export award. International Submarine Engineering, Mr. Chairman, manufacture remote-control operated vehicles used primarily in offshore petroleum activity. This Port Moody company employs 120 people and has captured half of the international market for underwater remote-control operated vehicles. Sales by International Submarine Engineering are expected to reach $12 million this y ear, of which $11 million are exports.

Seaboard Lumber Sales Co. Ltd. received the award for the resource industry exports. Seaboard Lumber Sales is one of the world's largest waterbome exporters of wood products in international markets. Seaboard, Mr. Chairman, is owned by 20 British Columbia forest companies and was recognized with an export award as a representative in the resource industry for substantial involvement in overseas activity; in particular, for developing new markets in China, Japan and Algeria. Shipments to these markets have grown from virtually nothing to more than $100 million per year during the past three years.

Swan Wooster Engineering Co. Ltd. received the engineering export award. Swan Wooster was established in 1925 and has grown to be one of British Columbia's largest consulting engineering companies. Swan Wooster have developed more than 50 percent of all worldwide bulk coal terminals. Recent projects have included contracts in South Africa, the United States, Indonesia, Taiwan, Holland, Pakistan and Thailand, and certainly they have done justice to the good name of British Columbia in the export to those international markets. As I mentioned a moment ago, some of the engineering, architectural and high-technology services we export are referred to as invisible exports, but I want you to know that export earnings for this year from Swan Wooster alone are expected to be $10 million for their export of engineering services.

Western Packaging Systems Ltd. won the manufacturing award. Western Packaging Systems Ltd. was formed six years ago in Richmond by a group of principals with extensive background in the corrugated packaging industry. They have penetrated markets in the United States, the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia, Asia, South Africa and Latin America. Western Packaging machines are used today in 21 countries, and sales in 1983 are expected to increase by 40 percent over 1982. It's another typical example, Mr. Chairman, of the type of firms and commercial enterprises which we have here in British Columbia that are going into the international marketplace and being competitive.

Perhaps now would be an appropriate time to review with you what we believe all Canadians should be keenly interested in; that is, our export performance.

The vitality of British Columbia's economy, the vitality of the employment levels and the high standard of living enjoyed by our people are directly and inextricably linked to the ability of our business and industrial community to export goods and services. Mr. Chairman, I don't want any member of this Legislature or any person in British Columbia to forget that.

MS. SANFORD: Who wrote all that?

[ Page 2829 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wrote it. Okay?

Canada, together with other developed nations, is becoming increasingly dependent on international trade to maintain its economic well-being. One-quarter of world production is now exported. That is double the proportion of a decade ago. Since the early sixties — 1963 to be specific — exports have grown in real terms about one and a half times more quickly than world production. Between 1960 and 1980 exports increased from less than a one-fifth of Canada's output to almost one-third.

Today, two million Canadians, about 20 percent of the nation's workforce, are directly employed in producing goods for export. British Columbia, as one of the premier trading provinces, has a growing portion of its workforce engaged in producing for the export market. In addition to resource exports which rely heavily on foreign markets, the export orientation of our manufacturing sector has consistently been double that of the rest of Canada. In order to keep these and other British Columbians gainfully employed on the road to economic recovery, we must enhance our costcompetitiveness and ensure that the major driving force, our ability to increase export sales, is encouraged to the greatest extent possible. This government recognized that a year and six months ago, when we brought in the first restraint program to be introduced by any government in any province in Canada. We are proud that we were able to do that, because other provinces, and indeed the federal government, shortly followed on our heels.

As we recognized that the recession was going to cut much more deeply than we had anticipated, we also recognized that further cutback in government is required. It's required in order that the companies I have been talking about, in order that the economy of this province, can be competitive in the international marketplace, because if we are not competitive in the international marketplace, if our government does not allow and create a climate whereby industry can be competitive in the international marketplace, nobody will be enjoying any services a decade from now. That is a fact of life, and I wish the opposition would recognize what is happening in the world.

An analysis of British Columbia's export performance over the period 1972 to 1982 shows not only a strong growth from $2.76 billion in 1972 to $8.76 billion in 1982, but important changes in the market shares and the export mix have occurred. In terms of market, British Columbia's reliance on the United States market has declined dramatically: down from 58.5 percent of exports in 1972 to 44.2 percent in 1982. This shift of market strength is taken up to a large extent in the growth of Japan's market share from 16.9 percent in 1972 to 24.4 percent in 1982, and a diversification into markets other than the United States — the EEC and Japan. These nontraditional markets have grown from 6.8 percent to 13.3 percent of British Columbia's exports.

The shift away from dependence on the U.S. market clearly diverges from the rest of Canada and underlines the importance to British Columbia of activity to develop its economic ties with the Pacific Rim. Certainly this government has set Vancouver, the focus on the Pacific Rim, into truly taking its place in that marketplace by some of the encouragement we have given to the federal government to put in a trade and convention centre, which is being built there right now. I do not wish to take away from the fact that the federal government is building that trade and convention centre, as their showplace during Expo 86, but it was a vision of this government and of the Hon. Grace McCarthy that set that in motion. Make no mistake about it. That is the type of vision that we have for British Columbia in the future, growing and taking an even greater place in the international marketplace.

On a sectoral basis, British Columbia trade interests have also been changing. For instance, in 1972 lumber accounted for 33 percent of British Columbia's exports. In 1982, lumber remained the leading export but accounted for just 21 percent of the total exports. The most dramatic....

MS. SANFORD: Did you write all that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I wrote it all. If you're unhappy with me for giving you the facts, I know it's typical of you over there in the opposition. So would you just be quiet and listen for once? The information may do you some good and may help to change your thinking, although I doubt it.

The most dramatic changes have been in the reversal of the importance of copper concentrates and coal, with copper moving from the third largest export to the eighth, and the opposite occurring for coal exports.

If we accept the thesis that trade is fundamental to the economic prosperity of Canada and British Columbia, what are the major tenets of the domestic and international environment that must be addressed? I would suggest to you that they are three: (1) we must have a trade policy that looks to the future; (2) we must maintain our competitiveness; and (3) we must be aggressive in the marketplace.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition are just a little bit perturbed by my talking about international marketing, because if there is any threat to the security of investment of our manufacturers here, it is the threat that socialism will return to British Columbia. As Minister of Industry, and partly responsible for the international marketplace, the first job I had in 1976 was to travel abroad and to tell the world that British Columbia was once again interested in selling its products, again interested in having companies here, again interested in having them bring their money and establish businesses here and use British Columbia as a stepping-stone into that great and growing Pacific Rim. I had to tell them that British Columbia was no longer the Chile of the north, that our policies had changed, that we welcomed investment, that we wanted to sell abroad. I have done that, and that is why we have been so successful in the last eight years in helping our businesses sell abroad.

I want to talk for just a moment about trade policy. The federal government document "Canadian Trade Policy for the 1980s" represents an important step in defining Canada's policies and attitudes towards the role of trade in Canada's economic development. Prior to the release of this discussion paper, British Columbia had tabled its views on the development of a Canadian trade policy at the federal-provincial trade ministers' conference in Ottawa in September 1982. The federal paper is important in that it sets out a framework against which future trade policy actions can be measured. The paper is outward-looking, reflecting Canada's role as a major trading nation. In this it meets British Columbia's interests of placing a priority on trade development as a

[ Page 2830 ]

significant factor affecting both our international relationships and domestic policies related to investment and industrial development. By stressing the importance of Canada's commitment to multilateral trade organizations, such as the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the paper reinforces the need, on a global basis, for agreed trade rules.

[11:00]

Importantly, this international approach reflects Canadian export interests but also ensures that domestic pressures cannot overly affect Canadian actions and regulations relative to imports. The first clear test of Canada's new trade policy will be evident in Ottawa's handling of the recommendations of the automotive task force. If ever there was a case of self-serving self-interest, it must surely be the report produced by the automotive executives and the trade union leaders who represent the auto workers. Recently, Mr. Chairman, the Employers' Council of British Columbia made the following comment on the matter: "For a country that depends so heavily on international trade, Canada has an unenviable international reputation." We are known abroad as a high-tariff country. Foreigners are convinced that as soon as they threaten our domestic producers, we will clamp down with quotas, tariffs and nontariff barriers, even though it means Canadian consumers will have to pay higher prices at home. This attitude has been demonstrated recently in the recommendations of the Federal Task Force on the Canadian Motor Vehicle and Automotive Parts Industry. Adoption of these recommendations would clearly be perceived internationally as further confirmation of Canada's protectionist tendencies.

I want to say again that I don't think that the workers in the lumber industry in British Columbia are interested in trading off jobs in our lumber manufacturing industries for jobs in Ontario. I have said time and time again and will continue to say it: had the government kept their fingers out Of the North American automobile industry, it would have been able to be competitive. But when you spend 50 percent of your time as a manager of an automotive company running around and trying to satisfy bureaucrats' requests, how can you run a competitive automotive business? I have told Hon. Ed Lumley this many times. I said: "If you want to help the automotive industry in North America to be competitive, do away with your regulations and let them be competitive and don't tell them how to run their business."

I want to say again that British Columbia is not interested in trading off jobs which will be lost anyway. That is not the way to protect Canadian industry. I will tell you that we Canadians can be competitive if you keep government regulations away from us. We have proven that in the past in many industries, and we will prove it again.

MR. LEA: Name one!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just named one. What do you think about our lumber industry? It's the most competitive, highly sophisticated lumber industry that you will find anywhere in the world, second to none because the lumber industry in British Columbia was given a free hand and a climate within which to operate.

MR. LEA: When?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the member for Prince Rupert saying: "When was the government this and when was the government that?"

I want to continue, because the second tenet of an external trade policy has to be competitiveness.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now we hear the yacking from the opposition. You will have lots of time to have your say, because I'm quite prepared to be here for the next month or two, and I'll be happy to debate international trading with you at any time if you'll just be quiet and sit back and listen.

I want to talk for a moment about competitiveness. The decade of the eighties will be characterized by slower worldwide economic growth and intense competition on the international scene. British Columbia can, in our view, continue to perform relatively well in this environment. We do not face the need to restructure our basic industries to avoid economic stagnation. British Columbia has internationally competitive industries that can grow in the eighties and has the opportunity to develop new, strong industries. The challenge facing the province is to ensure that its opportunities for economic growth are fully realized. British Columbia is a highly competitive supplier of many resource and resource-based products to the world economy, despite increasing international competition. There are emerging opportunities for further market expansion and diversification, as witnessed recently by my trip to Yugoslavia. There are new areas that we must enter into, and there are new opportunities as long as we become aggressive and competitive. If we are competitive and if our industries can be competitive, we do not need to look back. Opportunities in secondary and non-resource manufacturing will arise from the characteristics of British Columbia's labour force, the presence of a large resource sector in western Canada and access to growing Pacific Rim markets and competitive energy supplies.

But all of this will be for nought unless Canadians — government, business and labour — recognize that the world does not owe us a living. I want to tell you that we think we're big players in the international game, but British Columbia accounts for only 8.5 percent of the world's lumber production. Anybody in British Columbia, be he a worker in a mill, labour union man or a executive in the lumber industry, who thinks the world is beating a path to our doorstep to buy our products is misguided. We must be out there merchandising. We as government must maintain an atmosphere and climate in which those industries can indeed be competitive, and we must assist those industries to find new markets, as we have done in the last eight years.

You would think, to hear the opposition and others who have biased interests in our society, that the world was beating a path to our door to buy our coal. British Columbia's portion of world coal production is 4 percent. As I have said in this Legislature before, by bringing in northeast coal we now become a larger player, mainly in the Pacific Rim. The larger a player we are, the more control we have over our destiny. But some people can't seem to understand that. We thought we were pretty big players in copper production. British Columbia's share of world copper production is 3.5 percent. Our portion of world pulp production is 9 percent. So I want to tell you once again, Mr. Chairman, and I want to tell all British Columbians, that anybody who is so misguided as to think that the world is beating a path to our

[ Page 2831 ]

doorstep to buy our resources is indeed misguided. As I said before, international trade is growing by leaps and bounds. We must keep our industries competitive, and we must be aggressive in the marketplace. All of this will be for nought, as I said before, unless government, business and labour organizations recognize that the world is not beating a path to our door and that the world, indeed, does not owe us a living. We must strive to maintain our competitiveness in world markets. This requires continued restraint in government spending. It requires responsibility in labour-management discussions and a commitment in our people to commercial and industrial efficiency.

I want to talk for just a moment about marketing. The government of British Columbia recognizes the pre-eminent position of the private sector in the marketing of our goods and services abroad. But we also recognize that government can play a key role in creating a favourable climate in the international marketplace for the province's industry. Increasingly, governments around the world are heavily involved in promoting the sale of their goods and services in the international arena. We must recognize that the actions of the government are compatible with and complementary to the efforts of the private sector and those of the federal government. I want to tell you that in the travels that we do in the international marketplace we work very closely with our Canadian embassies and their trade commissioners and their staff. We have had excellent cooperation with those people in those embassies. As a matter of fact, they welcome us and want us to assist them in the job they are trying to do for Canada and for British Columbia.

While the United States, Japan and western Europe will continue to be our major markets, industrial restructuring in the world will increase the importance of the non-traditional markets to British Columbia. This means that we must become more active in the markets of the Pacific Rim, in Latin America and indeed in eastern Europe. It also means that competitive export financing must be available to Canadian industry and that our whole approach to trade must be expanded to encompass and deal with counter trade and barter.

I hope that I have, in some small way, put the economy of British Columbia into perspective. We can get down to discussing the nitty-gritty details of my estimates, but I did want to put the economy of British Columbia into perspective.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, money will flow to a secure environment: it will flow to an area where it is welcomed by the government of the day and where there is an opportunity for a return on that investment. That is the responsibility of the government.

Having said that, I will take my place and be quite happy to listen to the lectures which I know I am going to get from the opposition. I will be most happy to try to answer any questions they may have with regard to my detailed estimates. I want to say that it has been a pleasure and an opportunity to be able to take my place in the Legislature here this morning, and I look forward to further debate.

MR. LEA: Well, things are changing. It is the first time in 11 years that I have witnessed the minister read his speech, which is quite a change. It must mean that the minister intends to be a bit more thoughtful than he has been in the past. There were little excursions of huff and puff, but mainly he was reading from a prepared text about the economy of British Columbia.

I'd like to say first that these estimates are a sham. We are in the seventh month of the current fiscal year before we even get around to discussing the estimates. The normal procedure in the British parliamentary system is that before the government starts spending the money, the members of the legislature or parliament have an opportunity to discuss the spending estimates — before they go into effect, not seven months later. So when the minister talks about discussing the details of his estimates in terms of spending there is not much point. Sevemwelfths of the money is already spent, and we know for a fact that the estimates are incorrect anyway, because every ministry's estimates are incorrect. We know that the revenue applied to the budget is underestimated and we know that the expenditures are overestimated.

That isn't the opinion just of the official opposition; that isn't the opinion just of the New Democratic Party or of British Columbians or other Canadians. It's a recognized fact internationally, and more especially in the money markets of the world. This minister and his ministry stand condemned, not by the opposition or by political parties, but by the very people that this minister tries to kowtow to all the time. Our credit rating in this province has been downgraded from a triple-A to a double-A. Standard and Poor of New York, one of the biggest bonding agencies in the world, says it is downgrading our credit rating in this province mainly because there has been a lack of diversification in our economy, not brought around by the Social Credit government. This minister and his government have been condemned by the bond-marketing agencies of New York, both Moody's and Standard and Poor. We have been condemned as a province that has not diversified its economy, to the point where lending agencies are looking at our province with a bit more of a wary eye, asking whether it is a good or bad place to invest. They're saying: "It's not as safe to invest here any more. That's why we're going to charge a little more interest on the money we lend to British Columbia. They have not diversified their economy, and the future doesn't look good."

It's only possible in response to do what the minister has done: to talk in a general way about what this government has or has not done in terms of economic development. In terms of discussing the estimates specifically, they are a sham, and any debate of a specific nature on these estimates would also, by necessity, have to be a sham. The estimates are not correct, and have been proven so, and it would make a sham of us, on this side of the House, to debate the estimates in detail. It would make a sham of these proceedings, this Legislature and of British Columbia. We all know that these estimates we are debating are incorrect, and even at that they're old shams, because we're seven months into the year when we start discussing the spending priorities of the government for the coming year. If that isn't sham I don't know what is.

[11:15]

I'd now like to deal with some of the points that the minister has raised. First of all, he talks about us being an exporting province, and that's true. But he speaks of it as being a desirable end. According to the minister it would be good if we exported everything we produce. One of the problems with our economy is that it is an almost completely exporting province. Almost everything we produce in this province we export. Almost everything we consume we import. If there is one single factor that makes a geographical jurisdiction vulnerable to the international marketplace in its downturn it is the fact that we are an almost completely open

[ Page 2832 ]

economy. That is a point of vulnerability in the international marketplace, not a point of strength. We are always the first to feel a downturn and the last to feel an upturn, because of the open economy that has been fostered by this government.

Diversification of the economy. The minister talked about us being able to compete in the international marketplace for those things that we have traditionally produced, and about our ability to be able to compete in the world marketplace with those things that we see on the horizon, as means of production. He talked about high tech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. LEA: He mentioned it in passing.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would take too much research to find out that we have allowed our natural resources to be exploited, and the profits from those resources to be invested in other parts of the world, to come on stream in competition against us. We have allowed major resource companies to take their profits out of this jurisdiction into others and set up plants competing with ourselves. There has been no effort by this government to redirect the profits from resource industries back into the resource economy of British Columbia, and for that they have to stand condemned, along with their Liberal partners in Ottawa, who've allowed the same thing to happen. We have more economic slippage out of this province from our resource industries than is healthy, by any stretch of the imagination. In coal, lumber and fishing — in fact, in all of the major resource areas in this province — we have allowed economic slippage to completely devastate investment back into our own economy. This minister and his government have not done one thing to stop that economic slippage out of our province. In fact, they haven't even raised the topic. The minister didn't even raise the topic in his opening address when talking about the economy of this province.

The minister talked about education. We agree that we do have an invisible commodity to export. That invisible commodity, though, is the product of a well-educated society. Without a well-educated society, we will have no invisible products to export. Yes, we have an opportunity to be an exporter of technology and an exporter of knowledge around the world. It looks good. But in order to have that invisible commodity to export, we have to have an educational system to match it. How can the minister stand up and say that we're heading in the right direction in that area when even the research money going to the pulp and paper industry in this province for this year is not going to happen? We're pulling money out of research, not putting it in. UBC president George Pedersen has condemned this government for its lack of money into the post-secondary educational system. Out of that system will come the invisible exports that the minister talks about so proudly. At one end he and his government talk about exporting; at the other end they are taking away the means of producing the invisible commodities. He stands condemned by his own government's educational policies.

Mr. Chairman, there are models for good, healthy, resource economies. Let's take a look at the front an backward linkages in an economy. Those are the linkages where, on the one hand, you add wealth to your raw resources before exporting to the world economy or into the international marketplace, and on the other hand, the economy produces for the needs of your own industry. We are sadly lacking in both the front and backward linkages. We do precious little to add wealth to our commodities before we ship them out to the international marketplace. We do even less in supplying the needs of our own industry. For example, how much machinery, goods and services that the forest industry uses do we produce right here in British Columbia? Not much. It's the same in the fishing industry, mining industry and farming industry. We are sadly lacking in producing the needs of our own industry. We are sadly lacking in adding wealth to our resources before we ship them out. If this minister was really serious about diversifying our economy, he would have looked long and hard at the need for research in this province. If we are going to compete in the international marketplace, we have to find new products as well as new markets.

How can we compete with new pulp mills coming on stream from countries where they pay the workers $1.50 a month and all they can eat? How can we compete with new high-tech industries when the people who are producing the same product in other countries are paying ten cents an hour? Do we want to compete based on those wage schedules? Or do we want to compete with a highly educated workforce bringing out new products, where we can compete in the world marketplace through our high technology? We cannot compete with labour rates of ten cents an hour, nor do we want to. No one in this Legislature and no one in this province wants the people who work in our industries to live at the same standard of living that Jamaicans who work in the bauxite mines in Jamaica have to live at, or the high-tech industries in Manila and Singapore. Who wants our people to live at the standard of living that the workers in those industries have to live at? But those are the industries that, by necessity, we are having to compete with if we stick to the old....

I'd like to use the forest industry as an example. For years we have assumed — incorrectly, but I guess that's in retrospect — that we could manage our forest base in such a way that we could meet any insatiable demand that was put upon it; in other words, that through reforestation and all of the modern forestry techniques we could somehow have new growth coming on stream that would meet the demands of a raw resource economy. We're finding out now that that is not true. If people in this province were to know the state of our forest industry, I don't think they would sleep for a week or possibly a month. We are in real trouble. When you take a look at the projections from this minister's own government, you see that we have a falldown rate such that only half the annual allowable cut that we're cutting now will be available in a short 20 to 30 years from now. That is a frightening prospect.

We're also finding out that we're having other problems. We're finding out that the reforestation program itself.... There are indications that this new wood — the second growth — is going to have approximately 20 percent less cellulose content, which means that the wood we're going to be producing in the future will not be the same high quality, and therefore cannot be put to the same use as the wood that was there that we've already cut. That's a problem we have to deal with.

If we are going to survive in the international marketplace, if we're going to survive at all in the style that we've become accustomed to, we in this province have to do the kinds of things that other countries have done before. I point specifically to Japan and West Germany, where before they

[ Page 2833 ]

went out building up new production, they found out exactly what it was they had to produce. What is it that we can produce in this province, taking into account the natural resources that we have — the energy availability, the educational system, our economic resources for capital? What can we produce in this province with which we can go out into the world and compete in the international marketplace? Add wealth to our resources before we ship them out; take the pressure off our finite and non-renewable resources by adding wealth before we ship them out. Our future depends on adding wealth to those resources before we put them in the international marketplace. Our future is not shipping more and more of the raw resources out. That is a mug's game in the final analysis.

Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about the international marketplace and its view of us. I had the opportunity to talk with an American senator. He said: "What are you people doing in your province — in your country? Why are you shipping out all your resources raw? Why are you not doing the kind of research that's needed to make yourself a closed economy? Why do you insist on being an open economy that's completely vulnerable to the international marketplace?" He said: "We in the rest of the world are going to take it and laugh at you. But why do you people put yourself in that position?" I think it's a good question. Why do we insist in this province that the only way to go is an open economy?

I'd like to deal briefly with a bit of our history. Whenever in this province we needed new economy, either to raise our standard of living or because of an increasing population, what have we done? Mr. Chairman, all we have done is ever widen the extraction process in this province: one more valley to take the trees out of, more fishing, allow the quotas to go up. That's our history. Whenever we needed new economy we did nothing more than expand the extraction process. Since the Second World War this hasn't served us badly in terms of being able to keep our economy up with the times, to supply jobs for new population or to extend our standard of living, but it's over. It wasn't the correct way to go in the beginning, but it is now compounding and we're really in trouble.

[11:30]

The minister stands up and says everything is rosy if we'll just practise restraint; if we just practise restraint, we're going to export more of our raw resources. I ask the minister: where is the end of that? Is there an end to that? Will we end up like other jurisdictions that finally take their renewable resources and make them finite? We aren't the first jurisdiction blessed with good forests. Look at Cyprus! Years and years ago Cyprus was blessed with some of the best wood in the world, but because they went in there and practised the same kind of resource management as we have practised in British Columbia, today Cyprus is bankrupt in terms of forestry. We can look to history and see where other resource economies have gone the wrong way, but we also have the opportunity to look at some other jurisdictions who have made at least some attempt to go the other way.

When it comes right down to it, our real resource will be an educated, concerned, sensitive population, and this government is taking measures to make sure that we do not have that sensitive, concerned, educated population. On the one hand they are talking about the need for invisible exports, which only come about through a highly technical, highly educated people, and on the other hand they are cutting back the funding that would allow our educational system to supply the very people who could give us those invisible exports. They can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.

Northeast coal is another example of what I consider to be stupidity — not the project itself, but the fact that the private sector is going to be investing approximately $1.6 billion into northeast coal, and the public sector — that's us, the taxpayers — is going to be investing approximately $1.3 billion. I would assume that a dollar is a dollar, and if the private sector is expecting a certain rate of return on its investment, is it too much to ask that the taxpayers of this province get the same kind of return on their invested dollar? There is no doubt in my mind that if we as taxpayers are putting up that kind of investment, then as taxpayers we should get, and should demand, an equity position in northeast coal that is in relationship to the amount of money we've invested in it. Nothing else makes sense.

The government stands up and says: "Oh, we do get a return. We get a return out of all the spinoff benefits. There are going to be people working in northeast coal and they'll make a paycheque; they'll pay tax out of their paycheque; they'll purchase in the rest of the economy. And the coal companies will make a profit, and the province and its provincial coffers will have money coming in by taxing the profits from the coal companies." I've got news for the government. If all the investment in northeast coal had been from the private sector, we would still have had those returns. They would still have been available to us. If the private sector had invested the full $3 billion themselves, the returns that the government is talking about would still have been returns coming into the coffers through jobs and spinoff economies. We would have had those.

The government got itself into a bit of a bind by taking the policy that they did. They built a rail line, and on that rail line, to pay themselves back for the investment — because they had to borrow the money to build the line — they're going to charge a surtax of $3 on each tonne of coal that comes out of there on that line. The minister himself admits that the original contracts are not enough to pay it off; he says there'll be future development, and as that future development happens, because of the spur line, there are going to be some spinoffs coming from future contracts. We'll concede that, but look at the bind the government has got itself in because they did not take an equity position in northeast coal. We now have a conflict of interest between the taxpayer dollar investment and the private dollar investment, because the Japanese steel industry is negotiating the downward price of coal and the downward tonnage of coal all over the world. Northeast coal is not going to escape that.

I would also like to say that we on this side of the House — and I'm sure everybody in the province — wishes northeast coal every success, because if it fails we are going to have to pick it up. It is going to be the taxpayers of this province who have to pick up northeast coal if it fails.

The conflict of interest is this: if the price of coal is lowered and the tonnage remains the same, then the coal companies are going to be hit. But if the tonnage comes down and the price remains the same, it is the public sector that is going to be hit. If the tonnage goes down it means there aren't as many tonnes that we can charge the $3 surtax on, but we do owe the money and the money has to be paid. If the tonnage comes down, then the people of this province are going to have to pick up the difference between the tonnages. But if we had taken an equity position in northeast coal for our

[ Page 2834 ]

invested dollar, then it would't have mattered whether it was the tonnage or the price. What we lost on one end we could have picked up on the other, because we would have been coowners with the private sector. Now we have a conflict of interest in northeast coal, and the conflict of interest boils down to this: if there is a reduction in tonnage or price it means that one side has to lose and the other side has to win. We had an opportunity to make sure we could share the losses and the winnings and take the conflict of interest out of the financial arrangements of northeast coal.

But finally on northeast coal, Mr. Chairman, to me the worst thing is that we taxpayers have put a lot of money into northeast coal. We have invested a lot of money. It seems to me that as one of the largest investors into northeast coal the government should at least have the decency to put the details on the table so we know whether our money has been invested wisely. The government is so fond of saying that they have no money of their own; that the only money they have is taxpayers' money. That's right. And don't you think the taxpayers have an absolute right to know how the government invested their money? But the government says: "The taxpayers will know in due course." You can bet your last dollar that the private sector investors know everything about that agreement. The only ones who are left out are the taxpayers who invested, and they have very scanty detail.

Mr. Chairman, in the conclusion of my time I would just like to re-emphasize that this minister not only stands condemned by the opposition, he not only stands condemned by the performance of the economy — higher unemployment than the rest of Canada, higher bankruptcies than the rest of Canada, not only personally but in the small business sector.... The facts stand for themselves. This minister is a failure. And don't take our word for it. Take the words of the biggest investment houses in New York City. They have lowered our rating in the credit system because this minister has failed. They say that the main reason that they lowered our credit rating is that this economy has not been diversified by this government. Can there be a bigger indictment of failure? The official opposition, the facts and the biggest financial institutions in the world have all condemned this minister.

For that reason I intend to move a motion of non-confidence in this minister. I move that vote 52 be amended by reducing the amount from $158,426 to $158,425. This is the traditional method — moving the minister's salary down by $1 — to show that we have no confidence in this minister, no confidence in his record and no confidence in his view of the future.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it would seem that I stand before you a condemned minister. But I would like to take just a few moments to talk about some of the things that were said by my official critic. I was sometimes wondering whether we were in the estimates of the Minister of Education or the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

I was in London ten days ago where we sold $100 million worth of bonds in the Euromarket. They went faster than they had ever done before, because the bankers of the world know what this government is doing to help keep this province lean. Don't stand there and tell me that because some New York bankers have downrated our credit rating, we're not going to be able to sell our bonds in the international marketplace, because it's just not true. The international banks know what we are doing in British Columbia, and because we didn't go out and raise taxes like the NDP wanted us to, they've downrated our credit a little. But they're out there gobbling up the bonds every time we put them on the market. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's what is out there in the real world. We're not being condemned; we're being blessed, because we're a government of courage and vision to do the things we're doing.

I want to answer the member's question about keeping everybody in the dark on northeast coal. He asked me a question in the House a number of days ago, and I told him to go to the library. Evidently he couldn't find the door. Well, it's just out there opposite the entrance to the Legislative Assembly. You go into the library, take a long corridor and go up and ask the ladies, who are there to serve the members of the Legislature, for the comprehensive agreement. It's one of the most comprehensive agreements ever put together in any resource development anywhere in North America. It lays down every detail of the investment to the last spike — who will pay for what and what guarantees there are. I would recommend to the member that he go to the library and take a took, and if he doesn't want to go to this library, I would suggest that he go to the library in Prince Rupert or the University of Victoria or UBC. We have that comprehensive agreement, which, as I say, is a very thick document, outlining every detail of the comprehensive agreement which was worked out between the coal companies, the railroad, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and every department in government. It is the most comprehensive agreement of resource development that has ever been put together in the history of Canada. And the member has the audacity to stand in this Legislature and imply that we are trying to keep the citizens of this province in the dark. It's all laid out there. The trouble is, Mr. Member, you don't want to read it, because you realize that we have put together the best deal ever in any resource development.

[11:45]

I didn't hear him say too much about the British Columbia Railway — the success story of this decade as far as Crown corporations go. When this government took over the British Columbia Railway and became responsible for its operations, it had lost $22 million the previous year. Why? Because of political interference. I don't know where the expresident of that railway is, but I know he is somewhere hanging his head in shame. But from a loss of $22 million in 1975 to a profit of $18.6 million last year in one of the roughest years in our economy since the Dirty Thirties.... Why? Because we kept the political sticky fingers of politicians out of it and let it be run by an independent board of directors. I want to tell you the people working for that railroad today are proud of working for the British Columbia Railway owned by the people of British Columbia. It is looked on as being one of the most efficiently run railways anywhere in the world. I want to tell you that because of decisions made by a previous government it has the best communications system anywhere in the world, and because of a decision of this little government it will bring in 50KV technology which will be the first in North America. And we will sell that technology to the rest of the world and to the Canadian National and to the Canadian Pacific, because we should electrify all our railroads in North America.

I didn't hear the member say too much about the British Columbia Railway — a great railway. I didn't hear the member say that a month ahead of schedule we will be moving coal out of that great project over to his constituency where

[ Page 2835 ]

one of the greatest ports in the world under development anywhere in the world has just been built in the last year and a half. No, he didn't say anything about that. Not only that, but because of the vision and the help of this government, the wheat boards of western Canada are putting the greatest grain development there in the world to help the grain farmers of western Canada move their grain into the international marketplace. Had it not been for a decision made by this little government to provide access long before the deal was ever put together and to encourage the government of Alberta to put those grain elevators on Ridley Island, the western farmer would not have the opportunity and those new service facilities to keep him competitive in the international marketplace. I don't wish to say anything more about northeast coal except to say: thank heaven this government and the Premier of this province had some vision and some courage. Northeast coal is not put together for 1982 or 1983 or 1984; it is put together to serve the decades ahead. History will prove it to be the best investment the people of British Columbia ever made. And talking about dollars invested, how much of that $1.3 billion being invested by the taxpayers is coming from Ottawa? You didn't give the breakdown. This little government invested one dollar and got three more dollars invested by the federal government and the private sector, and to me that's a pretty damned good business deal. No, they didn't talk about that — a port that will serve not only British Columbia but all of western Canada, and will help to keep us competitive in that international marketplace.

I want to talk for just a moment about high technology. The member opposite conveniently forgot that on March 29, 1983, our Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) set up the discovery enterprise program, a fund established to promote high-technology industries in British Columbia. Listening to the NDP opposite, you would think all you had to do was go out there and wave a little magic wand. No, you put in programs and create a climate, which indeed is happening in British Columbia, as I will point out to you with specific hard facts in a few moments, Mr. Chairman. But as of June 30, 1983, 19 firms engaged in high technology were assisted under the small manufacturers' assistance program, which is a portion of the LIFI' development program brought in by this government two years ago, when $389,297 was committed and 153 permanent jobs were created. You might say that's not much, but it is a start. The program is there and applications are coming in today. Small high-technology manufacturers are indeed establishing and providing jobs in British Columbia.

Recently we announced some changes to our SMA program. On June 12, once the 300 applications under that program were processed — certainly many of them from the riding of the member opposite — the program would be converted to focus assistance towards high-technology firms. A funding of $75,000 is being provided to WFAIT — the Western Foundation for Advanced Industrial Technology — to coordinate a feasibility assessment of a CADCAM centre for British Columbia. A $50,000 study of the software industry is underway to determine the greatest business opportunities for British Columbia's software firms. The factors pertaining to the growth of the B.C. software industry and the roles of the federal and provincial governments to ensure a strong B.C. software section.

It wasn't long ago that a little firm up in Prince George came to me and said: "We are manufacturing new wiring systems for helicopters." Imagine that! In that new wiring process, they were developing a computer that would speak to the pilot and say, "Lower engine heat," instead of waiting until the heat was too high and the engine failed. It has just received an award to rewire helicopters from all over the world. That's a high-technology industry and the type of thing that makes the world go round, not necessarily your big, glossy firms. Maybe I didn't explain it very well, but it's fantastic. You should go and see it some day.

Mr. Chairman, there is a number of other items that I want to discuss. I want to talk for just a moment about our lumber industry. The member seemed to insinuate that all the machinery that we use in our lumber manufacturing industry in British Columbia is imported.

MR. LEA: Most of it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On the contrary. The lumber industry in British Columbia is not only the most sophisticated lumber manufacturing industry anywhere in the world, but we manufacture the equipment used in lumber mills here in British Columbia. Not only that, we export that machinery to practically every country in the world, because through our industry.... When I made an announcement that the cooperative overseas market development project was going to be refunded, I said to all those assembled, including Jack Munro, that it wasn't only the lumber industry per se that was benefiting, but indeed, our manufacturing machinery industry was also benefiting. Through my ministry, we helped those firms to go out and merchandise their product everywhere in the world. So we are building the machinery that can be used anywhere in the world, and we are successful at it. I cannot understand why the member opposite would stand up and say we're buying over.... There are some boilers in our pulp mills that certainly are brought into the country, but by and large.... Take logging trucks. We have developed and know how to build logging trucks better than anyone else in the world. We export that technology.

I want to talk for just a few moments about the lumber industry, because I realize that the member opposite is partly right. About three weeks ago I was at a strategy session at Whistler put on by the Council of Forest Industries. I told them: "You can no longer manufacture a product and go out and try to flog it in the world. You've got to determine what your market is, and then you must manufacture and sell into that market." I have pleaded with the industry to add more value to the lumber products. In that, I accept what the member is saying, and certainly I will work with COFI.

I think I've answered most of the member's questions, but if I haven't, if I've missed anything, I d be quite happy to, if the member would just stand up and tell me.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

NAYS — 24

[ Page 2836 ]

YEAS — 17

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[12:00]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the lists were read in order indicating that the 24 votes were in favour of the amendment. That's the way the lists were read, and I think it should be recorded that the minister's salary is reduced; he's lost confidence, and he should resign forthwith.

Vote 52 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported a resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.