[ Page 6361 ]

CONTENTS

Medical Practitioners Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No –– 2) (Bill M21 1). Mr. Reynolds

Introduction and first reading –– 6361

Industrial Development Incentive Act (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 6361

Limitation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill M212). Mr. Cocke

Introduction and first reading –– 6361

Oral Questions

Expo 86. Mr. Lauk –– 6361

Freil Lake development. Mr. Lockstead –– 6362

Income tax increases. Mr. Stupich –– 6362

Okanagan College board. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6363

Victoria Mortgage Corp. Mr. Blencoe –– 6363

Members' Statements

Interchange on Canadian studies. Mr. Rose –– 6363

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Barnes

Journey for Lives. Mr. R. Fraser –– 6365

Mr. Barnes

Chemainus revitalization. Mr. Reynolds –– 6367

Mrs. Wallace

B.C. — first employment policy. Mr. Gabelmann –– 6368

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Cocke

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 40). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6370

Mr. Cocke –– 6371

Ms. Brown –– 6371

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6371

Small Business Venture Capital Act (Bill 19). Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6371

Mr. Stupich –– 6372

Ms. Brown –– 6373

Mr. Cocke –– 6373

Mrs. Wallace –– 6373

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6373

Industrial Development Incentive Act (Bill 46). Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6374

Mr. Stupich –– 6375

Mrs. Wallace –– 6376

Ms. Brown –– 6377

Mr. Cocke –– 6377

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6377

Low Interest Loan Assistance Revolving Fund Act (Bill 27). Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6378

Mr. Stupich –– 6378

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6378

An Act To Amend The Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR406). Second reading

Mrs. Johnston –– 6379

Mr. Cocke –– 6379

FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. A. FRASER: This morning in the galleries there are going to be some constituents of mine from the Cariboo and from my home town, Quesnel. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Harold Turner and Mr. and Mrs. John Clayton.

Introduction of Bills

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 (NO. 2)

Mr. Reynolds presented a bill intituled Medical Practitioners Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 2).

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to add a couple of lay people to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. If this were done in this province, I think it would certainly be better for all British Columbians. I know it's supported by most doctors in this province and certainly by lay groups. It's done for lawyers and other groups. I think it's a positive step.

Bill M211 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE ACT

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Industrial Development Incentive Act.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just by way of explanation, Bill 46 takes the place of a bill which is already on the order paper, Bill 23, and I will be asking a bit later to have that discharged.

The new Industrial Development Incentive Act is broader than the previous Bill 23 in that it provides authority for initiatives which form part of the new $50 million small business incentive package that we've just reached agreement on with the federal government.

Specifically, the bill makes provision for the aquaculture incentive program and the industrial development assistance program. Along with the small manufacturers' incentive program, these will all be in a subagreement with the federal government which is currently being finalized. Funding will be cost-shared fifty-fifty by the province and the federal government.

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave for the proceedings relating to Bill 23 to be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn from the order paper.

Motion approved.

LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Mr. Cocke presented a bill intituled Limitation Amendment Act, 1985.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this bill puts the members of the dental profession in exactly the same position as the medical profession. The medical profession have a six-year limitation of liability; the dental profession have a 30-year liability limitation. Mr. Speaker, in all fairness they are in equivalent kinds of occupations. We recognize that it happened for the doctors in the first place because the provincial hospitals didn't like that load of records that they had to keep. Of course, it goes both ways as far as I'm concerned. If it's good for the doctors it's good for the dentists, and therefore I say it's good for the community.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of this bill.

Bill M212 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

EXPO 86

MR. LAUK: Will the Premier advise whether his office has approved conflict-of-interest guidelines for Expo or whether his office is aware whether the Ministry of Tourism has approved such guidelines for the corporation and the directors of that corporation to conduct business with the corporation to the exclusion of other qualified applicants?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The responsibility for developing those regulations or standards of conduct has been charged to the board of directors of Expo.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. The same Crown corporation is a corporation of the Crown, the government. Is it the Premier's view that the awarding of a contract to Beautiful British Columbia magazine is consistent with the government's policy with such conflict-of-interest guidelines?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I do know that the board of directors of Expo have developed bidding procedures that are tenders. I don't have the type of information available to me to answer a question of that nature.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a Socred bagman by the name of Peter Brown has alleged publicly that other bidders for the production of copies of the official guide-book for the world's fair were not prepared to accept the risk, which he says is associated with the contract. Is the Premier aware that the other applicants vehemently deny this allegation, casting a pall of suspicion over the circumstances of the awarding of this contract?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, I'm sure the member was being frivolous when he used the adjective describing a very respected citizen of the province, Mr. Peter Brown. The Leader of the Opposition giggles, but that's not unusual.

[ Page 6362 ]

But I would say that the Expo board is made up of appointees from the general community. The city of Vancouver has appointees on the board and the federal government has appointees on the board. I trust that the board of directors are doing a good job in trying to put on a fair within their capability of providing guidelines and direction to management and in conducting all of the bidding procedures. At this time, I don't think it would be fair to cast aspersions on any member or all members of the directorate of Expo.

[10:15]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier may regard as fair or unfair, in terms of awarding a contract to a company owned and operated by one of the key figures in the Expo corporation, may not be regarded as fair either. The allegation by Mr. Peter Brown, who I understand collects and donates funds to the Social Credit Party.... I think the euphemism for that is "bagman" — take it or leave it. The point is, his allegation is denied by the other two short-listed bidders. They are respected citizens of the community as well. Has the Premier decided to investigate this problem and determine once and for all whether the awarding of that contract was indeed fair, so that the public of British Columbia can regard it as such?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to politically interfere with the workings of Expo at all. We have a fine board of directors who I'm sure would be prepared to answer that question should the member wish to request attendance at one of the directors' meetings of Expo in order to pursue it, if he's truly concerned for the two unsuccessful applicants.

MR. LAUK: It's my understanding that part of the contract is for the sale of advertising in the Expo souvenir guide. I'm sure the government is aware that Beautiful British Columbia magazine, which was awarded the contract, accepts no advertising and has had no advertising department. Can the Premier provide this information to the House: why does Beautiful British Columbia magazine have superior qualifications therefore to solicit advertising when it accepts no ads and has no advertising department, and the other short-listed candidates do?

HON. MR. BENNETT. Once again, I'm not on the board of directors of Expo and I can't advise him, in this chamber, on either the awarding of the contract or the successful or unsuccessful applicants. The member might appreciate that fact before he asked the question if he is sincere in trying, to represent the unsuccessful applicants. I would suggest that it's an appropriate question to take to the board of directors of Expo. I will, take your line of questioning on notice for the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), the member from the government who sits on the board of Expo, and perhaps he could bring answers where questions that have been asked are appropriate to the House. Somewhere in your line of questioning there may be answers that could be given.

FREIL LAKE DEVELOPMENT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Now that the minister has had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the granting of a licence to ship fresh water from B.C. to offshore ports from the Jervis Inlet area — a site known as Freil Lake — will the minister assure this House that public meetings will be held prior to any development taking place on that site?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I assured the member yesterday, any development would be preceded by the process of making sure that environmental concerns are met. I don't know how many public meetings will or will not be scheduled, but certainly the environmental concerns and interests will have to be satisfied.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the minister's response. I would further ask the minister: if any environmental studies have taken place prior to the granting of this licence behind closed doors, would the minister be good enough to table those environmental impact studies in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, before I respond to the minister, I must say that those members who insist on dialogue across the floor when members are questioning will be asked to leave the chamber if they do not desist.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No environmental studies have been undertaken on that. The preliminary assessment has been made that water is running into the ocean. Those environmental studies are not necessary for the licence of occupation. As I indicated, that would be done before any development takes place. All that has been done is a short-term tenure to say that there's a licence there in place, and that you would have to satisfy all the concerns before you do any development. Environmental studies have not been done, so obviously I can't table them.

INCOME TAX INCREASES

MR. STUPICH: To the Minister of Finance. The recent federal budget imposed significant tax increases on working families. Has the minister had any advice from his ministry as to the amount of the gain that B.C. would expect to get in the current fiscal period and in the subsequent fiscal period from increases in income tax?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Ministry of Finance, as the House would expect, undertakes careful analysis of federal budgets and provincial budgets across the country. I do not have the specific information to which the member referred, but rather an estimate point by point of the net loss and net gain on provincial revenues for this fiscal year, and then projected into future fiscal years. I do not have a specific, as the member had asked.

MR. STUPICH: Another question. Other changes introduced in the federal budget are going to impose significant costs on families or individuals receiving social assistance allowances in B.C.; I am thinking in particular of increases in sales tax. I am wondering if the minister has considered sharing the gain that B.C. will get from the increase — there's bound to be an increase in income tax receipts — with those lowest-income people in the province who are going to be hit hardest, relatively, when they have to pay the increase in the cost of living brought about because of changes in the same budget from which we are going to benefit.

[ Page 6363 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, there are in terms of provincial revenues some losses and some gains for British Columbia. I tabled a budget in March in this chamber, as the House will recall, which took a variety of factors into account, and I suppose the best possible answer that I could provide to the member is that I have not contemplated any change to the budget which is in place for this fiscal year as a result of the federal budget. I thought for a while the member was going to ask me to defend that budget. I can only defend one a year happily, this year.

OKANAGAN COLLEGE BOARD

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Premier. On five occasions I have written the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) regarding the replacement of three vacancies on the board of Okanagan College. On February 11 a list of candidates that were selected by a non-partisan advisory council was submitted to the MLA after considerable community input, along with letters of reference from a number of key individuals in the community. Will the Premier please explain why his government has continued to deny the communities of the Okanagan their rightful voice on the Okanagan College board?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The communities do have a right. The government makes appointments from people from the community for the board.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That is precisely my point. These recommendations have been submitted way back in the fall. Nothing has been done on it. The government has been dragging its feet on the issue. In addition to these three vacancies in Okanagan College, there are two vacancies at Camosun College, one at Malaspina College and one at Vancouver Community College as a result of recent resignations from the board.

Will the minister explain the failure of this government to reinstate adequate representation on these college boards, or is this a strategy to weaken these boards during the present education turmoil?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. No, the government will make the appointments. They're all under consideration.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Can I ask the Premier if there is a time line for these appointments? We've been waiting for them since the fall.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They'll be coming forward shortly.

VICTORIA MORTGAGE CORP.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the Victoria Mortgage Corp. The superintendent of brokers and real estate suspended trading of this company back in April. The minister and I have had some discussions on this issue. However, the auditors for the company have still not received the appraisals and the financial information so they can table a proper audit. The superintendent is concerned that he is not getting the information. I am wondering if the minister has instructed the superintendent to conduct his own investigation. He has the power to do that — put in his own auditors so that debenture-holders, many of whom have their life savings in this company, can get that information so they can make an informed decision about what they're going to do in the future.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member from Victoria and I had a discussion on this yesterday in my office. I have not received a report or a request from the superintendent with regard to taking any further steps. At the present time they're awaiting information, as I understand it. Should the information not be forthcoming, we would certainly want to pursue other avenues if necessary.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I neglected to table documents following question period yesterday, pertaining to a question I asked of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I would like to do so, with leave.

Leave granted.

Members' Statements

INTERCHANGE ON CANADIAN STUDIES

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'll just sort of pause and mumble for a while so that people can take their leave. This usually happens to me when I get up to speak, so I'm quite accustomed to it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The matter I want to raise..... I'm sorry that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not here today. I understand he's running around putting out fires over at BCIT and trying to find some more Social Crediters to put into PVI and a number of other little.... They've all gone to learn about Expo and the program.

What I have to say is not really a matter of any great world-shaking importance, I suppose. But I, along with a number of other people, including the Minister of Education and some others, received a letter I would regard as quite an eloquent letter from a Heather Cullen in 100 Mile House. She talked about attending a conference on what it really means to be a Canadian. She said this conference, Interchange on Canadian Studies 1985, was held in Edmonton and had certain basic objectives for young high school kids from all across Canada. I think that all of us recognize that except for perhaps in the last 15 years we've had difficulty culturally and every other way in developing a Canadian identity. A Canadian identity is something that I think needs to be fostered by our young people so we get to know each other better as Canadians.

I think that I must have been nearly 40 years old before I even got to the place where my grandparents were buried. I met some of my relatives who were still surviving there and found that while I had grown up on the west coast and they had grown up in Ontario, culturally I was probably more like the people in Washington and Oregon than I was like my own relatives in central Canada. I think that was a very shocking

[ Page 6364 ]

experience as far as I was concerned, and also a very revealing one. But it also revealed that we didn't really, as Canadians, know one another very well, and that we were quite different culturally from different parts of the country if different parts of the country accounted for our particular origins as a people.

[10:30]

Anyway, this development, along with the various kinds of student exchanges that we have — there was a group in here this week from Quebec — I think is very important. The objectives of this Interchange on Canadian Studies were five in number: to facilitate further knowledge of Canada; to promote tolerance and understanding; to promote understanding and appreciation of our diverse heritage and, I imagine, our diverse peoples; to develop an understanding of and appreciation for the regional aspects of Canada; and to foster in young Canadians a greater commitment to participate in political, economic, social and cultural life in Canada. I think they are worthy objectives, and it's a worthy conference.

This Mrs. Cullen — I presume she's Mrs. Cullen — went there and was very, very impressed with the seminars, keynote speakers and the city tours, and in general felt it was a very worthwhile experience for her, even though she was there only as a chaperone. But she has the following complaints to make. She said that the conference developed a tremendous kinship among the young Canadians who attended, but she said that the end of the conference was climaxed by $700 from all these kids to the Ethiopian relief as a result of hearing this record "Tears Are Not Enough," which is, I think, the British contribution to — no, it's not; it's the Canadian — the Ethiopian relief. Here are her complaints: every province except the Yukon and British Columbia sent at least 20 students. We sent six.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: B.C. sent six students from 100 Mile House. Even Newfoundland sent 22. Other provinces paid their registration fees, which amounted to $250. We didn't pay any. Our kids had to pay their own way, or most of them. I see the hon. member nodding his head. He thinks that's good free enterprise stuff and "no free lunch." I wonder if people felt the same way at the big extravaganza at Expo kickoff — whether they paid for their own canapes and champagne.

She also said that they didn't even have any emblems or pins, nor did they have any flags or even a room set aside for them to meet. Other provinces had at least two or three days of orientation. Ours had nothing. I said that it wasn't perhaps the most world-shaking case in the world, but I don't think that we are very interested in improving our image, especially among other people in Canada, if not the world. To send our kids there sort of as the poor relations is not the best image for us to foster as a people.

Mrs. Cullen asked the following questions: "Is B.C. that poor? Is B.C. that badly off? B.C. must be poorer than Newfoundland. How can we afford Expo? What's wrong with B.C.? Is education that unimportant in B.C.?" I could have answered that one. "Are you going to send a delegation next year? Are you going to have a full delegation?" These are the questions that some of the other students from across Canada were asking of our kids: "How come you don't have any pins? Is this your provincial room? You had to pay to come? That's not fair."

So all I'm suggesting — and why I'm raising this as a subject today — is that it may be what some people regard as a kind of a two-bit issue, but if we're going to participate in these conferences, and I think we should, then I think our youngsters from British Columbia should be selected and treated at least equitably with those of another province. I think they need to be prepared to go there; they need to have some of the trappings and pins and that sort of thing. We have Expo pins being given away by the thousands. I think that it's time that we at least treated them equally and equitably.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the thing that bothers me most of all about this particular issue is the fact that it shows the government's lack of priority respecting our most important resource, our children.

Now it's obvious that the rest of the provinces in this country, including poverty-stricken Newfoundland, feel far more highly.... That is, they have a far greater motivation toward their children than this government has. I recognize that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and all of the people around them are all worried about their economic problems, but, you know, they're lost in those problems and are neglecting the kids in this province. If there is any province that requires some cultural development, it's B.C. We are so diverse in our populace that unless we begin to understand one another better, it's my opinion that we will continue to drag behind the rest of the country. Something like this would not happen in Tory Ontario. Something like this would not happen in the other provinces of this country, but this is the kind of thing that we see constantly happening in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to lend my support to the member for Coquitlam-Moody. I certainly echo how he feels about this situation.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sitting here listening to these two members talk about how we treat our children. I'd just like to remind them that this government sponsors the B.C. Summer Games that this year are going to pump about $750,000 into an NDP riding. I think that shows you how much this government cares about children and young people, and that we're not even discriminatory. They accuse us all the time of doing things in a partisan manner. We care about children in this province. We pump millions of dollars into young people.

This may be one instance that the member can find where there's been a mistake made. If the things happened that he says happened, they shouldn't have. Certainly no young people should leave this province without pins from the government or without flags to take to a convention, and I'm sure there's been an oversight somewhere, because certainly I, like all other members of this House, get requests year-round for those types of things for groups to take. But for a government that's putting this kind of money into youth, I find it very strange that these members can stand up with this kind of criticism of this government and young people.

He talks about Expo. Expo is for young people. It's for the youth of this province and it's going to build this province for the future for those young people and for everybody. I'll just go back to what this province does. If you want to look at the last Olympics or look at national sports awards, our young people do better than any other province in Canada because of the support that this government gives young people.

[ Page 6365 ]

MR. BARNES: I didn't think we were going to get into a heated exchange, but the youth of this province certainly have a great deal to be concerned about, notwithstanding the B.C. Summer and Winter Games and notwithstanding a number of carnivals and fun and games that the government considers to be its main program as a contribution toward youth. As the member for Coquitlam-Moody pointed out, youth are destined to be the leaders of tomorrow, and it's a far more serious developmental program that is needed, an opportunity for them to meaningfully have a role to play in the decisions of government today. Really, when you consider the lack of access to real decision-making and real power in this province, there is a great deal to be desired as far as the youth are concerned. We have a youth parliament, but it's usually without sufficient funds and real muscle to influence decision-making.

With the 15-plus percent unemployment in this province, a large percentage of those — probably two to one — are in the ages between 18 and 24. Now young people do not have a good deal in this province, especially when it comes to access to education, and I mean education as opposed to training — an opportunity to develop themselves culturally, to develop themselves in terms of their potential.

The member suggested I know better. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in closing: analyze the cuts that have taken place in the public school system. Take a look at the choices that have to be made. Most of those programs are the programs that develop people educationally, not their academic....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time must be allowed the proponent in reply.

MR. ROSE: I'm pleased that it has developed into a spirited debate. I'd just like to mention to the member for Vancouver South, who said "nonsense" about the student opportunities and student access.... I'll paraphrase the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in his own estimates: we have the worst student-aid system in Canada. That's coming from the horse's mouth.

I would just like to close by saying, yes, bread and circuses are fine; and athletic events are wonderful, and we support them. That wasn't the point. It was rather interesting that "we" — meaning, I guess, the Social Credit or the government — are pumping money into NDP ridings. Is it your money, or is it Socred money, or is the people's money? Are they just having their own money returned? I think that that just shows the kind of mindset that we're dealing with. Let me close by quoting again from Mrs. Cullen's letter:

"It was extremely hard for the B.C. delegates to support B.C. when they were feeling 'ripped off' by the government. It was embarrassing to me trying to explain how B.C. can afford to spend billions of dollars to build Expo and millions more to promote it, but won't pay to send 22 students to a nationwide conference.

"There were 600 people from all over Canada at the conference. B.C. had a perfect opportunity to spread the word about Expo at very little cost — the price of a few pins. Had the B.C. delegation been properly supported and prepared, B.C. would have been publicized around the country. Instead, the other Canadians went home and spread the word that B.C. is in deep financial trouble and that education is the lowest priority. I know I myself came back feeling proud to be a Canadian but ashamed to be a British Columbian."

That's pretty devastating stuff, Mr. Speaker. I'm not suggesting that it might not have been an oversight. I'm merely expressing the feelings of a particular person who attended that conference and regretted that more British Columbians, both adult and youth, couldn't have had the exhilarating experience of knowing what it was to be a Canadian.

JOURNEY FOR LIVES

MR. R. FRASER: The subject, as you know from orders of the day, is Fonyo, which is 425 days, 7,924 kilometres, almost $10 million, which all adds up to the Journey for Lives, one of the remarkable achievements of 1985, in fact of the century.

Steve has been described as a lad who is neither eloquent nor brilliant, neither handsome nor an accomplished athlete. He started off with little support and ended up with a cavalcade. He followed in the footsteps of a popular hero by the name of Terry Fox; and above that, he accepted friendships on a face-value basis, without much analysis. Those are obstacles, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the support you might give to a student going from here to there, here is a young man who did not start off on a very popular mission, nor did he appear to be a very popular person. He says he isn't a hero; and perhaps it's true. So his task becomes even more impossible and his mission more hopeless, and his ability to generate funds for the Cancer Society perceived to be negligible. But he did it: he completed the journey, raised the nearly $10 million, and won the hearts of Canadians and of people around the world. Incredible.

He says quite openly and candidly that he was an angry young man, which I suspect was true. It's a very understandable remark for him to make. Who wouldn't be angry, as a 12 year-old, to have cancer and to suffer the loss of a leg? In my view, he typifies the spirit that built Canada: the spirit of people who came here with nothing, and who built this country with their bare hands, because they were self-reliant; the spirit of people who didn't ask for handouts to get things started, but who said, perhaps: "I don't know how I'm going to do it, but I'm going to do it anyway."

[10:45]

Going back to the previous presentation, where the kids were upset because they didn't have pins and flags at a conference, good lord, we have everything in the world in British Columbia today. We have every opportunity in the world, if you want to work at it. The kids from B.C. who really represent the province, in my view, are the kids who fight through it, as Steve Fonyo did, with insurmountable odds. The kids who go to conferences are advantaged. If they haven't got the wisdom to see what's out there, then lord help us in the future. The country was not build by people asking for handouts and getting handouts; there weren't any handouts.

Fonyo called upon us to respond and we did. He appealed to all of us. It was because the had so darned much determination. How could you say no to such an unbelievable achievement? The answer is, we couldn't, and we didn't. He showed us the spirit and called upon us to recognize that the will and the determination of one person can overcome insurmountable odds.

[ Page 6366 ]

We hear that he was contemplating quitting in the middle of the run, which can hardly be surprising. We saw him on TV in the winter; we saw the reception he was getting at the beginning of the tour. He was not a popular kid at the time. But he didn't quit, and that is the spirit we need — the spirit to start a project and then to finish it, irrespective of the obstacles that are presented to you on the way. Steve Fonyo has probably done more for Canada and British Columbians than we can mention. We need more of that type of spirit today. We need to believe we can do it, for if we believe it, we can. We need to believe it in sports, in public service, in business and at home.

I said at the beginning that he's described as neither eloquent nor brilliant, yet his message to us all was very clear. He's described as neither handsome nor an accomplished athlete, yet what does that mean if he has a girlfriend who loves him? As an unaccomplished athlete, he has done on one leg what most of us couldn't do on two.

On behalf of the assembly and all Canadians, I thank Steve for his most marvellous achievement. I salute him for that most marvellous achievement, and I wish him well in the future.

MR. BARNES: It is not often, but this is one of those occasions when I must say I agree wholeheartedly with the member who just spoke in praising the efforts of Steven Fonyo. I'm sure that to a person, everyone in this assembly would like to unanimously endorse the remarks that have just been made in recognizing the incredible effort by this individual, who quite frankly started off on a crusade as a result, no doubt, of the inspiring efforts by the forerunner, Terry Fox, who also was mentioned by the previous speaker. There isn't enough that we can say. Those of us in politics quite often are suspect if we try to get on the bandwagon, so to speak; but I think there comes a time when you simply have to recognize something for what it is and take your chances on whether you're going to be misunderstood.

I was inspired when Terry Fox indicated his desire to run across the country. I recall attempting to encourage members to get involved and to support him, because I thought his cause was noble. In fact, I had even gone so far as to say that when he got to Hope I was going to meet him and run the last 90 miles, and that was misunderstood by some people who thought I was going to get on the bandwagon.

So we do have our problems in trying to recognize, on the one hand, the marvels of individuals who are doing things of such dramatic proportions that the media and everyone recognizes them. But I think we have to reach beyond those fears and begin to encourage the Terry Foxes and the Steve Fonyos. Both are individuals, both are different, probably in every respect, except one fundamental thing: they are both human beings, and they both have the potential for inspired effort, as all of us do. I think that's probably the message. We had someone who was willing to stay with it long enough that everyone could see he was sincere, he was committed; only God knows how long the story goes back, how far back it really goes in that individual's heart — and in the heart of any individual who decides to reach out beyond the common efforts of everyday people and try to do something. But whatever it is, I am sure there is a linkage with all of us, and the kinds of things that motivate people to rise above adversity and begin to try to make a statement of beneficial proportions for their fellow individuals probably go back generations.

Well, we now have a superstar among us. We've been able to spawn two of them — we've had Terry Fox and Steven Fonyo — and perhaps before long we'll have Rick Hansen who, as you know, is wheeling around the world. I understand there is another less celebrated individual by the name of Al Howie, and I am sure there are hundreds and hundreds of individuals who, because of examples set by these individuals, are beginning to say: "Hey, maybe I can do something too."

One of the things I got from Steven Fonyo was that he is a happy guy. In fact, some people are suggesting that his happiness and his style of life are such that maybe he is not quite the model we like. Well, he did one good thing for us. Let's be happy with that. He says he's an individual; he says he's different. Then let him be different. He likes junk food, for instance. I can see how that's going to go down out on the strip, eh? But that's all right: he likes junk food, he likes Coca-Cola, he likes to do it up. He says he's going to have a good party, and I'm sure he's now having a very good time with his friends in the Cook Islands.

But, you see, now that we have this superstar, now that the media recognize him as an opportunity to get a nice front page story, no matter what he does.... He has his problems too, as we all have to learn. Once you get up, then you've got to be careful that you don't fall down. I am sure that Steven has matured over the years. I think, by the way, he's a very handsome young man despite what people say. Maybe that's because I've seen his picture so much I've got used to it. But whatever it is, he's all right with me. He may not be my particular model for all aspects of the community, but I think that man has really shown a lot of people with varying degrees of handicap or disadvantage that, hey, if you want to do something, you can do it — just take that first step.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, as the member who just spoke knows, we all don't have to look alike to make a contribution to society. And in his case in particular — having been a public figure in two fields, athletics and politics — he knows probably more than most of us how far you can fall if you find yourself in trouble. He has probably seen some people do that.

It's true that we should respect people's individuality. I like that. When it comes to supporting people who have these marvellous achievements, we may differ in style as to how the support would come. I think the Fonyo run was more substantial because he had the obstacles, and it would have been less of an achievement had they been removed, because he grew, as we know, because he had to overcome them by himself most of the time. It's very similar to suggesting that a butterfly should not have to fight its way out of the cocoon, that we should cut the cocoon and let it fly out. If they get away too soon.... They have to struggle a bit, and it's a question of how much struggling. We may disagree on that from time to time. But I agree with the member who responded from the opposition. These marvellous achievements do cross all kinds of social and political lines. We respect them for what they are, and we encourage more people to try harder, as he did.

[Mr. Ree in the chair ]

[ Page 6367 ]

CHEMAINUS REVITALIZATION

MR. REYNOLDS: We in this government place our faith not in ideology but in the creativity, initiative and drive of British Columbians. We see their spirit and determination and their efforts to improve and strengthen their own communities. Their resourcefulness, energy, imagination and determination exemplify the B.C. spirit. Those who deny this spirit deny the ability, potential and desire of their fellow British Columbians to contribute to the economic renewal and growth of their communities and this province.

Today I wish to speak of the people of one community who possess an abundance of the qualities of determination and creativity inherent in the B.C. spirit. In recent years Chemainus has, as have all British Columbia communities, experienced great changes as the international economy continues to evolve. MacMillan Bloedel's sawmill had to be closed in February 1983, despite the efforts of management and workers to find some way to keep the mill going. MacMillan Bloedel then promised to initiate new activities at Chemainus, but many predicted the mill closure would spell doom for the little community.

The pessimists forgot the spirit and tenacity of the townspeople. You see, the citizens of Chemainus are proud of their community. Its heritage as a pioneer in the logging industry is a way of life. They wanted to work together to save their town. When the mill did close, there were no petty recriminations on either side. Mayor Graham Bruce declared at the time that even with the mill closure and layoffs, there wasn't the bitterness one might have expected. Chemainus embarked on a forward-looking revitalization of the downtown core. The downtown merchants, with assistance from the provincial government's downtown revitalization program and the North Cowichan municipality, began devoting their time and energy and money — a total of $400,000 in improvements were carried out.

By early 1983, it became the first B.C. community to complete a downtown revitalization program. A quarter of their expenses were paid for by the provincial government promotional grant. But there was more. The new downtown Chemainus also featured a novel idea: large murals, which were inspired by Karl Schutz. Schutz, during a trip to Romania in the seventies, was impressed by their 400-year-old frescos he found depicting that country's history. He conceived the idea of murals on the walls of Chemainus depicting its 120-year-old history as a logging pioneer.

There were detractors at first, but soon the dozen murals became a focal point of community interest in the revitalization project. It was not only local people who were interested. Tourists also came to see the murals, close to 60,000 in 1984. Local and international artists asked to display their works in Chemainus. The Festival of Murals held since 1983 in Chemainus each summer attracts artists from all over Canada and the world. Not only have two documentary films been made, but one was nominated for two Genie awards. An international award was conferred on Chemainus by the New York Downtown Research and Development Center. Chemainus tied for first place in the international downtown revitalization competition out of 57 entrants.

Sponsored by the provincial government, Chemainus was not only the only Canadian entrant, but was also the smallest community in the competition. After the 1983 Festival of Murals, local merchants discovered that the murals had been paid for in increased sales. Some reported that business increased 25 percent, 30 percent and even 40 percent. Two galleries have now opened. Recent reports are that new restaurants and businesses are springing up, including another art gallery and an art supply store.

Past chamber of commerce president, Bill Jameson, is building a new mall with space for seven shops, which have all been booked. Plans continue apace to give tourists even more reason to visit Chemainus. Today the people of Chemainus have even more reason to be proud. MacMillan Bloedel has opened a new mill, thus contributing its share to the region which has for them yielded so much. The new mill, which cost $21 million, is highly modernized, with increased productivity and efficiency. What a terrific boost for this resilient little community, Mr. Speaker.

[11:00]

The spirit of partnership and innovation, which marks Chemainus's attempts to revitalize its core, is in evidence once again at the new mill. Manager Phil Dobson asks: "Why should we stay in the traditional management role of telling people what to do, when they can organize things themselves and have a stake and feel achievement in success? We want the workers to have a say in how this mill is run." The new mill is operating on a total involvement principle. Every employee becomes involved in as many of the functions of the mill as an employee is capable of, and therefore everyone contributes to the mill's success.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of progressive attitude we should be encouraging in every part of our province. Chemainus has proven that given leadership and initiative, we sail right past the doomsters and gloomsters. The B.C. spirit is a reality in Chemainus and an inspiration to all of us in the province. The people of Chemainus, in partnership with their provincial and local government, rallied and won. Mr. Speaker, the new budget with its partnership for economic renewal will further reward communities such as Chemainus willing to be creative and determined in pursuit of a better life.

The government is willing to translate its faith in the people and communities of British Columbia into concrete commitments to their growth and improvement.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to thank the member who has pinpointed Chemainus and the things that have been happening there. I've been very close to that operation, of course, as it is in my constituency. I remember when the ceremonies took place as the first downtown revitalization program to be completed. Karl Schutz of course was there, and Mr. Vander Zalm was at that time the minister. We both were called upon to speak. I remember saying that it was one of the few times that Mr. Vander Zalm and I were in complete agreement on the value of a program.

Karl Schutz and the people involved were certainly to be congratulated on getting that novel idea of those murals. The one thing that the member who just introduced this subject didn't mention was that those murals are based on the historic background of Chemainus, on the base of the forest industry.

The artists are certainly to be congratulated. Many of those murals, one in particular.... There were of course several artists involved, all of very high calibre. But that first mural was done from a photograph that one of the old-timers provided. People go down there now and point to pictures there and say: "That was my grandfather; I can recognize him," or "my great grandfather."

[ Page 6368 ]

It's a terrific monument to the history of the forest industry. At one time the mill in Chemainus was the largest sawmill in Canada. It went through many hands before it was purchased by MacMillan Bloedel. My husband at one time worked in that old mill. It was a very unique mill, and it's a shame in a way that it's gone, because it in itself was a historic monument with its saws geared to taking those huge logs that they brought up out of the water in the days when we had those virgin logs, those huge logs that were introduced there.

Yes, Chemainus is a bright spot. We talk about what MacMillan Bloedel has done there; let's not forget what the trade union has done there as well. I sat in there with that group, with Mr. Knudsen, who was then the general manager. In fact I convened the meetings that got those two groups together with the local government, and we were able to sit down and talk about those kinds of things. Up to the point when that mill was closed, those kinds of discussions had never taken place. But we were able to sit down and talk, and work out an agreement. I think that both management and the trade union — the IWA Local 180, which was involved in that instance — are both to be congratulated for coming up with the agreement that they came up with there. Sure, tourism is alive and well in the Cowichan Valley — not just in Chemainus.

MR. R. FRASER: Why don't you speak more optimistically about it then?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, what am I doing?

MR. R. FRASER: This is the first time in two years.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, come on!

The one thing that tourism doesn't do is provide the dollars that the forest industry provided in the pockets of the workers, because it's a different.... It's a lower wage scale and a shorter work year. We do have a mill now that is employing two shifts of 85 people each, I believe. That's great. I'm not knocking that at all. Mac and Blo have plans for a second mill once the industry picks up, which will again take more people. But there is still a great backlog of people who did work in that mill who have not yet found positions. There were 600 people employed there. That's why we still have something like 30 percent unemployment in the Cowichan Valley.

I think that we should all be delighted that a town like Chemainus has been able to become world famous, as it were. I see those murals being copied no matter where I go. Towns are picking up that idea and attempting a similar thing. White Rock is one. Vernon has a couple. Those murals are picking up, and Chemainus was the instigator of that. I'm proud that Chemainus is in Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. REYNOLDS: I can just say that it's a pleasure to stand here and listen to the member for Cowichan-Malahat be so positive for five minutes.

MR. REID: She should read her speech over again.

MR. REYNOLDS: It would be a good idea if she reread the speech. I think that if we used that kind of attitude in this House all the time toward positive projects that are happening in this province, we could turn a lot of things around instead of the bickering and the fighting that goes on in this place.

The positive attitude that's taking place out there in spite of what we do in this place is spreading across this province. The new partnership agreements that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is signing across this province that are going to make this province blossom again with new industry that's coming here are an exciting prospect, Mr. Speaker. Chemainus is just one — sort of the shining jewel, the leader in what has happened in that area.

The member talked about some of the other jobs that don't pay as much as the logging industry does. Well, I was in a little store. I think it was called the Chemainiac. I bought a number of things that I hadn't seen in any other stores in British Columbia or in the United States in my travels: neat little items and gifts that you could bring to people, and some very funny things also. I'm sure that the people who own those businesses....  The new little shopping mall that has eight stores in it is exciting to people who are putting that kind of investment....

MR. REID: The ice cream parlour.

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, the ice cream parlour. Everybody likes to talk about the ice cream parlour. There's no better ice cream parlour in British Columbia, I don't think, including most of the ones even in my own riding. I've gone to them and said: "Can't you start making those great waffle cones that they're making over in Chemainus?" There are exciting things happening in Chemainus and all around this province. As I say, if nothing else, it's made my weekend, because the member for Cowichan-Malahat got up and said five minutes of very positive things.

B.C.-FIRST EMPLOYMENT POLICY

MR. GABELMANN: I think I'm going to have to change the mood a little bit from the previous discussions this morning. While things in many parts of British Columbia are happy and progress is being made, and no doubt, that's true in Chemainus, there's another side to the coin as well. I want today to talk about yet another public construction project in this province funded by B.C. taxpayers — being built, in this case, almost entirely by workers from outside British Columbia. I talked earlier in the Legislature about a couple of projects on the Coquihalla highway where Alberta workers were hired and still work, despite statements by the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) to the contrary, and I want today to talk about another one.

B.C. Hydro has let a contract in the East Kootenay for stringing a powerline between the Alberta border and Cranbrook. The bid was awarded to the low bidder, and properly so; no complaints on my part with that particular award. In fact, the low bid was significantly lower. The company then imported the entire crew from Alberta to work on that job, despite the fact there were unemployed line stringers in Cranbrook who wanted to work and attempted to apply for work on that particular project. I have no objection with Ledcor on the Coquihalla — or Douvan, properly called McGregor, on the B.C. Hydro project — bringing with it its key personnel or, as the supers refer to it, their keepers, people they like to keep with them on the projects as they move around. I've no objection to them doing that. In fact, to run a successful contracting operation I think it's probably essential that they do. But I have serious reservations and serious concern about the fact that the tradespeople employed

[ Page 6369 ]

on these jobs - in the case of the B.C. Hydro job, all of them — are imported as well, denying work to unemployed British Columbia tradespeople who wanted to work in those jobs and who are fully qualified to work in those jobs.

In the job between Cranbrook and the Alberta border, 35 to 40 Alberta workers are now working on that project. There are literally hundreds of unemployed B.C. construction workers, some of whom haven't worked for two or three years, who are qualified to do this kind of work and are being denied the work, despite the fact that B.C. dollars are being spent to build these projects. Not only are B.C. workers being denied the right, but B.C. taxpayers are being denied the financial benefits of that work inasmuch as the income taxes will be paid in Alberta, not here in British Columbia, and much of the paycheque each pay period will be sent home to Alberta. That is wrong in a time when construction workers have been unemployed in some cases for three years, without any job whatsoever.

B.C. has a "B.C. first" purchasing policy, proudly announced in an expensive leaflet printed by the government. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), on December 14 last, said:

"We are seeking suggestions on ways to use public purchasing more creatively as a tool to achieve both fiscal and economic development objectives. To do this we plan to develop a comprehensive strategy which would benefit the economy of British Columbia, its taxpayers and businesses. As minister responsible for the Purchasing Commission, I have stated in my letter that I welcome suggestions which might maximize the job-creating effects of the public dollar."

The policy is in place for goods but not for services provided by workers. Why not?

When I raised the issue earlier this session in question period, the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) — and subsequently some newspaper columnists — suggested that the Charter of Rights prevents us from stopping Alberta workers from coming and taking jobs that properly belong to British Columbians. That position is wrong on two counts, Mr. Speaker, and I want to cite the provisions of the mobility rights section of the Charter of Rights to demonstrate that it is wrong and that in fact we can have a "hire British Columbian" policy in respect of public money. The first point is that every citizen in effect has a right of mobility. So they do. That doesn't mean British Columbian workers should be specifically denied the right, as they are in these cases, and only Albertans hired on these particular projects. That flagrantly contradicts the provisions of the Charter of Rights mobility section.

More importantly — and I want to spend the last minute and a bit that I have, Mr. Speaker, on this part — subsection (4) of the mobility rights clause, section 6, says: "Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada." Clearly, the British Columbia rate of employment is significantly lower than the Canadian rate — 6 percentage points lower. I maintain that construction workers are a group of economically disadvantaged individuals.

[11:15]

Under the Charter of Rights the government can have, and should have, a policy which says: "Public construction projects in British Columbia will be built by British Columbians." It's the right policy publicly, because the Charter of Rights specifically allows us to develop that kind of program, and because we believe that's in the best interests not only of those workers but also of the taxpayers of this province. The money generated by those workers' incomes can remain in this province, and we can begin to try to have some economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we have yet another contract being let, in this case Douvan on the B.C. Hydro line from Cranbrook to the Alberta border, where Alberta workers are being hired. That is wrong, British Columbia workers should have those jobs.

MR. REYNOLDS: Just a few comments, Mr. Speaker. The member states that the contract went to the low bidder, which it did — a British Columbia company. He talks about the Charter of Rights. I'm sure we have British Columbia workers going into Alberta for jobs. If he thinks the Charter of Rights of some of these workers is being affected, he should be protesting to his federal Member of Parliament.

We live in a country where people travel from province to province working, and I would hate to see us saying only British Columbians can be hired for a job. I know it makes good politics to stand up and say that the provincial government should bring in a law, and that the Charter of Rights allows it. I'm not sure that it does; I think we could probably get into a great debate with the lawyers over that one. But I would suggest that that company has a right to hire workers, whether they be from Newfoundland, Ontario, Saskatchewan or British Columbia.

I too would hope that the workers in British Columbia.... To listen to him talk, it's as if this company went out of its way not to hire the workers in Cranbrook. If they did that, certainly those workers in the Cranbrook area have a beef under the Charter of Rights, and should be calling in their Member of Parliament if there is discrimination in that area. But that certainly is not the fault of this provincial government. It's the fault of the Charter of Rights if it's not protecting them in that area. For these members to get up and smile as if this government would prefer to hire people from Alberta rather than to hire people from British Columbia is absolute nonsense.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: He says that's what we do. It's absolute nonsense, Mr. Member. You do not know what you're talking about. You get up and fly silly kites around this province that make no sense at all. Mr. Speaker, this government would certainly be as concerned as anyone if citizens of this province were being discriminated against in favour of citizens of another province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about doctors?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, you could go on and on. These members want to discriminate against doctors, but now that it's a worker in Cranbrook, they don't want to do that. Sure, hit the doctors and discriminate there....

[ Page 6370 ]

MR. COCKE: They still live in Alberta; doctors move here. What's the matter with you?

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: There's the member for New Westminster again, Mr. Speaker, blowing through the top of his hat again. There's the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) blowing through the top of her head. She hasn't recovered from her cricket story a year ago, where she was totally mistaken. Mr. Speaker, it's so interesting to listen to these NDP members, and that's why these members' statements are so interesting on Fridays. They want to get up and start talking about something they know nothing about and keep on propounding things that hurt our province, instead of trying to help. The member from Chemainus talked about IWA 180, how they sat down and worked with management, came up with a solution for the great things that are happening in Chemainus at a mill. That's how things are happening in this province, not the kind of nonsense we're hearing from these members today.

Mr. Speaker, if he has any beef at all, his beef should be with the federal government to enforce the Charter of Rights. If what he's saying is true, rather than get up and in a roundabout way try to blame this provincial government, he should be getting to his NDP friends in Ottawa and to his cousins in Ontario who are getting married up with the Liberals — and you know, they're holding hands in Ottawa — and get those people up on that floor of the House of Commons to start demanding something be done under the Charter of Rights to help your people in Cranbrook. It's not the provincial government, who would love to see British Columbians get those jobs. If the Charter of Rights is being maligned in any way, it should be straightened out, but it's to be done at the federal level.

MR. COCKE: The member knows full well that the Member of Parliament for that area is a Conservative. He fogs up the issue by talking about what that Conservative Member of Parliament should be doing, when it's British Columbia Hydro, a Crown corporation, that's hiring these contractors. They have a policy, obviously, that's wide open.

We're not talking about workers who come to reside in British Columbia from another province to work here. We're talking about people who maintain their residence in Alberta, do their income tax in Alberta, maintain their families in Alberta, but work in British Columbia and take British Columbia jobs.

MR. GABELMANN: We should understand what the Charter means when it talks about mobility rights. What it means is that any Canadian can travel from any part of the country to another part of the country to seek employment. I have absolutely no problem with that; in fact, I support that fully.

What we have in this case is something different. In both of these cases, both Ledcor and Douvan, we have something very different. We have a company using British Columbia tax dollars, either directly or indirectly, and the company has a policy — the superintendent on one of the Ledcor jobs told me this himself personally not more than ten days ago — of deliberately bringing in Alberta workers and denying British Columbia workers those jobs. It's a deliberate policy.

My argument is that under subsection (4) of the mobility rights clause of the Charter, the government of British Columbia is allowed, if not encouraged, to have a policy similar to the purchasing policy in respect of labour. When our unemployment rate is higher than the national average, which it is, we can then say that construction workers, as a group, under subsection (4) can be hired in an affirmative-action way from British Columbia.

The section is quite clear. The members should read it if they haven't. I might suggest that some newspaper columnists should read it too.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to the marketplace?

MR. GABELMANN: The marketplace is there. The company got the low bid, and it was significantly lower, and that's fine. That company should come into Cranbrook and open a hiring hall or go to the Manpower office and see who is available for the job. They shouldn't be bringing in the entire workforce from another province, because those are B.C. dollars that are being spent by our taxpayers, and the benefits are going outside the province.

My point in raising this in member's statements today, Mr. Speaker, is to encourage the government to adopt in respect of services the same policy that it has in respect of goods: that is, a policy which encourages British Columbians to both provide goods to the government or its agencies and also, I'm arguing, services — and in this respect labour services; I don't understand what the difference is. The Charter of Rights clearly and specifically acknowledges the right of provinces to do that in certain circumstances, which we qualify for here in British Columbia. That should be done.

I find it obnoxious that unemployed construction workers in Cranbrook can't get work, when they're qualified for that work, because non-residents of British Columbia have come in and taken their jobs.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: In rising to move second reading of Bill 40, I'd just like to make the comment that this bill will bring amendments to the Chattel Mortgage Act, the Book Accounts Assignment Act, the Sale of Goods on Condition Act and the Company Act — all under this bill that is intituled the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1985.

These amendments clarify the law with regard to a new system which we are instituting into the general registry called the statement of particulars. This statement of particulars has enabled our central registry and companies office to greatly reduce the time between receipt of a security transaction document and the time the information is available for public inquiry. Precisely, the statement of particulars reduces the entry time for critical information from seven days to one day, allowing for a more accurate and efficient search capacity.

The purposes of the amendments in this bill are as follows. They provide clarification that the statement of particulars prevails over the security agreement for the purpose

[ Page 6371 ]

of giving notice to the public, but that it does not affect the rights of the debtor or creditor. The amendments make clear that current provisions that permit technical corrections to filing also apply to the statement of particulars. The amendments clarify that errors and abbreviations do not invalidate the statement of particulars, so long as they are not likely to mislead a reasonable person. Finally, they permit the registrar-general to require that the statement of particulars must be filed on a form supplied by his office.

It is fair to say that this further modernizes our filing system. It provides accurate information quickly to those people who are interested in finding out what charges may be placed against title of property. I think it's a credit to the people in my ministry who have modernized the system to assist the private sector in filing their documents, getting accurate information and getting it quickly.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments I now move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I'd like you to recognize the fact that I'm the designated speaker for the NDP on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we've looked this complicated little bill over and find it quite reasonable; as a matter of fact, quite helpful. We do feel that while important violations are looked at here very carefully, trivial violations may be somewhat overlooked. So from that standpoint the section dealing with the statement of particulars may be just a little bit light. But certainly it's a step in the right direction. When steps in the right direction are taken in this House, we are the first to approve those steps. With that, I've taken all the time that the designated speaker wishes to take on this bill. We support it.

MS. BROWN: I'm just going to ask a question, Mr. Speaker: that is, whether this information is going to be stored technologically. Are we seeing the use of computers in that ministry now? Is that the reason you're able to do this faster and better? Computers come in for a bad name in a number of ways, but in fact this could be one of the positive uses of them. I just wonder whether that is what the minister is doing here, or is it just that he's got people who type faster? Or is he actually coming into the twenty-first century?

[11:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises to close debate on Bill 40.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the comments of the members on the opposition benches.

Yes, it is a result of computerization. It's a system that can be stated to be positive. We're making use of the computer for storing documents for easy access. The statement of particulars is a standard document on which our people can get information very quickly, store it in the computer and recall it when there's an inquiry. It does bring us into the twenty-first century.

Prior to bringing in the statement of particulars, and this bill, to the House, we had full consultation with the people in the credit industry, with accountants, with lawyers, etc. We feel we have a very positive bill and a very positive step forward in automation.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

Leave not granted.

Bill 40, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, 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. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 19.

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In moving second reading of Bill 19, I'd just like to point out a few of the highlights of the bill. First, it's designed primarily to encourage and enable the creation of an exciting new type of financial vehicle in British Columbia, which would be the small business venture capital corporation. These corporations will be private enterprise organizations with the primary function of providing a new source of new equity capital to small business that will allow expanded production and economic and employment growth.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Small business has been a key provider of technological innovation and productive employment. Most economists and others are predicting that 90 percent of all the new employment created between now and the year 2000 will be created by small business. I don't think anyone would argue with that. At the same time, our small businessmen in our society today face a most difficult economic environment. The slowdown of the economy and increased capital costs have had particularly damaging effects on small business. Investment requirements are then accelerating, while a lot of the traditional sources of financing that small business used to call upon have been either drying up or have become so prohibitively expensive that they are relatively unavailable to the small businessman.

Personal savings levels, at the same time, remain at record levels. So what we find is, then, that sufficient investment funds are not being challenged into developing the potential and the energy of the B.C. small business community. That's really the purpose for this act and its regulations. They will establish registration and reporting requirements, define the rules under which these new investment vehicles must operate, and seek to create an entirely new equity source for these small businesses.

The VCCs, as I said, will be privately owned. Their operations are neither sponsored nor guaranteed by the Crown. They provide that if a number of requirements are met, they'll be allowed to raise investment capital through the sale of new-issue equity shares to individuals, other corporations and certain other investment entities, such as pension plans, which have a very significant British Columbia component. The province, to encourage the sale of these shares, will provide a tax credit or, in the case of pension plans, a grant to each VCC share subscriber who is now subject to income tax in British Columbia.

[ Page 6372 ]

The corporation will then reinvest the raised capital by issuing equity shares in various British Columbia small businesses which meet the eligibility requirements of the act. Very simply, the individual and corporate investors will buy an ownership interest in a new type of merchant bank, the VCC, and this new institution will make equity investments in promising small business ventures. The act has been written to actively encourage participation by a wide cross-section of B.C. residents.

The act contains provisions to ensure that each registered VCC raises sufficient capital to maintain a viable operation, and to effectively prevent a VCC from giving preferential treatment to any special group of shareholders. All VCC shares must be paid for in cash and cannot be issued for any other form of consideration — labour services, capital assets or anything like that. Once the equity capital has been raised, then it must be reinvested in order for it to maintain its status in eligible small businesses.

In addition, a VCC is not allowed to acquire a controlling interest in any of the small business investments. That restriction is designed to ensure that the VCCs fulfill the spirit and the intent of the act, and that the control of the company remains with the original shareholders and with those who had the ideas and the energy to put the company together. They will be encouraged to operate as widely-held merchant banks catering to the equity capital needs of the small business sector.

The small business itself will have to conform to a number of tests which will limit its size, guarantee that its operations are located in the province and ensure that it is substantially engaged in certain prescribed activities on which we're targeting this program. A small business is defined as a firm which, together with its affiliates, has fewer than 75 employees. Once the investment has been made, the company will be allowed to expand to a total of 150 employees. That limit should ensure that the company remains a true small business. If you go beyond that, you lose your small business status, and presumably you've been successful enough that you can carry your own equity from then on. The VCC is allowed two years to complete such a divestment should that company rise to a size where it is no longer eligible.

I want to emphasize that in addition to that test for small business, the VCC-funded firm must be located and primarily operating in British Columbia. This will require that 75 percent of the wages and salaries of both the qualifying small business and its affiliates be paid to employees who normally report to work at operations located in this province.

It will also, as I have said, be limited to certain prescribed activities. At the present time, it's proposed to target the program on firms engaged in manufacturing and processing, value added to British Columbia products, research and development, tourism activities and aquaculture. These activities were selected because of their importance to the province's general economic development objectives, their employment potential and the desire to exclude certain activities which already receive substantial federal and/or provincial assistance. Certain uses of equity supplied by the VCCs will be expressly prohibited. A small business is not allowed to relend the funds it gets from the venture capital corporation. It is not allowed to reinvest them outside Canada or use them to reinvest in land, except where the land is absolutely incidental and auxiliary to the principal objectives of the business. So it cannot get into the business of flipping real estate. These prohibitions are designed to ensure that the capital is always employed for the purposes set out in the act.

A final, I guess, feature of the bill is a provision to forgive the VCC's liability to the province. After ten years of successful operation, a VCC can be completely relieved of any incentive repayment liability.

I believe we have before us a unique piece of legislation designed to meet the special equity capital needs of the small business sector. It is an act which effectively deals with the important economic challenges of the present, while building for our future economy and employment needs. In saying that, I would move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support this legislation. Certainly we can without any problem at all agree with his concerns. Small business does have difficulty raising equity capital, and it does have difficulty borrowing — no question about that. It has that difficulty because it has to go to commercial lending institutions, which exist not to help small business, or even large business, but to make profits for their own shareholders. That's why the banks and trust companies are organized; that's why all these organizations work. They're there to make a profit for their shareholders, not to help small business.

It will be the role of these new organizations to help small business. But there's a price, of course. The provincial government is forgoing tax revenue. That's the price that the provincial government is prepared to pay to get this additional financial assistance for a small business. But in exchange for that price, the government is also reminding the VCCs that they are instruments of government policy, and that they exist solely to further government policy. The legislation to make sure that everything that the VCCs do is in support of government policy, which is to encourage small business.... We all agree with that. We know that small business will be the main employer. There's no question about that. So it's important, and that's why we're supporting the legislation. It's here to support and to encourage small business.

But there is a price, Mr. Speaker, in giving up this government revenue and in saying to the small business corporations: look, because we're giving you something, because you're an instrument of government policy, we're going to draft some very complicated legislation to make sure that everything you do is completely in line with our policy, that you do nothing that is in any way opposed to our policy, that in every way conceivable you are instruments of government policy. And always there's a possibility that we may change this legislation, change the regulations to make sure that if government changes its attitude as to how best to create more employment in the small business sector, then we'll change the legislation and then the VCCs will be obliged to live up to the new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, they want to do the job, but they want to say that we're not doing it ourselves — somebody out there is doing it. It would have been so much more efficient, in my mind, for the government to have simply made this money available even to BCDC — a Crown corporation — and say: "This is the direction we want to go. This is the kind of help we want to give. We're not going to tie you down to all of the parameters in these pages of legislation and make it so difficult for you to operate that you almost have to come to the minister and ask in every instance: 'Now is this actually what

[ Page 6373 ]

you had in mind? Is this what you want to do?"' If it were done through BCDC, then at least that corporation, with the experience that it's had, I believe could have done the job more efficiently and could have more quickly reacted to any changes in government policy from time to time.

However, Mr. Speaker, having said that, since it is a plus, since the goals are there, I wish I could share the minister's optimism that it will actually accomplish something. Frankly, if it's just a matter of getting credit for small business — and that's a large part of it — there is another bill coming up this morning, which I think we will get to, that touches on the same subject, and there are some things I'd like to say then. But I wonder if perhaps the minister might have had an opportunity to look at the Quebec experience. I draw on this not simply because Finance Minister Wilson referred to it in his budget speech on May 23, but it's described in that budget speech as an innovative venture capital initiative that has been taken by organized labour in the province of Quebec in cooperation with the Quebec government. The federal government likes this approach to the extent that it is prepared to cooperate with it. Now I know this came out after the legislation that we're considering now. I wonder whether the minister has had any opportunity at all to check with the federal government to see whether the VCCs will also be acceptable to the federal government, or indeed whether or not we should be bringing in further legislation. It may be hard for this particular administration to contemplate working with the B.C. Federation of Labour or with trade union organizations in this kind of a program, but has the minister given that approach any thought, considering that the federal government is prepared to cooperate financially with that?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, again I'm really just asking some questions. I introduced a private member's bill, M207, called Women's Career and Employment Opportunity Act. What it had to do with specifically was to ask the government to help women who are interested in starting small businesses in terms of giving them an outright grant or loan without interest for a period of 12 months to be able to do this. I'm not sure whether this bill as it stands now actually would make the bill which I have on the order paper no longer necessary. Does this bill mean that the business has to be already in existence, or is it funding for new small business? That is one of the questions I wanted to ask the minister. The other: in section 8 where he talks about the minimum capital requirement being $100,000 of equity capital, does that mean that the women would have to be able to come up front with $100,000, or could they have a debt of $100,000, for example, at which point they would start to benefit from the bill?

[11:45]

It's quite a long bill, and I must confess that I really don't know enough about venture capital and that kind of thing to know whether it's actually doing what I tried to achieve through M207, which was to have women who wanted to get into small business get the funding, at least for a year, to be able to do so. I wonder whether in closing debate the minister would explain whether this bill does that or not.

MR. COCKE: Again, I certainly agree with my colleague for Nanaimo that anything today in this province that will encourage new business is a plus. But the problem that I have is that while that minister has under his jurisdiction and arm the B.C. Development Corporation, he didn't see fit to use this kind of measure in conjunction with the work they do. He's likely to explain to us that because this is, from a certain standpoint, not necessarily a capitalization but more of a tax avoidance and that kind of thing — in other words, providing government service for less money to new enterprises or to struggling enterprises....

I worry about a bill of this sort, in that it's so close to government. Sometimes I feel it's important to have real arm's length. I notice there is an arm's length Section 1n this bill. But I think you can get better arm's length outside of direct access to a ministry. Direct access to a ministry oftentimes, in the minds of those who view it, has that connotation around it of political assistance for those who warrant that kind of assistance. So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest very strongly that the minister should come up with some very persuasive arguments, at the time that he closes debate on this bill, around that one particular point.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds talked about minimum capital requirements. I realize that S 100,000 isn't very much, but certainly some businesses have started on a lot less than $100,000. If he's talking about a capitalization of $100,000 in terms of issued shares — not necessarily those dollars put up front — that's one thing. But I think that's another question that he should answer vis-à-vis whether or not it calls for that much money on the table in cash prior to the eligibility of the corporation for this particular assistance

With that, Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague for Nanaimo. This is a plus, and we have no choice but to support it, but we'd like a few of those questions answered.

MRS. WALLACE: I have just a couple of brief questions too. I wonder if the minister, in closing his remarks, would tell us what he means by aquaculture. What does it include? Does it include mariculture? Does it include trout farming? If he would just give us a rundown of what he perceives aquaculture to include........

The other one I would like him to answer is whether or not this venture capital could he used for consolidation of debt or paying off of outstanding debts. Could it be used in that way? Because I know a lot of the small businesses in my community are into debt up to their necks. They're having real problems with some of those because of the high interest rates, including some of the ones in Chemainus that our colleague was talking about. I would like to know whether or not he perceives this being used as a sort of a debt consolidation — perhaps at a lower interest rate — to help some of those people that are in that situation, or is it just for an expansion or a new enlargement?

Is there anything tied to job creation in this? Is it going to mean that you have to guarantee that you're going to employ so many people like the old ASEP or LILA programs? You know, that was the criterion: how many people you were going to employ. Is there anything tied to jobs in this at all?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll try to answer some of the questions that have been raised first.

The corporations would not receive tax credit for the repayment of debts. They are for the creation of business and jobs. Aquaculture really covers everything that you raised and more, a bit, including I would think the production of seaweed products and anything related to what has come to be known as aquaculture. It's more than fish-farming; it would

[ Page 6374 ]

also in some ways cover research and development in aquaculture as well. That is proving to be one of the big stumbling blocks for people who want to get into the aquaculture business: getting their research programs in place with early development.

There's a problem, I think, perhaps.... It's my fault for not explaining this as well as I might. First of all, the arm's length relationship that the member for New Westminster refers to is not an arm's length relationship between the government and the corporation but rather between the corporation and the eligible businesses in which it invests. The major reason for that is that we don't want to create an opportunity for someone, because they have a greater capacity for raising money, to be able to take the ownership away from a small business operator.

We feel that that small business operator, just because he needs equity financing, shouldn't have to give away the farm in order to get his equity financing. So that's where the arm's length relationship is. The $100,000 in cash, which is the minimum startup requirement again, is not a requirement of the eligible small business. It's a requirement of the venture corporation.

So the venture corporation has to be well enough funded so that it can then go out and buy the equity shares in these small businesses and give them the opportunities they need. Again, I must stress that this is not a loan that has to be repaid by anybody. It is an actual pool of venture capital which will buy shares in an eligible company, and the venture corporation will raise its profit not from interest but from actual investment earnings that the small company will have.

So it is a big mistake to think of this as a loan. It would not replace any of our other loan programs which the BCDC has, which we will have under discussion in some other bills later today, in the small business manufacturing and which can apply to business women who want to start up their own businesses. Particularly, though, we are still targeting on those areas that we think need to be strengthened most, and that's in the processing, manufacturing, research and development. That gives added value to British Columbia goods which then spreads out into the community to support all those other business ventures. But without them you can't have your shoemakers and your tailors or hotels or tourism operators or anything else we might need in the community. So we've targeted directly on those areas.

On a couple of the matters that the member for Nanaimo raised, first of all — and I'll say this again — don't mix this up with the $575 million ERDA agreement that we've signed. That's all available for various kinds of loans for those same various kinds of businesses across the spectrum of the community of British Columbia. As far as I'm concerned — I'll check this out later and we can perhaps talk about it when we get to committee stage — this venture capital corporation will fit perfectly into the ideas that they have about labour pension funds being able to invest in this Crown corporation. We've said specifically that these are available to pension funds. I don't see why one pension fund should be any different from any other.

We have studied the Quebec program, the Ontario program and the Alberta program, and they have been successful. You see, the whole idea of this is to try to get British Columbians to start thinking of themselves as investors rather than simply savers. I'm told that we in Canada are the greatest savers in the world. Our bank accounts in this country, despite the poor economy, are at record levels. What we'd like to see is some of them get their money into some of the small businesses that we're going to need for the future. So that's the real thrust of this whole bill.

In studying those other provinces' activities, we found that there had been some serious loopholes. You know the problems that have arisen with those research tax credits that the federal government has just eliminated. We did get into serious problems with money that came from investors and went into land speculation and a lot of other things it was never meant to go into, and we've tried to close all of those loopholes so that the money really goes where it's supposed to go.

On the matter of changing government policy, I would doubt that any government could change a policy which would affect an existing venture capital corporation, because these will be done under a contractual arrangement. There will be contracts signed, and those contracts will have the force of law. The force of law, I would expect, would not allow you to change that contract by a change in government policy.

Finally, I wanted to mention that I agree with the member for New Westminster that there will be some forgone revenues. But I think "forgone revenues" is a phrase that the economists and Treasury Board and finance people have made up to scare us away from doing anything. I don't like to call them forgone revenues. I think they're fictitious taxes, because they wouldn't be here if the company didn't start up. Sure they're forgone, but they're forgone from nothing, in my opinion. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 19 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. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I believe I need leave to ask for second reading of Bill 46.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, leave will be required. It was just introduced this morning.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's essentially the same bill as Bill 23, with some technical amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate that from the members opposite. There are no surprises. The main purpose of this bill remains the same, and that is to authorize economic development programs, again to allow for specific business sectors to expand, diversify or create new long-term job opportunities. What we do new in this, I think, is rather than have everybody follow down the straight line, this program should allow us to be able to sort of cut the pattern to fit the cloth — look at a company's needs and try to build a program that will help that company with its specific needs. It will include the small manufacturers' incentive program, which will provide interest-free repayable loans up to $50,000 per project. I think that

[ Page 6375 ]

Again, I wouldn't go over.... It's the same targeting that we've had for the other programs. It is much the same as the previous assistance to small enterprise program, the small manufacturers' assistance program and the recent small manufacturers' development assistance programs. They have been very successful in the past, Mr. Speaker. They have been good vehicles for job creation, they have provided investment of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 million and provided an estimated 4,600 jobs.

[12:00]

You will recall that the five-year, $50 million TIDSA program in 1983 was terminated, and now we will see in this bill a new initiative addressed by the tourism infrastructure incentive program, again to provide low-interest loan assistance to stimulate further development of destination tourism attractions. The so-called bricks and mortar part of the program will be funded with a total of $25 million, again in the form of low-interest, repayable loans. The funding should result in about $100 million in direct new capital investment in the tourist industry.

The industrial incentive fund again is designed to be as flexible as possible and respond to the needs of the private sector. It will assist medium- and large-scale private sector people engaged in higher, value-added manufacturing and further processing of our resources, of our knowledge-based industries and of innovative projects of prime importance to the project.

As I said in introduction of the bill which is now on the table.... Bill 46 is a bit broader than the previous bill only in that it provides now for our authority for initiatives which will form part of the $50 million small business incentives package under that ERDA agreement which was reached with the federal government and final approval given on Monday of this week. It also makes provision for the aquaculture incentive program and the industrial development assistance programs. So ultimately, with the passage of this bill, they will all be contained in a small business incentives subagreement that we will be signing with the federal government as soon as this bill is passed. As you know, the funding is shared fifty-fifty between the province and the federal government. It is the first agreement — the $50 million part of it — of any province to be signed with the federal government in this new area.

I might just say as well — perhaps this isn't the right place, but I'm sure the Speaker will tell me if it isn't — that for the first time we have reached agreement essentially — there are just some dots to be done and t's to be crossed — that the program will be run by British Columbia, not by the federal government. There will be a management committee which of course will have federal and provincial people on it, but the management of the program itself will be by the province, so that we can target the areas that we really need. The federal government has given us — I must say — complete cooperation on this and also the problem that we ran into with the old funding by the federal government that found British Columbia getting hardly any money out of the program, certainly not compared to many other parts of Canada, because of the so-called tiering of the program. Many of you who are in constituencies who weren't in the right tier will know that you never got any money under this program. The federal government has now agreed to end tiering and that British Columbia will be treated as one province, without any special status for one part of the province over another. I think those are very good achievements, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't want to be remiss by not paying full dues to the federal government for having come to that agreement with us.

Finally, this is another step in a series of steps that the government is taking to foster cooperative growth and development in partnership with the private sector, and in so doing I would move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Once again the opposition will support this legislation, because it is providing some help to small business and we agree with the goals. Personally, I don't particularly like the method. I have to say that, and then I'll get into this particular bill.

The minister was a member of the opposition when I introduced the farm credit legislation. On the bill we discussed earlier this morning, I said that it's government policy to do all of the things that are going to be done by the VCCs, and the legislation is so complicated because the government wants to make sure everything they do is exactly in line with government policy. I suggested, why not do it yourself rather than turn it over to private capital? In this instance, why not leave it to the private people to do it, as we did with the farm credit legislation? In that instance, borrowers went to the lending agency of their choice: bank, credit union or whatever. There was a government policy which allowed for subsidizing the interest rate to bring it down to whatever the government thought was appropriate at that particular time for that particular circumstance — not for one individual, but in general. There was also provision for the government to guarantee in some instances; if the lending agency felt that the loan was worth while but risky to the point where they wanted someone else on the collateral, there was provision for guarantee. Of course, the borrower paid a little extra for that.

That program meant that the government could help a lot more people with limited funds, because it was simply a subsidizing of the interest rate at the end of the year, which is going to happen anyway. Also, it interfered less. The borrower went to the bank manager or credit union manager who knew him and whom he knew — or she, whatever the case was. So it took the administration completely out of the hands of government. Here, the minister is going to do all this. It's the minister who's going to decide whether or not a particular applicant for borrowing fits his program.

This legislation establishes five programs — under the previous bill it was three — under which he may loan money to business. The first one, the small manufacturers incentive program that the minister talked about, can loan money to encourage manufacturing, processing and advanced technology; aquaculture is now a separate section. But the minister has the authority and it's his responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not.... I appreciate he's not going to do all this himself, but it certainly leaves open the possibility that politics may have something to do with whether or not an applicant will be favourably considered. It takes it right out of the area that I talked about previously, where an applicant went to the lending agency of his or her choice, and puts it firmly in the minister's office. That's where the decision is going to be made.

Certainly in cases where any of the individuals in any of these sections are turned down for a loan application, some of

[ Page 6376 ]

them are going to wonder, some of them are going to suspect, and some of them are even going to make charges to the effect that politics had something to do with whether or not they got favourable consideration, as opposed to what the neighbour down the street got. I think it's bad that there's even the possibility of that question coming up. I prefer the method that we used — and that is still used — with the farm credit legislation.

I appreciate that in this program it's working with the federal government. You have to be prepared to go along with the program they're making available; they're providing half the funds, so we really don't have the choice. I'm just saying that I think the minister should on other occasions make the point with Ottawa that he would rather not have this responsibility in his office; he would rather not have the administration of this kind of program; he would rather have the kind of program that B.C. now has in effect with respect to farmers

The bill is certainly a short one — that's in its favour — but it's very vague as to what directions the minister has. He's really got a lot of freedom to act in this. I suppose it imposes a real obligation on the community generally, and the opposition in particular, to watch for examples and to bring them to attention wherever there is any suspicion anywhere — because that's not good for government in total, not just for the minister himself — that the vagueness and generality of the legislation is such that the minister or his office may be accused of any kind of favouritism at all in dealing with these loan applications.

We support it because it is positive. I wish personally that it had been in a different direction, but that's my personal feeling, as not opposed to but distinct from the opposition. But we will support the legislation.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: In the gallery today, from sunny Surrey, is a group of students from Anniedale Elementary School, accompanied by Mr. R. Clifford. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm wondering whether or not the minister could tell us when he closes debate just why he has chosen these specific items that he has chosen here. I notice aquaculture has been added in this new bill we're discussing, as opposed to the first submission, and also industrial development assistance. They are two items with specific amounts of money allocated to them. I recognize that aquaculture is a new and coming industry, and that there are probably great opportunities there. Certainly we need the research; we need the capital to get those industries going. Then we go on to industrial development and it outlines "...that support the industrial and resource sections of the economy of the province...." I think the one that always gets omitted in these kinds of things — certainly it did under the ASEP program, which, as the minister had indicated, this is replacing — are those agriculturally related industries. Somehow you don't think about what happens in agriculture as processing.

There are just a few examples that I'd like to bring to the minister's attention. I was in Vernon last night, and I was talking to a chap who has a rabbit farm. There are many rabbit farmers there who want to produce rabbit for meat. He is trying to get a loan for processing that product. He has a market: he could sell all he could get across the border. But he can't get funds from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) or from your ministry for that particular thing. It falls through the cracks.

Another one where there is an extensive market is the mushroom industry. Somehow the expansion of mushroom farming seems to fall through the cracks. Again, this is particularly true on Vancouver Island. There would be ample room for greater production here, but we somehow just can't seem to get that covered. The growing of mushrooms doesn't seem to come under the terms — at least it didn't under the ASEP legislation. I can't see anywhere where it's going to fit into this particular piece of legislation. I hope the minister can tell me I'm wrong, that there is a place in here where those kinds of things will fit in; and then I can go out and tell these people to get their applications in right away.

I want to talk a little bit about the tourism incentive program. I assume this is replacing the old TIDSA program. The minister will recall that a few days ago, just before his estimates were up for discussion, he circulated to all of us a summary of the programs that had taken place in our particular constituency. I don't have those in front of me right now, but I do recall very clearly what had happened with the TIDSA grants. There were five grants made in my constituency: four of them were very major grants; one was a minor grant on Thetis Island. That minor grant on Thetis Island is the only firm that made it. All those others went bankrupt; the loans were written off.

Sure we need to encourage tourism, but do we need to encourage it at a cost to the taxpayers and a cost to those individual entrepreneurs, in a situation where they don't make it? It's a great cost to them; it's a great cost to the taxpayer. And somebody comes along and picks up, for a song, that facility that we the taxpayers have paid for and got nothing in return. So I would hope that there will be some specific direction in these loans relative to tourism, so we don't see a recurrence of that type of thing happening. With the hype of Expo and all the anticipation about these 15 million tourists that are going to come to Vancouver Island, I hope we don't get involved in overbuilding; I think there would be a real incentive to do that.

What we are trying to encourage is the bed and breakfast, and the utilization of facilities that we have. Yet I'm sure, if this money is floating around, there will be an incentive to do this thing. What I'm saying to the ministry is: for goodness' sake, look cautiously so we don't get into the situation that has been so pinpointed in my particular riding.

[12:15]

Also, while I'm talking about that, I hope that when the minister reports to us, as he and his predecessor have done, on what they have done in our constituency, he will tell us not only what has been approved but what has actually been given. So often under the old ASEP grants, all we got were the approvals. As I went down that list, I could pick out all kinds of firms who, for some reason or other, didn't qualify when the cards were down. What the government was talking about in the terms of filling its appropriation for $10 million, $30 million, $25 million and $50 million under the different sections.... It really wasn't spent at all. I don't want to say that's sharp practice, but I certainly think it's deceiving. It's not factual as to what actually happens. So I hope that in

[ Page 6377 ]

reporting on what he does under this act, he will tell us not only what he approves but also what he actually grants.

MS. BROWN: I want to ask how this bill would impact on the one which I have on the order paper. This bill says that terms and conditions can be made which the minister considers appropriate. Would that ever include, for example, interest-free money for 12 months, which is really the gist of the bill which I have on the order paper? It's so difficult, first of all, to establish a small business. Most of them, as the minister knows, go bankrupt before they've had a chance to really get started. Because it's so difficult to establish a small business, and because funding is in such short supply as far as women trying to establish a small business are concerned, would it be possible under this act for a loan to be given to a woman wanting to start a small business which would be taxfree, for example, for the first 12 months? That would basically bring it into line with a bill I have on the order paper.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: I have very little to say, other than that this is a step forward — there's no question about that in my mind. I am impressed with the inadequacy of the fund, except that it's a lot more than zero.

The only thing that amazes me is that the federal Conservatives have brought in a proposition whereby money is going to have to be put up front. Therefore the provincial government has to go along with that program. In other words, the provincial government has to put up their share of the fifty-fifty, when they both have access to guarantees using traditional lenders. You know, if there's going to be a compromise vis-à-vis the amount of interest that will be allowed, and so on and so forth, there could be some money required from the provincial and the federal government to pay that interest. I really think it could have been a bigger program.

Banks right now are howling to lend their money, and even some credit unions are in the same position. I am particularly delighted that the bill that preceded this — and I know one shouldn't digress too far from the bill we're on........ I think that this is going to give an opportunity for the pension plans, if they have used their brains to set up those funding arms.

On this one here, I think we could have to some extent done exactly the same thing. I'm not blaming the minister or this government on that particular situation, because it was the feds who set the program up on the sharing basis. I think that next time the minister is in Ottawa talking to his counterparts down there he should say: "We could make a richer plan if we used traditional lending institutions, at least as the basis for the capital that goes up front, rather than taking the bucks from the different treasuries and putting them into this particular thing." The only dollars then required from the treasury would be dollars that would subsidize interest or whatever else.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to repeat, I guess, what I said in debate on the last bill, and that is that this should not be looked at in isolation. It is part of a total package that is available in a number of different areas.

To the member for New Westminster, we already have the opportunity to make the kinds of guarantees you talked about, and we often do, through the British Columbia Development Corporation. It's a preferred way of doing business. I believe we've been pretty fortunate in making those guarantees over the past several years, with our track record and that of the businesses we've helped. So that too is available to us as part of the package. The member is right. In negotiating the agreement with the federal government, we had to take into account what the federal priority was as well, and they wanted this kind of a fund available. I can say that I think we've come away pretty good. In the last ten-year agreement that expired last fall the total amount of money received by British Columbia over that ten-year period, both shares, was well under $300 million over ten years. We've managed to get a five-year agreement of $575 million, with the opportunity both to review it during the term of the agreement, should things change, and of course to negotiate the new second five-year term under the ERDA agreement, because the ERDA agreement is still a ten-year agreement. But from that point of view, we were somewhat locked in. Things may change, and we may do things with the federal government in different ways in the future.

The program does allow for interest-free loans, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), under a number of various areas. The interest would not necessarily just be free for 12 months. It would be free for the term of the loan. So whatever the terms were that we negotiated with the person who wanted to get into the business, that would be available to them over the life of that loan, interest-free. That's under the small manufacturers' incentive program, and it's available, of course, to everybody.

I might say that I don't have the complete records, but I think it might be useful for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to get them. Not only in British Columbia but across Canada the vast majority of new small businesses which are being started are being started by women. The second part of that equation is that the successful businesses, which are not only the start-ups but those which do not go into bankruptcy, the ones who are successful........ The vast majority of those are being operated by women.

I share the member for Cowichan-Malahat's (Mrs. Wallace's) concern about the tourism agreement. There were a lot of mistakes made by every government in Canada on that tourism program. We really focused it in exactly the wrong direction, and I hope we've learned from our mistakes. You will note from some of the notes, if you go back in the Blues, that I mentioned that the bulk of the money will be either to help the infrastructure of what we describe as a destination resort or to make infrastructure available that might get a destination resort to become a year-round destination resort, rather than just to build motel and hotel rooms all over the province. We'll be very careful with that. It's certainly something that all of us in government have recognized and perhaps are a little embarrassed about.

Now as far as agriculture goes........ As far as I'm concerned, if it's processing, it’s processing, and it doesn't matter whether it's in the agriculture industry or anywhere else. We will, particularly since the ministry has changed its name to Agriculture and Food........ I think even the Ministry of Agriculture has learned that a whole lot of our agriculture industry is an added value to British Columbia products. Those loans will be available to the agriculture industry. It will be treated just as another processing industry, and we hope to be able to add value.

[ Page 6378 ]

The two specific things that she mentioned about failing through the cracks........ The mushroom problem is really not one that is ours. It has been a problem of the growers themselves and their board, who attempted, as the member will probably remember, to restrict the number of operations that were allowed in the province. I don't have all the details of this one, but they've just lost in court. The court has ruled that their act doesn't allow them to restrict operations. I would assume, reading that court case, that they will now have to issue a whole lot of licences to people who have applied to grow mushrooms in British Columbia.

So that's the problem with the mushrooms. The rabbit farm....

MRS. WALLACE: Mushroom-processing facilities?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No problem. If they qualify, the loans will be available to them. The same is true with the rabbits, Mr. Speaker. We've been dealing with the rabbit farm through BCDC. The difficulty is that no matter what lending agency it might be — whether it's a bank, a credit union, the government or a government Crown agency — some business plans have to be acceptable. At this point at least, the people who have been evaluating the business plans of the particular people you're talking about have not found it to be acceptable. As you recall in my estimates, I promised the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) that I would go back and have a second look at that, and ask the people to have another look at it to see if there is a way in which those business plans could be brought up to a level where they would be acceptable.

The one other major matter that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) raised, I believe, was about the business of giving loans to competing businesses, and that's one we're very aware of. It's something that we have to be extremely careful of, that you don't impede somebody else's business by the government giving a loan to another business which is in a similar kind of production or manufacturing or export sales or whatever. It's sometimes a little difficult to do, but we intend to keep very close track of that. I've given instructions to my staff that one of the tests of any eligibility is whether or not it's either in some kind of sensitive area where there might be overproduction and you'd hurt another company by giving the loan, or there's direct competition to another British Columbia business in our province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 46.

Motion approved.

Bill 46, Industrial Development Incentive 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. McCLELLAND: The only way I can get my stuff done is if I'm House Leader as well. Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 27.

LOW INTEREST LOAN ASSISTANCE REVOLVING FUND ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this really is — and I say this with all sincerity — pretty well housekeeping. It formally establishes the funding for the low-interest loan assistance program, which is administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation as a revolving fund, which is really what it has been for quite some time. We had a request from the auditor-general last year to bring the program more into conformity with the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. This bill really is to answer that objection from the auditor- general.

It also, however, serves to put the fund on a formal revolving fund basis, which will facilitate the continuing availability of the fund to help small- and medium-sized firms engaged, again, in the areas that I've mentioned on a number of occasions before: manufacturing, processing and advanced technology.

As of March 31 this year, the LILA fund still has a value of approximately $25.3 million. It has been, I believe, remarkably successful to date. It started in 1977, and from that date until 1984 just over $50 million in low interest loans had been approved for just under 500 private sector-initiated projects and it has created about 5,800 jobs in the province of British Columbia.

So it has been a good program, I hope that it will continue to be a good program, and I would move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will certainly support this legislation, and I'd like to compliment the minister for recognizing that it was the auditor-general who brought this to the attention of government. As the minister said, it's housekeeping. It's cleaning up something that is, in effect........ It's working; we're pleased to hear that. I had figures that were made available at an earlier date. They weren't quite as good as the ones that the minister gave us, because his are more up to date. I'm pleased that the program is working.

[12:30]

1 know from time to time we've had questions about some of the loans that were made. I'd be interested if the minister can give us any information at all during committee stage — not with a view to finding anything wrong with the program at all, but simply a little more knowledge as to how it is working — as to what kinds of businesses have lost money, how many have failed — again, not in any way to criticize the program, but simply to complete the report that the minister has given us about the program. We'll support it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you for the comments from the member for Nanaimo. I'd be happy to make that kind of information available. Most of it is, really, because since this program is administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation, it's contained in their annual reports. If you want me to get you as up-to-date a report as I can about the success of the program and what kinds of businesses generally have been helped and which ones have failed, I'll be happy to do that.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 27, Low Interest Loan Assistance Revolving Fund 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.

[ Page 6379 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill PR406.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

MRS. JOHNSTON: This is the bill which will change the name of Trinity Western College to Trinity Western University. I imagine that we will enter into further discussion when we take the bill into committee, so rather than take up a great deal of time this morning, I will move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there is no member on our side of the House from the committee that studied this bill, so with that I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:33 p.m.