[ Page 6765 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Strategy for survival. Mrs. Wallace –– 6765

Student loan remission program. Mr. Nicolson –– 6765

Grape imports. Ms. Sanford –– 6766

Community colleges. Mr. Rose –– 6766

Conflict-of-interest guidelines. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6767

Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Cocke –– 6767

Tabling Documents –– 6767

Committee of Supply: Economic Renewal Program estimates. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 5: economic and regional development agreement –– 6768

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Williams

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. MacWilliam

Special Enterprise Zone And Tax Relief Act (Bill 49). Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6770

Mr. Williams –– 6771

Mr. Lea –– 6772

Mr. Davis –– 6773

Mr. Rose –– 6774

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6776

Mr. Lauk –– 6779

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6780

Mr. Blencoe –– 6781

Mr. Nicolson –– 6783

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6784

Mr. Skelly –– 6785

Mr. R. Fraser –– 6786

Mr. Kempf –– 6788

Mr. Reynolds –– 6789

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MR. PARKS: On behalf of the Hon. Garde Gardom, it's my pleasure this afternoon to welcome to the House the Canada Day committee, which has been doing a most stalwart job on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia. We have in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, that committee, chaired by Mr. Mike Latta of Kamloops: Ms. Maureen Albanese, from Vancouver; Ms. Madeleine Coudert, from Dawson Creek; Dr. Green, from Prince Rupert; Mr. Bill Silver, from Fort St. James; Ms. Janice Pelletier, from Cranbrook; Mr. Harry Dewar, from Kelowna; Alderman Sherry Baker, from Chilliwack; Alderman Janet Baird, from Victoria; Mr. Andrew Lai, from Vancouver; Ms. Frances Fridge, from Vancouver; Mr. Claude Hazel, from Richmond; Mr. Hugh Wakeham, from Vancouver; Ms. Alice Niwinski, from the city of Vancouver

Unfortunately, one member, who devised what I think is a most appropriate flag for British Columbians to show — for that matter, for all Canadians to show — on July 1.... It's a "proud to be a Canadian" flag. I would urge all of you to distribute it to your offices. I will be supplying copies to every MLA today. I would also ask the House to bid them very welcome.

MS. SANFORD: For the past several months all of the MLAs have benefited from the presence of the interns, under the intern program, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has been ongoing in this House for some ten years or more. This program has been an excellent one. The interns are seated in the gallery today. This is their last day in the Legislature. Tomorrow, as I understand it, they are all leaving for Ontario to see what happens in the Ontario Legislature. I would be interested to receive a comparative report, Mr. Speaker, once they return from Ontario. For those interns who have worked so hard for our caucus, I want to thank them today, and I want to wish all of the interns well. All the best in the future to you, and thank you again.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to add our congratulations to those expressed by the member for Comox. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to introduce to the House today four very bright and energetic young people. They are the legislative interns assigned to the Social Credit caucus during our current legislative session. They are: Mandy Gaunt of Victoria, a graduate of the University of Victoria; Nicola Marotz of Burnaby, a graduate of Simon Fraser University; Haidee Parker of Armstrong, a graduate of the University of British Columbia; and Douglas Reimer of Kelowna, a graduate of the University of Victoria. Individually and collectively they have contributed to the efforts of this House to approach its business in an informed and analytical manner. They have brought to their tasks a refreshing enthusiasm that speaks well for them and for all the young people of our province. I believe I speak for all members of this House in extending our many thanks to Mandy, Nicola, Haidee and Doug and in giving them our best wishes in all their future endeavours. I hope they have learned something in their stay with us. Their presence has certainly reminded us of the great promise held by our province's and our nation's young people.

MR. LEA: I would like to join with other members in thanking and saying goodbye to the interns. Next year, though, I wish I could get one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't be here next year.

MR. LEA: Ah! The election call is on, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure these interns left university full of hope and ideals. I just hope that their experience here hasn't made them jaded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never!

MR. LEA: Well, if we haven't done it, maybe when they get to Ontario....

MRS. WALLACE: I have a guest in the press gallery today. I would like to thank the chairman of the press gallery for arranging a pass — as he said, for him — and welcome Ms. Sharlene Sommer from CKAY Radio, Duncan.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd like the House to join with me in giving a very warm reception to an outstanding citizen of Cranbrook, Ms. Janice Pelletier.

Oral Questions

STRATEGY FOR SURVIVAL

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) in the absence of the Minister of Forests. Now that the ERDA agreement is signed, I wonder if he can tell me whether the government has decided to make funds available to support the strategy for survival, as purported by the mayors of Vancouver Island.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I will take it as notice and have the minister bring back a response at the earliest possible time.

STUDENT LOAN REMISSION PROGRAM

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Can the minister confirm that the student loan remission program — the one that was announced in the 1984 throne speech and again in the 1985 throne speech — is now in place in time for the 1985 university grads to apply before they have to start paying interest on their outstanding student loans anticipated next January?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they don't become eligible to repay their loans until six months after their graduation, and the program will certainly be in place by then — much sooner, I hope.

MR. NICOLSON: Can the minister confirm that he has decided that the amount of the loan remission will be limited to one year's tuition — at current rates, approximately $1,500 — and that only those grads in receipt of a B.C. loan will be eligible?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm any of those things.

[ Page 6766 ]

MR. NICOLSON: To the same minister, has the minister decided that students from the same town and with the same need will attract the same amount of loan remission, or has the minister decided to vary the loan remission according to the course selections and programs undertaken?

HON. MR. McGEER: The details of the program will be available at the time the program is officially announced, Mr. Speaker, but I want to assure him that we believe it will be the finest program in Canada.

GRAPE IMPORTS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the alternate Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I notice that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is looking in his desk. He's quite correct; he's the one.

B.C. grape growers were protected previously by an 80-20 formula which restricted imports of grapes and wine by B.C. wineries to 20 percent of their total B.C. grape purchases. In a period of rising demand, however, that flexible application of their formula by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has meant an open border. B.C. wineries now import about 50 percent of their grape and wine supply. Has the minister now decided to enforce the 80-20 formula, and will he spell it out in firm regulation to protect B.C. growers, who are facing cancellation of all contracts with respect to this year's grape crop?

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to take the question as notice and communicate it to the minister as soon as possible.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the 79 grape growers that we have in British Columbia — the crop is worth about $2.5 million — are now at stake. Flexible import policies by the minister have delayed good management decisions by the wineries. Unfortunately, the fault falls on the government because the leadership has not been there. Does the minister not accept that 80 percent of each bottle of B.C. wine should be made from B.C. grapes, and what long-term strategy has he developed to reach that goal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the member will be very pleased with the answer when the minister responsible provides it to her.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Discussions are going on now about the amalgamation of several lower mainland community colleges. The minister himself has discussed his ideas to rationalize course offerings by the colleges in the lower mainland. Would the minister be prepared to tell the House whether he plans to order the colleges to specialize in their course offerings?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, about two or three weeks ago in Nanaimo I met with the chairmen and chief executive officers of the colleges and institutes in British Columbia. The concern among the colleges themselves, which they have raised on a number of occasions, involves course offerings and some degree of rationalization. I left it with them. To be very candid, I would just as soon not be involved with it, but this is something of some concern to them. They have raised it, and they wish to address it. I'm advised that some of the colleges on the lower mainland have already had a meeting — perhaps more than one — to discuss the issue. If you are making reference to the amalgamation of other institutes, as we did with PVI and BCIT, the only knowledge that I have of that is that which has been advanced from the field. There is some interest with one particular college becoming a campus of a major college in Vancouver. I have not advanced that idea; it has come from the field.

MR. ROSE: Supplementary. The minister, then, categorically denies that what is under discussion here is a situation where the colleges must rationalize themselves or amalgamate, or he'll do it for them. That's really what he has indicated to me.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's not what I said at all.

MR. ROSE: You deny that then?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Ask the question.

MR. ROSE: That is the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Please address the Chair.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister then denying the fact that he has given the colleges to understand that if they do not rationalize or amalgamate on their own, he will do it for them?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't really understand what the member is driving at. First of all, to the last point, that I'll amalgamate it for them if they don't do it. The fact of the matter is that they raised the issue, not me. I'll give you the college in question. It seems to me there was discussion by members and faculty involving Capilano College on the North Shore teaming up with Vancouver Community College. I didn't raise the idea; they did. I have received no formal submission. As a matter of fact, since the discussion was raised with me approximately two or three weeks ago, I haven't heard about it again.

With respect to courses, one of the first items that the B.C. Association of Colleges raised with me when I was assigned the portfolio was the rationalization of some programs that are being offered in each of the colleges in the lower mainland, which are reasonably close, one to the other. That is something which they have raised, and something which they wish to address, and I understand that they're doing it on their own as autonomous groups.

MR. ROSE: The minister is aware, Mr. Speaker, that under Bills 19 and 20, he can establish all these courses. He took the power unto himself, so he has the power to do that. Is the minister aware that if they were reducing the range of options in the individual colleges, it's going to increase travel costs in the lower mainland for certain students?

I wanted to know whether the minister has made any representations to his colleague responsible for transit, making concession fare cards — that is a particular name —

[ Page 6767 ]

available in the transit system for post-secondary students, since the students are required to pay up to $70 a month if they are over 20.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could tell us what actions he has taken, or does he intend to take any, to overcome the problems of students facing a 40 percent transit increase in their fares.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes find the questions....

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsensical.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I didn't want to raise that.

It's not hard to answer. In the interior and the northern part of the province, we're not talking about going a mile or two or three from the North Shore to the centre of the city of Vancouver. What we're talking about is 60, 70,100 or 250 miles. Do you want us to bring in transit subsidies for that too?

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question was for the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond). I see he's decided to hide from the rest of the debates and the questions. However, I will....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will be seated.

Hon. members, this is question period. For members to rise in their place in question period with statements, as that member consistently does, is totally out of order. The Chair will no longer tolerate that abuse of the rules of the House. The member will ask....

Be seated! The member will ask a question in this period, as is his place to ask a question. It will be done properly or it will not be done at all.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat. ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: In view of the absence of the minister, I will direct the question to the parliamentary secretary for the minister. In 1975 the present government promised all British Columbians that they would pass new conflict-of-interest legislation for politicians and senior government officials. I would ask what consideration the minister gave to this campaign promise before approving the so-called conflict-of-interest guidelines which he tabled in the House yesterday.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the absence of anyone else, I will take the question as notice for the minister.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I will address a new question to the minister who has responded. The so-called conflict-of-interest guidelines should, I think, be called kiss-and-tell guidelines because they don't prohibit any business dealings between directors and the company, They provide for internal disclosure only. Why is there no such prohibition in these guidelines?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I will seek to distill from that rather verbose preamble a question that might be taken as notice for the minister responsible.

MR. MacWILLIAM: One last question to the same minister. The late W.A.C. Bennett made it a point never to do business with the government or any Crown corporation. He made it a personal point. The Constitution Act provides strict guidelines prohibiting MLAs from entering into beneficial contracts with the government. My question to the minister: what is happening to the standards of conduct in public life in British Columbia?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will refer that question to the minister responsible, and also to those who are writing reminiscences.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, during the estimates of the Labour minister's portfolio, we had a very short discussion. I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour a question with respect to that discussion. I'm talking in terms of the outstanding legal bill for a Mr. Temnoff. Has the minister decided to see that Mr. Temnoff obtains the modest compensation required for the disposal of that fee?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I thank the member from New Westminster for his question. I have a great deal of sympathy, as I said in the debate on my estimates, for the individual involved in this particular case. I've asked my staff to review it and try to find some way that the bill can be paid without opening up the floodgate for every other . for the Workers' Compensation Board to pay every legal expense that comes before the board.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the 1984-85 annual report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the 1983-84 annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the 1984 annual report and financial statements of the British Columbia Cellulose Company.

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

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, in introducing members of the Canada Day committee, I was remiss in not acknowledging a group from the Secretary of State's office who have worked in conjunction with our committee. I'd ask the House to make welcome Mr. Bob Robertson, Ms. Connie Harper, Ms. Roxanne Hughes and Ms. Luce Turgeon.

[ Page 6768 ]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: ECONOMIC RENEWAL PROGRAM

On vote 5: economic and regional development agreement, $65,000,000.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need to say very much about this; it's fairly straightforward. It provides for the first year of the five-year ERD agreement recently reached with the federal government and the funding for the subagreements that will subsequently be signed under that agreement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, as the minister says, the vote does involve the overall ERD agreement, part of which is with respect to forests and part within his own administration with respect to manufacturing, tourism and the like. But the amount allocated for forestry is relatively modest. In this annual budget it's $22 million. It is the beginnings of a major involvement of the federal government in what has heretofore been totally provincial jurisdiction, so that they will be establishing a Canadian Forestry Service presence, locating offices in Prince George, I might note, to monitor this agreement and the progress with respect to it.

As I understand it, the breakdown of that $22 million is primarily.... The bulk of it is for central operations in terms of the provincial Forest Service: that is, $9 million-plus to be handled centrally, the remainder to be allocated in the regions. I don't know if the minister is on top of the subagreements or not, particularly with respect to forestry. But I would say that we should understand how modest this amount is, in terms of dealing with our backlog problems in nonsatisfactorily restocked lands in the forests of the province.

I've mentioned before that the NSR lands in British Columbia — that is, land left fallow in weeds — is the equivalent of a swath 200 miles long and 50 miles wide. The intent of this is noble, but the amount of dollars available to do the job in cleaning up the mess that this administration has left behind is somewhat inadequate.

[2:30]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, partly. But you've had so many years over there, and the cleanup is getting monstrous in terms of dealing with our mismanaged forests.

Part of the problem is that it's viewed as a political problem. The program with respect to forestry under the ERD agreement will be partly to deal with perceived political problems. It isn't a matter of optimizing or maximizing benefits from expenditures. The intent under the agreement is to see that the backlog does not increase. That means expending funds probably on poorer sites, because logging may well be taking place on poorer sites, and under the agreement the backlog must not increase. So in any kind of cost-benefit analysis, we're losers. In that sense the agreement is not as useful an economic document in this sector as it might be. We should be looking at the biggest bang for our dollars, to use the phrase that some use, and if we can expend these dollars with greater benefit, with greater growth and the rest, then all of us in British Columbia will be better off. But that isn't what the document moves us toward.

We have prime sites, good sites, in British Columbia that should be managed first, that should be planted first. They are the most productive sites and will give a greater return for the dollar invested in them. That will not happen under this agreement. There will be a range of things happening under the agreement, most of which, of course, are beneficial. But we're not going to get the greatest return on our investment and the federal government investment.

This also moves your ministry into this management sector. As I understand it, there will be two appointees with respect to the monitoring of this agreement — two from the provincial government and two from the federal government. It will be, as I understand it, a Mexican standoff arrangement. If there's no agreement, then that's it: there's no agreement. It'll be interesting to see how that works. But this does insert this ministry into the forest sector, just as it inserts the federal government into the forest sector, and we have not had that before.

I understand, too, that we forgo some of our jurisdiction with respect to private lands in British Columbia, and I also wonder if much thought has been given to the implications of that. I know that various members want to discuss different aspects of the agreement — mining in particular, and others and that will be undertaken by other members on our side.

MRS. WALLACE: While we're dealing with forestry, I asked a question of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) in question period today, but he wasn't here. Ever since this ERD agreement was signed I've been getting calls from people on Vancouver Island, in my own constituency and outside my constituency, as to whether or not this means there will be funding available for Vancouver Island, and particularly for the strategy for survival which the mayors of Vancouver Island have been pushing so hard — in the amount of some $22 million. I wonder whether or not this minister can tell me that, inasmuch as the Minister of Forests was not present.

HON. A. FRASER: He's out planting trees.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm very pleased to hear the Minister of Transportation and Highways tell us that the Minister of Forests is out planting trees, because as I understand it, we have 1.2 million hectares of NSR land in British Columbia today. So the minister is going to be pretty busy for the next 5,000 years, I would guess. I might add on that topic, since we're still discussing forestry — and I know that we'll have an opportunity to debate this under the spending estimates of the Minister of Forests — that Professor F.L.C. Reed from UBC, a forest policy expert, says that B.C. needs to spend at least $300 million annually — not over the next five years, but annually — to renew our forests if we are going to rescue our forests from the disastrous state they're in now.

What I'm on about, and would like the minister to comment on in closing debate — although this is not really second reading — is the portion of the ERD agreement dealing with our mining industry. I'd like to know if the minister took part in those negotiations, and how those negotiations went and were carried on. I'll tell you why. Over the next five-year period B.C., along with the federal government, has allocated $10 million for mining exploration and things relating to mining in British Columbia, one of the largest mining

[ Page 6769 ]

provinces in Canada. What disturbs me is the small portion of money allocated to our number two industry. Anyway, it used to be number two; I'm not sure what it is now — in any event, $10 million to this very vital industry.

The minister may be interested to know that Nova Scotia has concluded the same type of ERD agreement, and got $26.9 million for its mining industry — a much smaller province in terms of population and mining activity. Saskatchewan has $12 million. I don't know what they mine in Manitoba, but little Manitoba has $24.7 million for the same purpose — the mining industry; the promotion of mining exploration and these types of things — in the same type of ERD agreement over a five-year period. Well, I could go on. I've got the whole list for every province. Ontario concluded an agreement just yesterday, I believe, or the day before, for $30 million over the same five-year period for mining exploration and activities related directly to mining.

So I'd like to know from the minister why B.C. got shortchanged in this very vital, number two industry in the province — $10 million over a five-year period in this province, where 14 of the 29 metal mines have shut down over the last four years? I'd like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that not one single metal mine shut down between 1972 and 1975 in this province. But we've had 14 mines shut down since. So I'm pointing out the need for increased funding for this very vital activity in our province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, on one point made by the member for Vancouver East on the joint management, I look at that as a plus, because in the past we've had not joint management but simply directions from the federal government about where money was going to be spent — certainly in lot lesser amounts than we've had now. But it's not correct to say that there's a Mexican standoff if there's not agreement at the joint management committee. I might say that we have joint management committees in the other subagreements as well. But rather, if there is an agreement not to agree on a specific item, then it's referred to the ministers involved, and then that decision can be made by the ministers involved at that point.

For the member from Cowichan — who seems to have left the chamber — I can't answer the question about where the specific money will be allocated. That opportunity will come in the Forests ministry estimates, which I assume will be coming forward very quickly.

Finally, to the member for Mackenzie, my negotiations were on an overall amount of money with the federal government. Specific letters of understanding between ministers regarding the subagreements were signed, and then the total negotiation took place between myself and Mr. Stevens and our staffs. The $10 million was a figure that was there right from the beginning. It was in the letter of understanding. I must say, though, that that $10 million will be for very specific projects. In British Columbia, as you know, mining exploration is usually done by the private sector; they raise their own capital and they go out and look for metals. We expect that to continue. There are a lot of other opportunities, though, for the mining sector to take advantage of the other programs which are available. The industrial funds can be used for mining projects. Some of the IRDP funds that were devolved to British Columbia from that old program might go to mining-related activities if they fall into the other criteria. We have an airport assistance program, which you know about, that could be very important in terms of developing mining opportunities. We already have one request, for instance, from a mine in northwestern British Columbia which has the potential to be a very large copper mine, but which could get started out using some of the gold deposits there if we could put a small airstrip in. So those are available.

The hydro discounts are going to be extremely important to mining operations in British Columbia, and the critical industries commissioner, of course, has one of the two most important industries in the province as his jurisdiction, and he'll be able to recommend other things that would go directly to the mining industry to help out those ailing industries that we think can be saved or those that have been shut down and we think can be reopened. So it's a danger to put the $10 million in isolation, because the mining industry can be looked after in many other ways as well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just to clarify that question, I understand and I appreciate the minister's response, but really what I was on about was that every other province, excluding the Territories, received much more. The relatively smaller province of New Brunswick received $22.3 million for this purpose. My question was simply why the B.C. allotment of $10 million was less than half of that of, say, New Brunswick. Well, I've got the whole list here, but there's one example. For the minister just to clarify why the allotment was so small.... Perhaps the question would be better put to the Minister of Mines. I don't know.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't think so. I think it's just a matter of what we saw we could achieve, and where we needed to go in order to develop jobs in a hurry, and how much we were trying to get from the federal government. I mentioned when we talked earlier in my estimates that we have literally gotten between three and four times as much money from the federal government over a five-year period than we've ever had in the past. In the last 10-year agreement, which expired last year, I think the total amount of money spent — the total amount — was something less than $250 million by both parties. We're talking now about a $525 million five-year agreement. Everybody agrees, I think. Certainly, from the comments of the member for Vancouver East — although he says it's not enough — I think everybody agrees that forestry was our number one priority. So we went for our number one priority with most of the money, and then we looked at where the other jobs could be created more quickly and how we could stimulate other industrial opportunity. So it was a matter of looking at what might have been available, and setting them out in some kind of priority list. That's not to say that the mining industry is not in need of additional help. But as I said to the member, you can't look at only that $10 million. I doubt whether some of the other provinces — Nova Scotia, for instance — have an opportunity for electricity discounts for mines; nor do they have a critical industries commission which can come in and recommend other drastic measures that might be put in place by all parties. So I think if you take that on balance, we've looked at the mining industry pretty carefully and have been extremely aware of the needs, Mr. Chairman.

[2:45]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't intend to say very much on this. [Applause.] They are touchy today, aren't they?

I certainly am in agreement with it. The $30 million, particularly in the area of tourism, is good to see; I'd like to

[ Page 6770 ]

have seen more. Tourism has become the second major industry in British Columbia. It's the one area that has the greatest potential for growth. Because of its labour-intensive nature and low capital investment it is an area of real growth in terms of jobs. But I am happy to see the commitment is there. In summary, let's get on with it.

Vote 5 approved.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Second reading of Bill 49, Mr. Speaker

SPECIAL ENTERPRISE ZONE
AND TAX RELIEF ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In rising to move second reading of Bill 49, Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act, I shall make just a few brief comments.

The intention of the bill is primarily twofold. It is to position the province as a competitive participant in the innovative investment climate of the Pacific Rim and other parts of the world, and to ensure that all regions of our province can cooperate fully in new industrial development opportunities.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

Everyone in our chamber, I think, would recognize the importance of trade to our province's economy, and the importance of establishing new trade partners around the world. To develop and grow, to ensure the creation of quality employment opportunities, we need to look in our province to industrial diversification, developing new products to market, and encouraging private sector confidence and investment.

The international competition among industrial countries for new investment is more severe than it's ever been, particularly for the innovative, high-income, high-growth industries of the future. If we in British Columbia want to attract these industries and provide employment opportunities that will suit our skilled workforce, we must provide a competitive cost, tax and regulatory environment. This act has been designed to provide these opportunities and to allow all regions of the province to participate.

The central portion of the bill provides for the establishment of the zones. They will be designed to allow the province full flexibility in attracting new types of industry to the province. I would like to stress that the special enterprises will be just that: industries that we do not have in the province at present, and industries that will not compete with existing industry in the province.

We want to use the zones as an incubator, to diversify the industrial structure, with the longer-term objective of having these industries form the nucleus of a future generation of industrial activity. It should provide for an exciting new opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for service and supply industries who are already here.

The act provides for the authority to establish the zone. The zone itself will be withdrawn from its present municipal or regional status and placed under the direction of a zone authority. The responsibility for developing and administering the way in which these zones will operate will rest with the British Columbia Development Corporation, or perhaps a wholly owned subsidiary.

Provision is made for the zone authority to make grants in lieu of a portion of forgone property taxes to the governing municipality, The zone authority will assume responsibility for those municipal obligations necessary for the efficient operation of the zone. It will also be responsible for contracting on a fee-for-service basis with the statutory body for any services required for the zone. The intention is to limit costly regulation and administration and to eliminate a substantial cost burden in new investment of real property taxes.

In order to ensure that the investment is incremental, and truly incremental, and that any new investment will not disrupt existing industrial activity, the bill provides for a zone approval board. This board will examine every application for special enterprise status, to ensure that it meets the entry criteria and the industrial development objectives of the zone and tax relief act — and of the province, of course. Any investment meeting the criteria that receives special enterprise status will be required to undertake, by contract, obligations in relation to its business plan, in order to retain its status. In the event that the zone approval board considers that a service or industry would be a useful addition to the zone — say for the efficient operation of the special enterprises — the bill also makes provision for their location. However, this will trigger an increased tax grant as part of the lease that will limit tax losses to the participating municipality and ensure that the zone does not provide incentives to companies that don't require them.

Recently the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development introduced the Industrial Development Incentive Act, which includes the industrial development assistance program, small manufacturers incentive program and the industrial incentive fund. Small Business Venture Capital Act has also been introduced to improve access to venture capital.

These new programs, as well as other existing support programs such as low-interest loans assistance will all be available to special enterprises where applicable. In addition, assistance with training new employees will be undertaken where necessary on a case-by-case basis. This bill contains further tax relief that will open the way for capturing new investment opportunities.

These tax incentives include relief from the corporation capital tax. This augments the phased elimination of this tax that was announced in the March 14 budget. In addition, this bill provides for the exemption in the zones from the social services tax on construction expenditures as well as purchases or leases of machinery, equipment or apparatus used by a special enterprise in manufacturing and processing, as well as on those goods consumed in the manufacturing process.

The bill will also make possible two very significant corporate income tax relief measures. Firstly, special enterprise corporations will be accorded relief from provincial corporate income tax for a period of ten years. This provision

[ Page 6771 ]

is accompanied by another provincial corporate income tax relief measure that will ensure that all regions of the province will benefit. This bill augments the incentives announced in the March 14 budget under the Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act. It provides for a five-year provincial corporate income tax relief period for eligible corporations undertaking substantial new investment in municipalities or in an area not in a municipality. The municipalities, of course, will be those that have entered into an agreement under the Provincial Municipal Partnership Act.

I'm sure that we can all see the opportunities that these incentives will make possible for all regions. As an additional incentive, you will have noted in the federal budget recently reference to a streamlining of federal tariff relief programs. The federal government has agreed to British Columbia's request to bring the variety of tariff-related relief programs under one statute. This will ensure that the province can utilize the federal programs as part of an overall investment marketing package.

This new legislation will be developed by the federal government over the coming months and will be applicable on a nationwide basis. I would ask that the hon. members give their careful consideration to all aspects of this bill, because we have before us, I think, a very unique piece of legislation that states very clearly to the investors of the world that this province is prepared to work with them in building for the future.

We have before us a bill that will allow British Columbia to take its place in the dynamic economic environment of the Pacific Rim and the rest of the world. This bill as proposed will ensure, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia can tackle the difficult job of industrial development and diversification. I would hope, and I know in my heart, that all members will support this very timely and historic legislation.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you know, we have files this thick in terms of the great anticipation with respect to this legislation. The leaks were like a sieve last summer in terms of the other minister who was responsible for this so-called initiative. Getting around those terrible federal problems and avoiding the tariff problems and custom problems and all the rest of it was the core justification for the special enterprise zones.

What does the new minister, who has to carry this lump along, have to say? He says: "Well, we've met with the federal government. What do you know? They're going to bring all their statutes into one big fat new statute," What's that worth? One big fat federal statute, what's that worth?

That's the end achievement of a year's industrial strategy by our Social Credit administration, one big fat federal statute that simply consolidates all the language in one place. The intent was something very different indeed. The intent was to establish enclaves outside the nation, in effect, in terms of avoiding all these federal rules and regulations. The feds have laughed in your face. British Columbia has become the laughing stock on that one. You haven't qualified.

If there is something to be said for this sort of thing, they may entertain it in Cape Breton, but they will not entertain it now in British Columbia. So all of that huffing and puffing over the last year, in terms of special enterprise zones and all the rest is to what avail? The previous minister was talking in terms of removing all the labour laws too in the special enterprise zones. Fortunately, that element has disappeared.

That is not before us today, in terms of excluding these areas from provincial labour legislation. So that element that the previous minister was endorsing, at least, is not there. I hope that the present minister can take some credit for that, or the new Minister of Labour, because that is a modest improvement.

But what you do to the municipalities that these zones are within, there you take them, and they are enclaves removed from the municipalities totally. That is, in the special enterprise zones, as now envisioned, there will not be the municipal regulations that have developed over this century in terms of zoning regulations, fire regulations, safety regulations, amenity regulations or pollution regulations. All of that goes by the board. It disappears. So we now have the prospect in Delta municipality of none of those regulations prevailing that the municipality of Delta presently has in Tilbury Island.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Is it any wonder that the largest city in British Columbia has thumbed its nose at this legislation? Is it any wonder that the entire city council in the city of Vancouver said: "No thanks"? That's a city council that includes part of your farm league. Alder-men from the Non-Partisan Association, so-called, like George Puil and the others have said: "No thanks, we want no part of this deal. What we're doing is running a city here. What we're doing is establishing standards here in terms of the kind of city that we want. We don't see this as part of what we want in the most important city of British Columbia." That has to tell you volumes about how grand this legislation is. It has to indeed.

I wonder how much of it is, in fact, just dealing with some of your own problems in your own ministry. BCDC is going to be the parent corporation in this whole exercise. Let's think about British Columbia Development Corporation's industrial estates. How successful have they been? BCDC has several industrial estates around the province. There's Duke Point in Nanaimo; there's Tilbury Island in Delta. There are others in Prince Rupert and Kamloops and elsewhere. How many acres have you got in those industrial estates? What you have is 5,358 acres. How many are occupied? This is after over a decade of activity in the industrial estate business. The amount that you have occupied is about 582 acres — 11 percent.

So part of this exercise, as I see it, is to flog off that 4,776 acres that you still have sitting idle — that is, that you haven't been able to handle. That's part of it. Part of this exercise is to make use of the land you've put on the market and have not been able to flog in any other way over this past decade. To do it, you're willing to gut all the municipal rules, you're willing to throw the corporation income tax of the province for the next decade into the pot, and on and on and on. Still, all the tax benefits will flow to the federal government. You're setting up a beggar-your-neighbour system with respect to municipality to region and municipality, and you're willing to let the feds run off with all the boodle in terms of the tax system. I think the feds must be laughing about this one.

[3:00]

What about a forecast in terms of forgone revenues for the province of British Columbia? Have you got one? When the press has asked you, I think the answer has been that no, you don't. Nobody prepares this kind of program at the federal level or in other provincial administrations and doesn't have forecasts in terms of forgone revenue. If you've got the

[ Page 6772 ]

numbers, please bring them forth to the House, but to date we haven't seen them at all.

The whole business, though, of gutting the municipalities is one that should concern us all. You've got the hammer in the bill. You say the municipalities are to provide the services for these zones — that is, the water, sewers, and all the rest of it — and if you don't, the cabinet will force you to do so. That's the big hammer in this bill. The cabinet can force the municipalities, which have already been gutted, to provide the services on demand for the special economic zones.

And what about forgone taxes in terms of the municipality property tax for the municipalities affected? Well, there will be a grant in lieu of taxes, but what will the grant be? The grant will be factored on the residential land base rate, and in the city of Vancouver and elsewhere that represents something like one-quarter of the normal industrial tax income for the community. So what you're telling these municipalities is: "You forgo 75 percent of your municipal tax revenues on these special economic zones, but you've got to service them; you've got to provide the sewers and the water. That's the deal." And you call this whole blanket program — what was it? — a partnership. A partnership! You've got legislation that is just full of hammers in terms of dealing with the partner. Not even a junior partner; they have no say. And there was no consultation. Check with the municipalities. Were any of them talked to in terms of these details? Was the Union of B.C. Municipalities conferred with? The answer is no. And this is supposed to be the new partnership — the new deal — from this administration.

It's unfortunate that we really have to face this kind of proposal, which was originally intended to deal with federal problems. The feds have kind of laughed at you and said: "You're farther back in the lineup, boys. Cape Breton is far ahead of you. We'll entertain it there, but we won't entertain it in British Columbia; certainly not today." What you do is open up this whole thing to favouritism and specialization. Cabinet can declare an enterprise a special enterprise. The guidelines are certainly not clear at this stage of the game and the opportunities are all there in terms of discriminatory decisions that would be negative with respect to existing industry. The protection is not built in in this legislation. It might be developed at some administrative level, but the evidence isn't there yet that that's going to happen.

What we have in British Columbia are industries that have hung in through the bad years, through a major recession, which don't get these benefits. The industries within the city of Vancouver will get none of these benefits whatsoever. We have no real guarantees that there won't be favouritism in terms of decisions to be made. It would be interesting to see if the minister can give us a list of the activities of the Premier and the Minister of International Trade and Investment in terms of enterprises that are going to come here which wouldn't have come otherwise. If you check other special enterprise zones, such as Britain, where they've been established with the federal enclave situation resolved — unlike British Columbia, where there are federal benefits for them; national benefits, in Britain's case — what were the numbers? Twelve percent of them were new industries that wouldn't have been there otherwise. Twelve percent is all there was. In your case you don't have any of those federal benefits with respect to these zones. So it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.

I think what has happened is that this minister was stuck with the bum work of the previous minister and has decided to carry on regardless. He has been abandoned by the federal government in terms of this exercise, and still carries on with the bubble-gum and baling-wire proposal that we have before us now. What will these enterprises be? Might they be interesting ones? Might they be something fascinating and productive, like munitions? Might that be one of the new enterprises? Let us know. If I remember correctly, the miserable exercise developed...the papers prepared by your department last July — July 9, to be exact — talked about pharmaceuticals, automobile parts and electronics as the great new enterprises in these zones. There's no talk about any of that stuff now. You're still trying to make the great flying leap into new pharmaceuticals, electronics and automobile parts.

It has not been well thought out from the beginning. It's tattered and torn. It has been falling apart as you've tried to patch it together. Now we have something that's far less than was originally intended, with no indication whatsoever that we're going to get those industries. The evidence abroad indicates that even with greater concessions the benefits are modest indeed. So we on this side of the House will have no trouble in voting against this legislation.

MR. LEA: When a piece of legislation like this is put forward, you try to sort it out in your mind and ask: will it or will it not be of assistance to British Columbia? Governments have been known in the past to put forward programs, policies or legislation that are nothing more than public relations vehicles to enhance the image of government. Will they work? That has to be the question. Will it do the job the minister says he wants done?

The minister, I think accurately, outlines some of the problems and some of the future directions that we have to go in in British Columbia. Do we need a more diversified economy? I don't think anyone can question that. All you have to do is take a look at the fact that our credit rating was lowered by both Moody's and Standard and Poor's. The reason given by Standard and Poor's for lowering our credit rating was the lack of diversification in our economy, and they couldn't foresee that it was going to happen. Therefore they didn't feel that B.C. deserved the kind of credit rating that we previously had; they couldn't see that diversification coming down the tube. Obviously we want a diversified economy. We have to go for more value-added in our basic industries — in forestry, fishing and mining. There's no doubt about that. We have to go for new manufacturing jobs. We have to try to create new wealth, new employment and new revenue for government. The minister has put that eloquently. But he has not drawn the connection between the problem, the desire for the future and how these special enterprise zones will enter into the picture. That just isn't there.

There are two pieces of legislation that have come in in this session that, to me, create one big problem. I think the member for Vancouver East who just spoke put his finger on it. What if you have been in business for some time in this province? You've suffered the storm; you've managed well. You've kept your debt load down as much as possible. You've had good cooperation between workers and management. You've looked after your markets. You've served them and you've gone after new markets. You've been innovative. You've used initiative. Then all of a sudden you see someone who has been making the same widgets, trying to sell into the same market, who is going to be put into either a critical

[ Page 6773 ]

industry situation by the other legislation or a special enterprise zone by this, and you're going to see your taxes subsidize your competition. Do you think that is going to be met with approval by the people who are already in business and have toughed it out and suffered? I don't think so. It's not fair. Taxation has to be fair if it's going to work.

It seems to me that this legislation centralizes the decision-making process. Government is going to say where it would be best for you to locate. They're going to direct you into a location by tax incentives, not direct you into new wealth creation or new employment creation necessarily, but into a location. They're saying that if you're going to do it, you're going to do it here or you're not going to be eligible for any of these incentives. But if you decide to start a new business outside the zone because it may be where it should go — in the entrepreneur's decision-making process — then you don't qualify. If you happen to have located your business outside and it's not going to be included — that's an old business — then you're out of luck. It is going to be an administrative and taxation nightmare. It's going to be a quagmire of regulations and misunderstanding.

Having read about other special enterprise zones in other parts of this country, I've found that one of the biggest benefits that came out of one special enterprise zone in Nova Scotia was that entrepreneurs working in that enterprise zone were made aware of some things that were not generally known to entrepreneurs, and those were all the regulations about tariffs and duties. People were missing out on tax rebates — border crossings.... It was just a nightmare of regulations. There were people who went in there and said: "Look, we're going to give you a hand in understanding some of the things that are available to you." One manufacturer imported from the United States and then sold the finished product back into the United States. He found out that all the time he was doing business there was a rebate he could have applied for in that transaction, but hadn't because he didn't know all of the regulations surrounding it. That business person was helped by the fact that that advice was there. But does that advice necessarily have to be confined to a special zone? Shouldn't that kind of advice be made available to all business people? It's centralized decision-making. It's going to be a quagmire of regulations. It's going to be a quagmire of taxation policies. It doesn't appear to me that this legislation is going to do the very worthwhile thing that the minister says he wants to be done. If the minister is serious, it wouldn't surprise me in the final vote if he votes against this himself.

[3:15]

How can you lay out so eloquently the problems and the solution in general terms, and then bring in a piece of legislation that won't have anything to do with taking you in the new direction the minister wants you to go in?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, it was fairly eloquent, but it was written for him. You have to take that into consideration.

Yes, we have to diversify. We have to look for new markets for those things we do produce, We have to have available to our business community the methods by which they can see what products are being consumed in other areas that we possibly could produce here. I think we have to take a look at an import....

AN HON. MEMBER: Substitution.

MR. LEA: Yes, an import substitution — I can't remember the exact technical terminology. You have to take a look at what it is you consume in your province or in your jurisdiction — import replacement program. As I understand it, the minister is thinking of bringing in an import replacement program, if not in the near future then in the future. If that happens we can discuss whether that should be done sector by sector or in a more general sense also. Ontario has had some success with their import replacement program, going sector by sector. But having looked at their experience, I would doubt whether government should become so involved in the import replacement program that they start centrally telling them where it is they should look for those import replacements in a general sense also.

Will this legislation work in a general sense? I don't think so. The minister hasn't convinced me. The legislation as it's written on paper doesn't convince me that it will work. As a legislator, would I be doing my job if I were to say to myself: "The government is doing a fairly decent job in terms of the public relations around this legislation and their package. So if I were to vote against it, will people out there say: 'Gee, Lea's just negative. He's not voting against it because he's a negative person and he doesn't want to give the government any credit for a job well done"'? So you always have that to face as a legislator. But, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the thousands of taxpayers' dollars that are going to be spent on promoting this legislation, I can't in good conscience vote for it, because I don't think it will — I'm positive that it won't — do the job that the minister says he wants it to do.

Again, as the member for Vancouver East said, thank God they've moved away from a few concepts that they had in mind; that they were going to use it as a manufacturing centre to put together other people's work. In other words, Japan as a higher economy than ours and more a value-added economy, is actually going out and trying to find other countries that will assemble some of the products that they want. We have one here — the wheel assembly plant. We cannot compete with other jurisdictions in this world with labour costs in those kinds of plants, nor do we want to. We don't want our people to work for a buck an hour, and if we decided to, some of those Third World countries would go to 75 cents an hour overnight. There's no way we can compete in that area. So the special enterprise zones are not going to be used for that, I gather from the minister. And as I say, thank goodness for that. Are you going to do away with labour laws? No, not in the legislation. Thank goodness for that.

But if you don't do some of those things — and I'm not saying you should — then these special enterprise zones have no edge over anybody, even in the short term. So to vote for it would be, I think, abandoning the principle of going for a more diversified economy. I think it would be abandoning the principle of local decision-making. I think it would be abandoning the principle of simple taxation — understood taxable measures. I think it would be abandoning the principle of entrepreneurship at an individual level. Therefore I will be voting against this legislation. I will not be voting for a public relations program for government. I don't think that's my job.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I have trouble with several pieces of legislation — or several policies, at least — that the government appears to be endorsing. One is the purchasing

[ Page 6774 ]

policy. It appears to be protectionist. If in fact we are going to endeavour to buy preferentially in British Columbia, that bothers me from a broad economic point of view.

The critical industries legislation bothers me, because, again, there is a measure of direction by government. A few people appointed by government make the decisions. Particular firms will have an advantage which others will not. Special enterprise zones — the terminology begs a number of questions. I think special enterprise zones, to the extent they will be useful in British Columbia or elsewhere, perform a very limited function indeed. The discussion so far has been broad-ranging. I believe that the best economies are generally the largest economies in which resources can move freely from industry to industry, from area to area, where industries locate because the costs naturally are least and where the market advantages are greatest.

Any country, any province, any state which endeavours to divide up its territory and then give by decree special advantages to industries which locate in those particular territories is defying the fundamental concepts of economics. It is engaging in the old infant industry argument, for example, which was the principle germ on which protectionism began to grow in the last century and flourished particularly in the 1930s.

Special enterprise zones, where there are special advantages decreed by government, are likely to flourish most where costs generally in the economy are high. We have in British Columbia, for good reason, high wage rates because our labour is productive and can by and large earn its way. But we have high wage rates. If low wage rates were to be paid in the special zone, then certain industries would certainly go there. I gather that's not going to be the case.

If the rules we have for environmental protection, which are quite stringent in this province, were to be relaxed in certain zones, there is a cost-cutting device. I trust that our environmental laws — national, provincial and local — will be enforced in these zones, so that won't be a cost advantage in these zones. But there are many other costs which industry faces in British Columbia which will be reduced, I understand.

Our power rates are among the highest in Canada. Are we going to be offering bargain power rates in these special zones? Certainly that will discriminate against other industry in the province; indeed, to the extent that these are subsidized rates, other industries will pay even higher charges for their energy.

We have the highest or about the highest property taxes in Canada. Are we going to give special property tax concessions to industries entering these zones? We've had, uniquely in Canada, a tax on machinery and equipment that is being phased down if not phased out. Is that tax to be eliminated in these zones? We have the highest corporation tax in the nation. Are we going to charge a much lesser tax or a zero corporation tax in these zones? We still have a capital tax, at least for sizeable companies, and recently an increased capital tax for banking institutions, institutions at least which don't have their headquarters in British Columbia. Are we going to eliminate those kinds of taxes, that capital tax particularly the banking tax in these zones?

What we're really saying, if we mean to do these things is that there are certain zones, the boundaries of which are to be defined, where virtually all the growth, certainly the cost advantage growth, will occur. The minister says this will be new industry, industry which we don't have in the province

Well, what about the forest products firm that may be going — has announced, at least — to the Britannia area? There are forest products companies which have had aspirations in that direction for a long time. Is their diversification into the fine papers area, etc. to be curtailed unless they too go to Britannia to locate and operate there?

You can't really draw a line between new industry and old industry if you look ahead over any period of time. Industries evolve and develop new techniques, new technology; new processes come along and the existing industry adopts them. So you're really truncating the development process if you mean seriously to have zones in which all these cost preferences exist. Looking at this legislation, therefore, I have to really believe that virtually all of the industries which we've had or are likely to have will not locate in those zones because the preference will be so flagrant that it won't occur.

I think there may be a few functions, such as products brought from another country to be assembled for re-export to a third country, that make sense. It's much more akin to a wholesaling, warehousing function. There may be some activity along those lines which follows from this legislation, and which is not offensive to the companies operating otherwise throughout the province. But I have great difficulty identifying more precisely the kinds of industry where, fairly and legitimately, we can hope to attract new activity through special economic zones which isn't highly discriminatory relative to all our other industry, present and future.

I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver East. His presentation was a mixture of envy and concern about the development process. He was concerned that companies entering these zones would escape the regulatory process, at least as far as the municipalities were concerned. I believe in freer markets, in greater opportunity for enterprise, in less regulation, but I would want the same degree of regulation to prevail generally across the province, ideally across the nation. I wouldn't want us to be fostering the development of a particular industry, a hothouse industry if you like, which is created because government decrees for a short while to set up these special preferences.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I'd feel much better about this legislation if I could put my finger on the kind of industry which we will get as a result of passing this bill, which doesn't offend my basic instinct — which fits broader markets, not special zones; more enterprise over larger areas, not less; industry locating because of basic cost and efficiency advantages, and not simply because of government legislation, perhaps government legislation of this kind, which tends to offend my basic feeling about what is economic and what is not.

[3:30]

MR. ROSE: I'd like to thank the member from North Vancouver-Seymour for a thoughtful presentation and analysis of the inadequacies, really, of the bill. I have no quarrel with the government's seeking some way around this sort of structural change in our society, its social and economic consequences. I think that's a laudable objective, and I think it's the role of government. I have no quarrel with that. But it's based on perhaps insufficient evidence and insufficient analysis, and I find very worrisome the fact that it appears to be a sort of simple approach to a very complex problem. We really haven't had a chance yet to examine in any great depth

[ Page 6775 ]

the kinds of directions we are going in and what's really in store for us. All we know is that they're going to be socially disruptive, they're going to be severe, and the old simple answers to the questions that once faced us will be increasingly difficult to find. Floundering around looking for them is, I suppose, a worthy approach — at least the thought of it is, and the activity of it is. This is not a solution, in my view, because it fails to analyze the problem sufficiently, and looks to turning certain parts of British Columbia — in desperation, really — into some other sort of Philippines or Singapore, or some other way that will affect taxes or invite people here in a competitive way to be lured away from some other place which will give them even more in the way of incentives and tax breaks.

I think it fails to recognize that the technology today is really worldwide. It's not something that occurs in just one little area, and you can't lure a plant from one place to the other simply because of a few tax breaks. Nevertheless, it's an exercise that has had a lot of currency — all over North America and perhaps in Europe and Asia as well — because it seems to be a simple solution: that if you make things attractive enough, if you give away enough of the public's resources, somehow you're going to get the benefits provided by an industry locating in that area.

I would like to refer — I hope briefly, because I know your feelings, Mr. Speaker, about people who read lengthy documents; I know that upsets you and irritates you.... I recommend that the House read in full a page 5 article, reprinted from the Washington Post, that appeared in the Vancouver Sun on May 27. It's by Nicholas Lemann, a man that I don't think is a well-known radical; I wouldn't think there'd be many of them employed by the Washington Post. Under the title "The Fraud of Boosterism," Mr. Lemann has this to say:

"The fraud I'm talking about is 'economic development.'

"Now you may think that as far as gigantic frauds go, I might have come up with something a little more glamorous. But this one has by now worked its way into every fibre of American life. As a widely shared faith, it's gaining fast on religion, with less proof that it works.

"Obviously there is such a thing as economic development. What I'm talking about is the belief by numbers of states and cities that they can create it by pure force of Chamber of Commerce boosterism — or by that and throwing around a lot of public money, which is called 'creating incentives for business."'

He goes on to talk about the phony development of luring the sports team into a particular area. I'm reminded of the Minister of Communications' former colleague, Senator Perrault, who is now rushing around the country trying to lure a professional baseball team here. It could have some great advantages, we are told. But if you have to give away all the benefits of that industry in order to attract an industry here, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It doesn't seem to make any more sense than firing 2,000 school teachers so that you can hire somebody to work in a fertilizer plant. The total number of people employed is going to be the same, or perhaps even less, and the public's income is probably going to be a lot less.

"When governments have generated prosperity, it has been through huge public works projects like the Erie Canal, rather than whiz-bang public relations. Next time you hear about a place's impressive efforts to bring in, say, high-tech business, ask how many jobs have actually been snared, and notice the long throat-clearing that follows."

The article concludes by saying this:

"Quite often the tax breaks, free land, and other concessions that economic development commissions offer companies turn their new plants into actual financial drains.

"Even apart from that, though, the cult of economic development turns heads. It causes the people who should be thinking about delivering the garbage and making the schools good to concentrate their mental and emotional energies on that big trip to Silicon Valley instead.

"Providing basic service is what local governments are supposed to do, and it's also probably the best way to encourage true development."

What are the municipalities going to do now, instead of concentrating on their garbage and sewers and roads, and delivering services? They're going to be threatened, because within these zones they're actually going to be under an official trusteeship, just like the Vancouver and Cowichan school boards. There's another name for it, a euphemism, but it amounts to the same thing: you've got a zone authority. Whether it's a single individual or a board, once the zone authority establishes a zone in a particular part of a municipality.... I don't know that the municipalities have anything much to say about it. I would like to ask the minister how he would have enjoyed it when he was a municipal alderman in the city of Langley if the big, bad provincial government had suddenly come in and, without any particular regard to the local municipal council, established a zone. This zone has the potential of changing all of the zoning and planning that has gone on previously in that particular municipality. I'm not saying it will every time.

The minister makes a face. He makes a face often when I speak.

Section 4. Just to show him that I've read at least as far as section 4 of the bill, "Land or land and improvements established as, or included in, a zone by a regulation under section 3 (l) (a).... But here's the thing under section 3 (l) (b): ".... becomes rural area and ceases to be part of a municipality, regional district...." Special status for zones. I would think that that's reasonably clear, even though I only read the high spots of it — and I'm certainly not quoting it. It ceases to be part of a municipality or regional district.

What we've done is taken a municipality, part of it or all of it as the case may be, and thunk! — we put it under special official trusteeship called a zonal authority. Municipalities are worried about that. I have been discussing this matter with some of the municipal administrations that I am honoured to represent. They don't like it. They're afraid — especially those that have signed partnership agreements — that what it's going to do is to jeopardize those partnership agreements. They're really worried about how it's going to affect their ability to deliver services. They're worried about the effect on pollution control, roads, sewers, safety, fire protection — all the rest of those responsibilities where the zone settles in a particular area serviced by a municipality or a regional district. Many of those costs will be borne by the municipality over an island within their municipality or regional districts over which they have virtually no control. Also, if they cut off the roads or fire services, guess what they get under the

[ Page 6776 ]

offences section — $100,000 fine potentially. This has got a lot of clout in it, this particular piece of legislation, and they're not really very pleased to have it. I can say without fear of too much contradiction that the municipalities I represent are less than enchanted by the prospect of coming under one of these special enterprise zones.

They are also concerned that there may be, hovering in the wings, an enterprise or an industry that they have, through their own development branches or councils or teams, on the verge of settling in their particular zone. They've done all the wooing. They took the girl out to dinner several times, then along comes the special enterprise zone, and the girl runs off with another guy. She flees the coop after all those good dinners. They're a little bit worried that they may have loved and lost a particular industry, and what they were going to receive from them — unless they were going to give away the store themselves — were certain kinds of tax benefits. There would be no purpose in having that industry locate in an area unless there was some benefit to it. It either provides taxes or it provides employment for the residents of that area, so desperately needed in this province.

I don't know what the score is. All I do know is that these things have not worked very well in the past in Canada. Special incentive zones have not worked very well. It hasn't pulled Cape Breton Island out of the doldrums. It may have saved it from going completely belly-up, but I know there's been a lot of money shovelled off the back of a truck, through DRIE and its predecessor DREE, that hasn't done a heck of a lot. It may have caused Michelin to settle down in New Brunswick for those benefits, when it could have settled in Toronto and provided benefits for that area. I'm just waiting for somebody to get up and say: "There he is favouring central Canada again." We didn't get much of that stuff. We didn't get much of the DREE pogey out here. We were cut off. A certain section of the province, that little CPR empire, got part of it; they were in a DREE area. But beyond that there wasn't very much coming to us.

I think that the councils are sincerely worried about all this, and they certainly have a right to be. Before any of these are entered into and we go very far, we should have an analysis. What kind of jobs in our society are likely to be on the increase? From what we know, high tech is not going to be the solution. It's going to replace people, and it's going to expand certain jobs, but they certainly are not the high-skill jobs, nor are they the high-paid jobs at all. I think it's an illusion. It's fraudulent to tell people that this is what's going to happen to them.

This is a response to government's pressure to appear to be doing something. I think it was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) who said: "After all, we're always considered negative. We've got to try something." Why don't you try something that doesn't take away powers from the municipal councils to develop certain kinds of agreements based on a regional development of industries and occupations native to and natural to the industry? I don't think you can make the place another Singapore. I don't think it's possible. I don't think you have enough of a skilled and beaten workforce. You don't have enough peasants here yet; if you keep it up, you will. I think that the effort to provide diversification in the economy and employment for the people of British Columbia is laudable enough, but wage slaves and wage peasants do not make very good consumers.

If that's the effort that is going to be directed in here, and if in addition we are going to have a low-paid workforce and we're going to provide more giveaways to the municipalities than can be gained from benefits establishing these zones, then I think it's really an effort in futility. We can't look to very much development from it, but it may be great PR.

[3:45]

MR. PARKS: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: I trust all of us in the House have noticed that young lady up in the Speaker's gallery who is using sign language to communicate with a group of young people up in the gallery. I am very pleased to say that I have just attended a meeting with the hon. Minister of Labour, who has just announced that pursuant to the vocational rehabilitation service program we have agreed to further fund ongoing studies for a group of nine young handicapped British Columbians to attend Gallaudet College in Washington, D.C.

This is the only degree-granting college which is able to deal with students who have the handicap, and I am pleased to advise the House that we have nine of them here this afternoon: Avonne Brooker, A.J. Brown and Michael Cizick; Steven Fredrickson, one of the group that will be going to Washington, is presently in Saskatchewan competing in a chess tournament. We also have with us Tracey Leinster, Paolo Serena, Ester Shinkawa. and Mark and Patrick Tarchuk. It is just very gratifying to see a group of youngsters who notwithstanding their handicap have made a tremendous effort to overcome it and are dealing with it. I am proud to ask the House to join me and make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on that same matter, the opposition is very happy to have found that the minister has seen fit to send these students to Gallaudet, which is an outstanding university in this particular area. We would like to congratulate those people who are going and congratulate the minister for this particular move.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, just before dealing with the bill in question, I too would wish the very best to our young people who are going to Washington and say that the wishes of all the members of the Legislature are with them to have a great success.

I know they and other members in the gallery are listening to what is being said today. The members opposite may be hearing, but I hope they are listening too, because there aren't very many bills in the Legislature that I would want to be on firm record as supporting that would equal this particular bill in its significance.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for nearly a quarter of a century. In that time, I have heard endless speeches about how we are giving things away to business. It has been a consistent theme of the members opposite, with no one more insistent upon the subject of giving away to business than the second member for Vancouver East who led off the debate objecting to this particular bill.

In that period of time, the commitment of the gross national product to government has increased from less than a third to almost one-half. While we have been taking for granted the industry of our country, believing — I think, in some cases, with the socialists opposite, deep in their hearts — that industry has been given something in Canada and has not, as the truth lies, been carrying government on its back,

[ Page 6777 ]

that has been the circumstance. People in Canada, perhaps even the socialists, are beginning to realize that the load is too heavy. What sorts of things bring that realization? Soaring unemployment brings that realization. Displacement of union workers without new jobs to take their place brings that realization. The slumping of the Canadian dollar from $1.10 U.S., when the member who has just finished speaking sat in the House of Commons in Canada, to less than 73 cents — not quite half, but down by some 40 percent.... These are all indicators of an inability of Canada to compete industrially.

MR. LAUK: You're always putting Canadians down.

HON. MR. McGEER: We don't put Canadians down, but what we must do in Canada is put socialists down. We must put them down, because if we do not, they will wreck the Canadian way of life.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I pity Ontario, now under the yolk of the NDP, starting today.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, you watch the problems created in the province of Ontario now, as in that province they begin to put to work the socialist theories that did such damage in British Columbia from 1972 to 1975. Yes, the people of British Columbia knew enough to put the socialists down in 1933. They knew enough to put them down in 1937. They knew enough to put them down in 1941. They knew enough to put them down in 1945. It wasn't putting Canadians down; no, it was allowing Canadians to rise because the socialists were put down.

I have no objection to the socialists as fine Canadians. It's their economic theories that need to be put down — the crazy economic ideas that you're giving something away. No one, Mr. Speaker, has more dangerous economic ideas for British Columbia than the member for Vancouver East and his understudy while he was in power, the Leader of the Opposition. For radical economic views that are hostile to business, you only have to look at that pair, the Leader of the Opposition and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). When he first came to the House, he was the understudy of the member for Vancouver East.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, back to Bill 49,

HON. MR. McGEER: I want to tell you, we've heard the attitudes to business just today. We've heard it this afternoon. They are afraid of business success in British Columbia because it has to be because something was given away.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask all the members to come to order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, it only indicates how much the truth hurts. It was not theory. It was not speeches when the member for Vancouver East was ruining the resource industries of British Columbia. That was practice, and you have to listen carefully to the anti-business, anti-industry, anti-employment rhetoric that we are getting from the members opposite now to realize just how dangerous it would be. I can only think of one thing worse for the poor people of Ontario today, and that would be to have the NDP from British Columbia rather than the NDP from Ontario calling the shots in that province.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for a person that has been in our chamber for nearly 25 years, as he indicated, and doesn't know the rules better than he does.... He is totally off the bill, totally outside the parameters of the bill. Mr. Speaker, could he be brought to order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister continues on the principle of Bill 49.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm endeavouring to concentrate narrowly on these special enterprise zones. If only the members opposite would not remind me continually of their abysmal record in office, I would certainly be much more capable of directing the attention of this debate to the future and the importance of this bill on special enterprise zones to that future.

It's an important positive signal that we in British Columbia do not believe that there has been any giveaway to business. What the special enterprise zones say is: "We believe we need more business in British Columbia. We need more investment. We need more jobs." Are you against that?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not against that; just against the methods to bring it about.

When their methods are introduced, it's a disaster. We've had that. We don't have to compare speeches or theories. You were there when you brought about despair in the resource industries at a time of record prices.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair must insist that we go back to the principle of Bill 49. Would the hon. members not interject while the hon. minister has the floor, or any other member. Please continue.

HON. MR. McGEER: One of the responsibilities that I carry for the people of British Columbia is to attempt to do some business recruiting for the province. To that end, I've been to California, to Texas, to Massachusetts, to North Carolina, to Europe, to Japan, to Hong Kong, and to most areas of the world which are generally considered to be the fastest growing in terms of economic performance. Most of this....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They sure aren't socialist countries, are they?

HON. MR. McGEER: No way. There is no socialist area in the world today that is booming in high-technology performance. There is no socialist area in the world that is performing even modestly in that field. There is no socialist area in the world today that has any significant development at all in

[ Page 6778 ]

high-technology industry — no socialist area in the world. I want to tell you, you think very hard and you may consider that in the United States under President Reagan that country has had an economic disaster. I know that the country's economic direction is not to the liking of the NDP, but this is the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: There, you see, the applause. This is the area in the world that is fuelling the technological revolution, that's producing the dynamic economic growth, that's drawing investment from all over the world — and they're against it.

I just want everybody to note the applause when the idea that they're not in favour of the type of economy that United States has is underlined, because they want to go against that proven record of success. That's their ambition over there. They want the kind of socialism, I suppose, that characterizes eastern Europe or characterizes other areas of the world that practise a different economic system than this government believes is appropriate for Canada. It's entirely in that line that this particular bill has been introduced, because what it says is that we believe in business and this is our way of saying it.

[4:00]

I want to tell you, when I travel and meet industrial leaders around the world, we have a problem here in British Columbia. That problem is in the New Democratic Party caucus; that problem is in the record of British Columbia during the years when they were in power. You say that was a long time ago, and it's been forgotten about around the world. It has not been forgotten about, nor will it be quickly forgotten about. The federal government policies.... With the greatest respect to the former national government, it was considered to be a highly nationalistic, far-left government, hostile to world investment, and people just did not want to come to Canada, because they felt uncomfortable. When I go to these various areas and say, "We are contemplating in British Columbia setting up special enterprise zones," that's when the notebooks and the pencils come out. It means we are seriously intent in British Columbia on developing business in the future.

The scornful laughs of the members opposite are not lost on others. The record of the New Democratic Party and those in the labour movement who control your politics are well known abroad, because this alliance between big unions and NDP politics is unhealthy for industrial expansion, for providing the jobs that this country and this province so badly need.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All hon. members will have their opportunity to stand in debate. The minister has been recognized. And would the minister direct his comments through the Chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: What's so useful about a debate of this kind is that it brings out the truth opposite, doesn't it? You begin to get an insight into the kind of economic thinking that dominates the socialist caucus opposite, and it's dangerous for the economic prosperity of British Columbia. That's why they were defeated all those times during the thirties. You know the years you were defeated. You were defeated in '63 when you were there. You were defeated in '66, in '69. We've gone over what happened when that disaster of your election occurred in '72. But you were defeated in '75, and then you quit. We've been over once today why you quit.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What are you talking about, quit! He didn't quit; he was bought off.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, all right.

They were defeated in '79, in '83, and you'll be defeated again, Mr. Leader. You will be defeated next time you run for election, because your policies haven't changed. You'll be defeated because you still adhere to the economics of the member for Vancouver East. You'll be defeated because you're still a captive of the major labour unions in British Columbia. You'll be defeated because when the chance comes, as it does now, to support the sort of legislation that will bring about economic development in British Columbia, you're going to turn your back on it again.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: is there any order in this House? The matter we're debating is the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is not imputing disorder to the Chair, is the member? The Chair would appreciate an apology from the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed. And I would hope that the member from Point Grey would apologize to the House as well in terms of his unruly behaviour this afternoon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member. The minister on Bill 49, and not the Election Act.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's correct; we're on Bill 49. What I was saying when I was rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker, is that here's an opportunity for the New Democratic Party to reform. That's what is required if the Leader of the Opposition hopes to have any success: reform and repent economically. Here they have the opportunity to get advice in the House — good political advice — but instead they're captive. They're captive of the past that led to the defeats during the thirties, the forties, the fifties and the sixties. No one is a stronger advocate and a greater captive of the past than the second member for Vancouver East, who put those old economic ideas into practice with such disastrous results, and his protege, the new Leader of the Opposition. So I say to that caucus over there: reject the plan that you get from the member for Vancouver East. That's what got you into trouble before. He was a disciple of previous NDP leaders who got their party into trouble. Look to the future. Drop all of that.

I say to the member for Coquitlam-Moody: you're a new member of this party; rescue it from its past. Rescue it from those economic mavericks who do such damage. Take that Leader of the Opposition and straighten him out while there's still time. Go and caucus again now. Take this bill as your first opportunity to show that you understand the beginning elements of economics.

[ Page 6779 ]

MR. ROSE: On a point of personal privilege, I was accused of being a tyro and a new member of this party. As one of the signatories of the Regina Manifesto I resent that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a legitimate point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: I recognize the lengthy and honourable history of that member, but he's in a different atmosphere now. He's in with this cabal of economic illiterates who are captives of the trade unions. That's the thing that needs to be taken into account. If we could only have some common sense preached in caucus there, maybe they would come out supporting progressive legislation like this and cast a new image for themselves in British Columbia. Here I am pleading for the New Democratic Party to have a change of heart, to become a positive force for the future. But no, I get shattered every time we have a debate and start talking about something which means economic progress in British Columbia; we get this virtual eruption from the other side because it's so painful for some of those members to listen to.

In any event, if we can't, after all these years, get any common sense at all into the members opposite, at least we can bring in progressive legislation, vote for it and say it's this kind of thing that separates this side of the House from that side of the House. It's going to enshrine our socialist friends opposite as the permanent opposition in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver Centre — in anticipation of temperate debate in the House.

MR. LAUK: Absolutely.

I always like following the hon. doctor from Point Grey. I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Every time that hon. member stands in his place on any bill, any resolution, any motion, he talks about ten years ago. Why doesn't he talk about the past ten years? Why does he believe that Bill 49, with its special economic zones, is going to be a panacea for this province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Panacea.

MR. LAUK: Cabal, cabal. Panacea, panacea. Tomato, tomato. You know the rest of it. Go for coffee.

Why does he stand in his place and say the same thing time after time after time? Because he hasn't got very good judgment, Mr. Speaker. But he's got sufficient intelligence to recognize that he cannot brag about the economic record of this government for the past ten years. It doubled unemployment, and took a small deficit in this province and made it into $14 billion in accumulated deficit. His government, the government that he joined as a former Liberal because he was out in the woods too long and felt lonely.... When he joined that government he started ten years of downslide in this province. We went from economic prosperity to disaster. We went from jobs and industrial parks around this province, from high employment and prosperity, to soup kitchens in the ten years in which this government.... And we heard the Premier yesterday on a similar motion talk about....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Gary for leader.

MR. LAUK: Don't use personal names, hon. Mr. Provincial Secretary. "The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre" or "Your Honour" will do — either designation — or "sir." Just because I don't wear a toupee like the hon. minister, he shouldn't attack me.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, please address the Chair and not direct your comments to other hon. members.

MR. LAUK: Well, they're attacking this member, and you know I never interrupt other speakers myself

Every time the hon. member for Point Grey, together with the Premier....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm talking about Bill 49. I've hit a sore point with you because you don't defend the economy under your regime any more than anybody else, and there's a good reason why you don't.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the first member for Vancouver East, to wonder what he's saying about the bill. I haven't heard him mention the bill. All he's been doing is chastising the previous speaker. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that you would bring him to order and get him to speak to the principle of the bill.

[4:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. The Chair is waiting in anticipation for the member's debate and his impeccable record of addressing the Chair and not other members.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. minister's interruption. I would like to follow his example in sticking to the principle of resolutions that have been before this chamber in the 20 years that he's been here.

I wanted as a further example to bring to the attention of the people of British Columbia under Bill 49 — the so-called "panacea," this solution to all our economic woes.... Where have they been for the past ten years? They virtually abandoned the industrial park projects of the New Democratic Party government. They virtually let it go. They abandoned the development of a steel mill and an oil refinery. They said we couldn't do it. They didn't have faith in the people of British Columbia, and that gang over there has no faith in the people of Canada. They say we have to have special economic zones. Why? To attract expertise from Korea; from Third World countries we have to attract expertise. And soon we'll have to attract expertise from south Borneo and every other place in Canada, because that Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is shutting the post-secondary education system in this province.

He has the nerve to stand up under Bill 49 and say that we're moving forward in a direction. He's a feudal elitist who wants to educate the upper classes of which he's been a part and his family has been a part since the beginning of this province. They've run things very well, Mr. Speaker, and he

[ Page 6780 ]

wants to continue the centralization of power in the hands of the McGeer family and the established families of this province. We say no to that, and we also say that you have never had faith in the people of British Columbia and you don't have it now, when you give souvenir contracts to the Americans. You say that British Columbians can't even put a logo on the side of a beer mug. That's the faith they have in the people of British Columbia, and now they're coming up with this legislative claptrap about special economic zones and attracting expertise from Third World countries. What absolute nonsense!

They have spent ten years as government slapping the face of the people of this province. They put them in lines for soup-kitchens and food banks. And they're offering these silly right-wing, fuzzy-minded Doctor Strangelove economic ideas that haven't worked in Britain and haven't worked in the United States.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we're in for a bad time, because of the funny-money, fuzzy-headed Social Credit right-wing nonsense economic ideas that have been put into place for ten years. All they know how to do is to spend taxpayers' money. They go to south Borneo, they go to Japan, they go to Australia, they go to China, they go to the European countries and they come back and they say: "Oh, things are very interesting." They haven't brought one job into British Columbia — not one. They've spent millions of dollars in traveling all over the world, because they're in the porkbarrel. They're drowning in the public trough. They think that by the smoke-and-mirrors legislation for special economic zones they're going to fool the public once more.

But they're on to them, Mr. Speaker. The people of B.C. know that they are playing a shell game in politics. They know now that this government is made up of the worst, most backward economic thinkers — so-called — in the country. They are making speeches, Mr. Speaker.... If you go to the press of 1931-32, the same speeches were made by Simon Fraser Tolmie, the same clichés: "Tighten your belt. Old-age pensioners have to give up that extra piece of cauliflower; it's in the interests of the economy and the sacred right to profit. Soup-kitchens are good for the soul." R.B. Bennett, Simon Fraser Tolmie: "It didn't work then," says the current Premier of British Columbia, "so let's try it again."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Listen, that's the wittiest member on that side of the House. I pay deference to that.

Bill 49 is smoke and mirrors. It's not going to do a damn thing. I think it's already been said. Go down and look at the special economic zones and see how they're run. You don't even have a concept of it. The government doesn't even have an idea of what they are talking about. All they know is how to get first-class tickets on a flight to the next foreign country, especially in the winter. They love to travel in the winter at our expense.

The people who are paying taxes in this province — the people whose money they are using — are then asking for jobs and for economic ideas, and they come back and say: "I'm sorry, you're too stupid and unskilled to do your own souvenirs for Expo. You can't manage Expo. We got to hire a Yankee trader to do it because you're too stupid. You don't know how to administer Expo. We're not going to give any contracts to B.C. businessmen because they're not skilled enough. They're not good enough as businessmen. We've got to hand them out all over the world."

MR. MICHAEL: We're on budget; we're on time.

MR. LAUK: Yes, this is Socred thinking: a $311 million deficit today, and it's on budget. They figure they can go across the province and say: "Expo is on budget and on time," and if they repeat it often enough, then people are going to believe it.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: This is a vicious attack, Mr. Speaker. I am against mindless stupid right-wing economic policies that believe that spending $1 million to create one job makes economic sense. That's the kind of stupidity we're dealing with on the part of the government of the day.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If you can't do it, get out of office, because you've been in there too long. You've been a disaster for the economy, and it's not enough for the Premier to say: "Well, it's the international marketplace." We've gone from the best standard of living in Canada to one of the worst. We've gone from one of the highest employed areas in Canada to one of the highest unemployment areas in Canada. We've gone from one of the highest productions of secondary manufacturing output in Canada to one of the worst. We've gone from one of the highest participating rates in post-secondary education in Canada to one of the worst. All under the auspices of the Social Credit government and under the deft intellectual guidance of Dr. Strangelove of Point Grey. I'm going to oppose this bill because I am sick and tired of Socred funny money economic ideas.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...to speak on the principle of this bill. I am very happy to do so, Mr. Speaker, because this puts British Columbia into the world of today and the world of tomorrow. It is evident by the speaker who stood up and espoused the policies of the socialists opposites that they have no concept of what is out there and what is happening in the real world. Some 400 special economic zones being put up around the world, 14 of them just recently in China — in every port on the coast of China. But, oh, the socialists opposite continue to bury their heads in the sand and not understand the realities of the real world and what is happening. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that's typical of their policy.

This legislation puts British Columbia in the forefront of bringing in new industry and new technology and will put it in a competitive position with any area in North America or any area in the world.

Mr. Speaker, that is not just my understanding of the policies that we've brought down, Bill 49 being a part of it, but it's done by an independent study done by Price Waterhouse. They say that from the policies analyzed in what's going on around the world, this will put British Columbia up front. I want to tell you that with the economic climate that we have created here.... And I want to tell you more than that. It is happening since the budget was brought down

[ Page 6781 ]

almost on a daily basis. The phone is ringing, new projects are coming almost on a daily basis. I want to tell you it's happening, and it's got those guys over there baffled. People are looking at British Columbia to invest.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, he says it hasn't happened, and it hasn't worked. He doesn't know. Head in the sand. They don't face the realities of really what is happening out there in a much more competitive world than it has ever been. You know, British Columbia just didn't go through a recession. The world went through a recession. The world is facing new realities. The business communities are facing new realities. British Columbia is facing those realities head-on, and we're doing it because we did what we had to do three years ago, and we quit taking too much out of the pockets of the business community, and now we're giving it back in the form of incentives. Indeed, it is working here in British Columbia. Project after project after project, almost daily, is being announced here in British Columbia. Our policies are working, and that's why we'll be government not just next year but into the future, because we recognize what is going on in the world.

It's great for those guys over there to talk about us getting on a plane and going somewhere. You better believe we will, and we'll be doing more of it, because we'll be selling the policies of British Columbia, and we'll be selling British Columbia as a good place to invest in. When we travel, we don't go to Japan to play football or volleyball or whatever kind of ball it is. We don't go to China to plant trees and make good fellows of ourselves. We go there to sell British Columbia and British Columbia products and open doors for our businessmen.

You talk about people taking jolly trips around the world. Just look at the record for three years of that government. Yes, they went to Japan, and they came home clean. I remember standing over there in opposition and asking the member for Vancouver Centre: " What did you do in Japan?"

MR. REID: What did he do?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He couldn't think of anything, but on the way home in the plane he thought I might ask him a question. He said: "Well, we bought a little steel."

I want to tell you that our investment policies are attracting interest from around the world. Just look at the figures. I'll give you the figures on trade — how trade has doubled in Japan in the last ten years since we've been government, how it's gone up ten times in China, how it's gone up four times in the ASEAN countries. I'll tell you how trade has gone up. I'll tell you how much investment is coming in here. You know it's happening.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to support this bill, because it's part of the overall package of economic development that is making things happen here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I happen to have just come back from a trip. The interest already in investment in British Columbia and in Canada now that we have thrown out that socialist policy of FIRA, where the government actually drove out investment and didn't want investment, supported by the NDP in Ottawa.... I remember standing in this Legislature, being chastised by the NDP for okaying investment policies here in British Columbia. "Oh yeah, you're bringing in the foreign investment. It's going to be run by foreigners." You were against foreign investment. It's going to be new foreign investment that's going to create the jobs for our young people, that's going to secure our future and is going to bring additional trade markets with it.

This bill will go a long way toward being part of our economic package and attracting investment. Mr. Speaker, those guys over there evidently have never sold, because when you go out you need a few loss-leaders. I recognize that all of the industries in the world are not going to come settle in these special economic zones, but it's going to attract people. Once you get the customers coming, then you can fit them into the numerous other programs that we have, and that's what it's all about. It's a good bill, and I support it.

[4:30]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We will return to Bill 49.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker. we have heard this government, in its desperation, trying to defend this piece of legislation — absolute desperation as this government sinks further and further into the quagmire of ten years of total incompetence in government. This is the ultimate in incompetence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You're against it?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, we certainly are against it, and you'll find a lot more people are against it, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard that this government attacks us for being against this and against that, and we're negative. What we are against is government incompetence. We are against incompetence and the ability to manage the province, which you have not been able to do. Once again, you are proving it with this piece of legislation.

British Columbia deserves better than this. They deserve legislation that makes sense. They deserve legislation that won't cost the taxpayers thousands and thousands more dollars and hurt local government, which this piece of legislation will do. This government constantly puts its programs on the backs of municipalities and local taxpayers, and we're seeing it once again with this piece of legislation. Once again we have a piece of legislation that is going to hurt existing businesses which have put up with this government and its policies for the last ten years and struggled to get through this recession. They are not going to profit by this piece of legislation at all. It's about time we did something in this province for the businesses that have struggled through this recession, instead of doing a PR number and trying to say that this is going to be a marvellous piece of legislation which will solve the problems that British Columbia has today.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll tell you what we wouldn't have done. We wouldn't have got the hole in the wrong place, as that minister did across there. He should resign, he is so incompetent. He can't even get the hole in the right place, and we all know that.

[ Page 6782 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we are on Bill 49, and the second member for Victoria will avoid any personal reference to another hon. member of the House.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about incompetence, and this is an extension of incompetence. We continue to see the incompetence of this administration over and over again, Once more we have a piece of legislation that just entrenches that incompetence, and it will create further problems for the province of British Columbia.

As the debate leader for municipal affairs for our caucus, I want to talk about what this is going to do to municipalities. A few months ago we saw this government bring down their so-called Partners in Enterprise program — partnership in enterprise; tax relief for businesses that locate in municipalities prepared to give tax relief. They're prepared to give this tax relief and create new jobs in municipalities. A few months ago we had this great partnership deal that is going to attract industry to municipalities, and they're going to give tax reliefs. The municipalities were told by the minister: "If you're not interested in this proposal, then we don't want to talk to you." That was their partnership. Now what do we have? We have another piece of legislation that is going to give tax relief in these special zones. What happens to your partnership deal in terms of the municipalities which you have promised are going to have the new industry in their regions, and who are going to participate in getting the...? What is going to happen to them?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I know what he's referring to: section 21. I'll get to that.

So one month you tell the municipalities they're going to get all the new industry and profit by it; the next month you bring in a piece of legislation here that is going to attract those very industries in those municipalities that you have conned into participating in your tax giveaway program into those special enterprise zones with greater benefits. You tell the municipalities one thing, and then you sell them down the drain with another piece of legislation. That's exactly what you're doing with this. You're once again turning your backs on local government. If any industry is attracted to this, they're not going to go to municipalities, because there's far greater relief under this piece of legislation.

So what have we got here? We've got a partnership deal that clearly isn't working. It's a turkey that won't fly. The minister is running around the province trying to get this turkey to fly, and only about half a dozen municipalities have signed up. Then they come along with this piece of legislation which is going to totally destroy that partnership deal. They've shot the turkey that won't fly. Do you know where they're going to bury that turkey? They're going to bury it in the hole that that minister didn't get in the right place. Then they destroyed municipalities. They've destroyed the partnership deal that they've spent thousands and thousands of dollars on telling local government that this is the great panacea for local government. You should be ashamed of yourselves, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of local government.

They'll say that the cabinet at its whim can apply certain additional reliefs to those industries which locate outside the zones, if they've entered into one of these partnership deals. Well, you know what that does to local government. For instance, in those enterprise zones there will be no zoning regulations and all sorts of other regulations. So what's going to happen? For those local municipalities to be able to attract, outside those zones, industries into their municipality, they're going to have to forgo all the civilized and progressive zoning regulations and land use policies that those municipalities have established over the years. That's what's going to happen. You're going to have a glorified Scottsdale, Arizona, all across this province, with no regulations, no control, and environmental control will go down the tube. That's what you're going to do to local government. It cannot be accepted. It cannot be tolerated.

Interjections.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What have you got against Scottsdale?

MR. BLENCOE: Have you ever been to Scottsdale, Arizona?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Have you?

MR. BLENCOE: Have you been there? It's wide-open zoning, no regulations....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members....

AN HON. MEMBER: If it's good enough for Barry Goldwater, it's good enough for them.

MR. BLENCOE: You're absolutely right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we can't return to Bill 49, could we at least return to the province of British Columbia?

MR. BLENCOE: The legislation says the formula for grants in lieu stipulates that a calculation can be made on the basis of the residential rate, and the section empowers the British Columbia Development Corporation to develop its own formula for assessment of land values. The BCDC is going to be extremely powerful in this piece of legislation.

The question of what services will be provided to the zones complicates the grants in lieu. Could municipalities, for instance, continue to receive grants in lieu without supplying services? These are basic questions that local government is asking.

The bill empowers cabinet to impose a service contract on any municipality if the nature of the relationship they wish to develop cannot be settled with any particular zone.

Mr. Speaker, the UBCM has already indicated quite clearly that they don't understand this legislation, that they want more time to look at it. The implications for local government are horrendous. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they were not consulted one bit; not one bit of consultation with a representative of municipalities of the province of British Columbia. Again, here is supposed to be a government that believes in partnership and consultation with local government, and once again they bring in legislation that does not enter into consultation at all. It's put out there. They

[ Page 6783 ]

have to scramble around to try to find the legislation, to find out what it means....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's about time this government recognized that they cannot introduce legislation that impacts upon local government without proper due consultation that respects local government. This does not respect local government. It's a continuation of the Big Brother, centralized Socred government that says: "We know best, and to hell with the rest of you." That's what this government is doing again.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's time this government consulted with local government. These zones will be removed totally from municipal jurisdiction, and the normal planning process will be removed. There is no opportunity in this legislation for public involvement or public participation in the development of zones — no opportunity at all — or in the approval of the type of industries which will be located in the zones; absolutely none. It is, once again, an example of top-down industrial strategy. Well, it's not even industrial strategy. It's desperation by a sinking government to try to tell the people of British Columbia they're serious about creating jobs.

It is time we had a proper industrial strategy based on real jobs in the province of British Columbia, and based upon building back our traditional industries instead of treating things like forestry as a sunset industry. It's time we built a strategy around those things, not some trumped-up....

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want any new jobs.

MR. BLENCOE: New jobs!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will come to order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order. If the second member for Surrey and the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) wish to continue the discussion in the hallway, that can be accommodated for the rest of the afternoon. The second member for Victoria continues.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate my good colleague responding to some of the insults.

Mr. Speaker, this is serious legislation for local government. I really do have to urge this government to once again consider its modus operandi in bringing in legislation that impacts on local government.

Local government industrial strategies or plans or anything they have for the future, their priorities, will have no place in this process at all. There has been no consultation with local government in the development of this bill. There is no mechanism for their participation in developing anything in the future.

Mr. Speaker, you know, what is this government up to? What are they doing?

MR. REID: Creating jobs.

MR. BLENCOE: You have had ten years, and we've heard you about that, and we have the worst unemployment rate we've seen in years and years in this province. Creating jobs? We have an Oaklands fish plant out here that had a government study that said it could operate, and this government has sat on that study and hasn't taken the leadership to reopen that plant and work with the workers to get it open.

[4:45]

Jobs? Those are real jobs down there, Mr. Speaker. Those are real jobs, not some fancy high-flying little project here that will get us nowhere and will be the ruination of local government. Real jobs in forestry, that's what we want in British Columbia. We have put out our projects and our ideas and our policies to do that in our throne speech, The Leader of the Opposition has indicated those across this province, and you know what? The people of British Columbia want an election. Go to the people on this legislation. I dare you. Go to the people on your record of ten years, right now. Go to the people.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that they won't win on ten years of incompetence. Ten years, and many years of lack of consultation with local government and lack of any industrial strategy in British Columbia. The people of British Columbia deserve better, and they deserve plans and policies that will create real jobs. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is a great proponent of Dynatek. What did it do? False hopes.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest once again that this piece of legislation, along with the other partnership deal that we have, will also create false hopes. As the critic for Municipal Affairs for our party, in no way can I or our party support this piece of legislation. It is bad for local government, and they should be respected in terms of having the opportunity to at least have a say in this piece of legislation before it passes this House.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill for three reasons — based on fairness, based on economic reality and based on experience, This bill is unfair to British Columbians who in the past three and four years have invested, in many instances, life savings, taking real risks in real entrepreneurship and producing real jobs under the rules that have always prevailed.

We are going to introduce unfair competition, which, if anything, is responsible for the major problems that we have here in British Columbia today with our resource sectors. It is the unfair competition that they are subject to due to federal government programs of subsidy to industries in other parts of the country which are providing unfair competition. We don't have to do it here in British Columbia. It is not fair to give a slap across the face, a back of the hand to the people, the real entrepreneurs, the real free enterprisers who have held tough and continued to employ people through the tough times, or for those who, even better than that, have invested in British Columbia during those tough times.

I can say that I am very proud to have been able to assist some of them in the Nelson-Creston area to do that. My hat is off to those people, and it's unfair to those people. Mr. Speaker, it is also unrealistic. The real economic units are not

[ Page 6784 ]

little enclaves or economic ghettos. They are the city states, the regions and the supply regions of this country. We have to start realizing that if we are going to have a solution for our economic problems, it is not external. It is internal.

We here in British Columbia can start to provide the things that we need and to displace imports with locally produced goods when we start to show the kind of pride in our region that people, I think, throughout the United States show for their country and their regions.

I heard some people over here defending Scottsdale, Arizona. It's a very favourite place of mine. But, you know, we have got to start defending and feeling about British Columbia the way that some people in the United States feel about their country. We've got to start showing that we can do it. We don't need them to do it, or those people over there to do it. We can do it here in this country, without external aid. We can displace imports. We have the people that can do it, and that is the real, lasting solution. That is the way that we can lead this country into a permanent kind of economic development.

This government has gone around trying to imitate the solutions of other countries. And what have they come up with? For ten years they have come up with failed programs. Oh, they embraced Dynatek: "We'll just throw money at Dynatek. We'll keep offering them more and more millions of dollars, and Dynatek will solve our problems." Look at the IEC company which the federal government was doing the same thing with.

Look at the discovery parks. Remember discovery parks? They were the big advertising thing of the last election. They were the special economic zones of the last election. They were filmed. We saw all of this. How many tenants are there in the discovery park at Simon Fraser University after all these years? How many tenants — or should I say that in the singular? How many tenant? There is one tenant. That great program. Of course that was what was going to lead us out of the wilderness in the 1983 election. This is a program, I suppose, for the 1986 election, or '87 or '88, or whenever we go, except that its currency, of course, will become as tarnished as has the currency of the discovery parks. There is no simple panacea.

I say that it's time that this government took as one of its economic strategies, as equally important as attracting outside investment, starting to tell British Columbians about the opportunities that they have to invest in British Columbia, and to patronize things that are already being produced in British Columbia.

We just sit idly by, and we condone McDonald's importing their hamburger buns from the United States, when we could be making it known.... I'll tell you, look at what the people in the United States are doing in terms of importing salted fish from the Maritimes. They're saying, "Well, look, we're producing our own." So if you want to talk about the reality, you'd better look at the reality. You'd better look at what other countries are doing, and you'd better realize that the real long-term solution is going to be an internal solution. Sure, attract investment. Sure, look around the world. Don't put your head in the sand, and don't be a turtle. But, by goodness, don't forget to look at British Columbia when you're looking for solutions.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, there has been some considerable discussion about special economic zones and what they may or may not do for this province or any other jurisdiction. I think perhaps the members opposite may want to consider the successes that have been experienced by other jurisdictions, and the kinds of industries that are attracted to or not attracted to these zones. The experience of the zones that I have visited is that they are industries that are not indigenous to the province of origin or the country of origin, but industries that tend to be attracted only when special circumstances are made available.

If we are successful in this legislation — and I think we will be — in all of these things.... One of the members recently spoke about the discovery parks, etc. If we're successful in attracting a number of industries that would not normally come to British Columbia, the whole measure will have been a success.

What kinds of industries are there? You know, we harp on the traditional industries of this province, but in the industrial sectors of the world a lot of people aren't just looking, as they once were, for a place that offers some kind of cheap labour, or a military government that offers no kind of confusion, as existed in the Philippines. They're looking for stability. While we sometimes in this House demonstrate a little instability, by and large this province, and certainly this country, are considered very stable in the international market. They're also looking at the fact of the supply of energy, which has become a little more critical in recent years. Our competitors to the south, who are now looking very desperately at ways of generating electrical power, are now looking at British Columbia, saying: "I wonder maybe if that's not attractive." You know, your party is now a bedfellow with the new government in Ontario, and Ontario faces a crisis next week. The crisis to be faced next week is the decision that the new Liberal government in Ontario has on electrical energy, because the major financial commitment as to whether or not to expand nuclear power in Ontario will be made next week by the Ontario government and the new chairman of Ontario Hydro, and it will be made with the blessing of the NDP.

MR. SKELLY: Is that part of the agreement?

HON. MR. ROGERS: If it is or isn't part of the agreement it will be interesting, because they won't be able to claim that they didn't know. And I'll tell you this: if they don't go ahead with it, they're going to have power shortages in Ontario, and if they do go ahead with it, both the Liberals and the NDP will have given tacit approval to nuclear power development in Canada, which I find somewhat contradictory. Boy, they can certainly go from one side of the issue to the other, because both the Liberals and the NDP in Ontario were vehemently opposed to the Candu nuclear power. I'm delighted for British Columbia, because it's going to mean good news for us.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Oh, yes, they were. The Ontario Liberals were very much against nuclear power in Ontario, as were the NDP.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: How about Bill 49?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I'm talking about.... Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course I'm.... Listen, special economic zones are definitely going to need energy, and this is one of the things that this province has to offer and one of the

[ Page 6785 ]

reasons we're going to be able to attract companies to come to British Columbia to look at our special economic zones, because of the reliability of our supplies, which just aren't going to be there in other jurisdictions.

I don't think we want to attract companies that are going to come here to find a shelter to get away from worker safety. That's not what we're intending. We're not looking for people who are wanting to come here to manufacture kinds of goods that we, as Canadians, wouldn't approve of. We're not looking for arms or munitions dealers to come here. But we are looking for those kinds of industries for which the carrots are being offered around the world. We continually forget that we have some of the very best carrots to offer: among the finest places to live in the world, excellent communications, good transportation, good location, good labour force, good education force, excellent health care system, excellent education system and abundant electrical supply. All of those things are carrots offered by other jurisdictions, and we have just a little extra carrot to offer them.

At the present time we're not able to do what they're able to do in Shannon, or what they're able to do in China and other areas. China is always going to have cheaper labour than we are, but we're going to have other things to offer. If those companies that are out there are constantly having this smorgasbord of opportunities run by them, we haven't been at the table. We want to be there, and we want to be one of the ones that's examined closely. This legislation will allow British Columbia to go out to the international market to those places where companies are looking to locate and where they're being tempted, where we can go out and say to them: "Come to British Columbia; we'll offer you these operations." And the spinoffs go to the other parts of the community, to everybody: to people in the industry I used to represent, to my constituency, to everybody involved in the supply of electricity, housing, food and telecommunications — everything that we use just by getting one industry. It gives us the tool to compete in one more market which we've never been able to compete in before.

[5:00]

I try to understand the frustration of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). You don't want to have one area of the province to have some success because not necessarily all the areas of the province will succeed. Your argument is so specious; it seems specious to me. What would you say to somebody who is unemployed who manages to get employment because of the introduction of a special economic zone, who wouldn't have received employment otherwise? I don't understand how you could possibly go to those people, face them at the plant gate and say: "If we'd been successful, by God, this plant never would have existed, or it would have existed in one of our municipalities where the regulations and where the municipal ordinances are so tough you couldn't even exist." I don't know, maybe one day when you're still there and I'm over here we'll go out to a special.... I don't know if you'll get returned. That's a tough question — maybe not so tough. But anyway, we'll go to a special economic zone and you can meet them at the plant gate and say: "I want to show you a copy of an old Hansard, because I didn't think you should be working." Mr. Speaker, I don't think we'll have any difficulty at all in being able to take you out there to a special economic zone that's a success and giving you the opportunity to discuss those very matters.

1 think it's a very worthwhile bill, a worthwhile effort. I understand the reason you're opposed to it; it's a philosophical difference. But in terms of trying to get the economy of this province going, I think it's an absolutely first-rate effort, and of course I'll be supporting the bill.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting the comments that the Minister of Energy makes about the agreement between the Ontario Liberals and the NDP, which of course did not include a discussion of energy. I'm sure if a decision is made to develop further energy in Ontario, those decisions won't be made on the floor of the House and therefore aren't subject to the agreement.

Unfortunately, we're not getting any information here from the minister as to how many jobs might be created in these zones. We hear that the minister has been to some of these special enterprise zones. At one time the Minister of Industry was talking about the duty-free zone in Tacoma. They were promoting the idea of the duty-free zone in Tacoma. I understand that the Premier was even going to take a trip down there, and he suddenly cancelled. Then the Minister of Industry went down and no publicity came out of the trip. I think the reason no publicity came out is that they found out that within that zone all of the legislation of the United States and the State of Washington applies: labour relations legislation, taxation legislation. Of course, there's a difference in the United States, because you can bring in automobile parts and assemble them duty free while they're in the zone, and then you can sell them into the United States at a lower level of duty than those parts might otherwise attract if you were bringing them in fully assembled from overseas. There's a different legislative regime in the United States, so we're dealing with apples and oranges when we're comparing what the minister is talking about in the way of special enterprise zones with the duty-free zones in the United States — which by the way, Mr. Speaker, were brought in by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt government back in 1934, part of the New Deal program in the United States.

The minister didn't mention which special enterprise zones he visited, although he said that we didn't need a military regime in British Columbia to encourage these kinds of zones. Then he seemed to indicate that he had visited one of the zones in China. I'm not sure if he wants to see the same kind of government in British Columbia as they have in China. I do recall that one time when the Premier came back from China he said: "Look at the good things that are happening in China. They had a restraint program, and nobody complained." I wonder what would have happened if they did complain. I hope we don't have that kind of government here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says that perhaps what we can do in this province with all of our advantages.... This is such a great place to live. The climate is so great. All of the natural attractions are so great. Why then is industry not locating in British Columbia right now? Every year since 1981 investment in British Columbia has declined. It declined in '82 over 1981, '83 over 1982, '84 over 1983. The department of industrial expansion pointed out in their survey of corporation investment intentions that investment in British Columbia is going to decline by 9 percent — $2.6 billion less than the previous year. Why aren't they locating in British Columbia now?

My colleague from Victoria brought up an important argument. One of the problems is policy stability. One day

[ Page 6786 ]

they decide they're going to go into partnership arrangements with municipalities. Every municipality is going to be able to forgive municipal taxes and offer all sorts of concessions to industry. The next day they bring in legislation for special enterprise zones. They can now locate those zones in the middle of municipalities so that they can compete with industries that are supposedly locating in those municipalities. They'll have a greater edge if they locate in these special enterprise zones. The problem is one of chaos and uncertainty in policy. This government doesn't seem to have an idea of what the economy of British Columbia should look like in the future. They don't sit down with the people who are involved, who provide services in municipalities — those very municipal governments who are desperate for employment as well. One reason the city of Vancouver is desperate for employment is because the Minister of Energy laid off hundreds upon hundreds of people who worked in B.C. Hydro. I challenge that minister to demonstrate to me that they're going to be able to create enough jobs to get the people he laid off at Hydro back to work. I don't think he's even going to be able to do that with his so-called special enterprise zone legislation.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, these people have eliminated thousands of jobs. I heard the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) talking yesterday about new plants that are going to be locating in British Columbia — the one in Kamloops, the one at Britannia Beach. A few new plants are going to locate here. In fact, he mentioned the Ocelot plant. I'm pleased to hear that Ocelot, for $80 million, is bringing in 15 new jobs to Kitimat. The same day, if you read the Alberni Valley Times — the member was very selective in his choice of articles — as a result of government policy they eliminated 18 positions in the hospital at Port Alberni. Hundreds upon hundreds of people are on the waiting list for surgery. People who were employed in this province but who can't work for health reasons are on the waiting list for surgery, and they can't get surgery in the province of B.C. Some of them are considering going elsewhere in Canada. Some of them are considering going outside of Canada so that they can get that surgery done. Eighteen jobs lost in Port Alberni in exchange for fifteen in Kitimat.

A member down here was talking about other jobs. We're losing 90 jobs in one of the sawmills in Port Alberni, on top of the thousands that have already been lost. One single community. I don't think all of the northeast coal project created enough jobs to replace the jobs that were lost in one single community in British Columbia — jobs lost in the public sector, jobs lost in education, jobs lost in the private sector. That project, costing the people of this province $700 million, couldn't even compensate for the jobs lost in one community with 19,000 people in this province.

All of their band-aids, all of their attempts to patch this leaky boat, all of their lurching from one project to another, all of their bungling, all of their incompetence and all of their legislation dreamed up in the backrooms here in Victoria aren't going to put the economy of British Columbia on the tracks. If you want to do that, you have to develop an economic strategy. If you want to develop an economic strategy, you have to get out and consult with the people of British Columbia. You have to deal with the people who have been face to face with the problems that you've largely created over the past ten years. People in business, people in industry, people in trade unions and people in communities, local governments and school boards — you have to consult with all of those people and develop a strategy that they can become involved with and that they can fit in with.

All of these wild ideas aren't going to amount to a hill of jobs in this province and aren't even going to be able to compensate for the jobs that these people have eliminated through bad economic policy and through mismanagement.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure to support Bill 49, the bill talking about special economic zones and a tax relief act. I think it is interesting that we would consider in British Columbia today innovative legislation to help us into the future, which we are coming into very rapidly — innovative as far as we're concerned, anyway.

We haven't done these things in B.C. before, and it's important for us to do things in a structural way rather than in a physical way. I refer to some of the things that have been done in the past when we were not government, such as buying streetcars that didn't fit on the tracks and that sort of activity, which did very little to help. I know the streetcars are now gone, but what we want to do.... What we want people to feel is that there is hope out there. They are beginning to feel that way because of the legislation that is coming down. We will be attracting businesses to British Columbia that have never been here before and that wouldn't have come here before because the circumstances that would govern them here did not exist.

It is this type of legislation that will give us an opportunity to say to those businesses and those entrepreneurs who will be hiring our people: "Come to British Columbia. We have here good educational opportunities for the people you may bring with you. We have good health systems for those people you will bring with you. Then you will be hiring the people of B.C. who will then take those wages home, spend them on their mortgages and on the clothes they buy and on the cars they buy and on the food that they eat, which will then trickle down through the economy, as it always does."

AN HON. MEMBER: The trickle-down theory is great.

MR. R. FRASER: The trickle-down theory is great. It works, actually, as you know very well. We're into some interesting circumstances here. There are some pretty good books out on what's happening. We're finding that politicians around the world who heretofore have been able to add and spend more and more are no longer able to do that. They are being obliged to make some rather difficult decisions which have been made here in the last three years — for part of which I've been here. I've been here only two years — two and a bit — but I've been proud to be able to take my place in this assembly along with the other hon. members and to vote on those things which will improve the province, as I see them. While I don't expect governments to be perfect — or in fact the opposition to be perfect for that matter — we do find more and more that we are working together in society and even in the House. There's been a phenomenal change in the way we discuss and debate bills and go through estimates. I in fact am encouraged by what I see here, which I see reflected in the community.

That is why bills like Bill 49 are going to work. That is why we are going to find the more progressive union leaders in the province supporting bills like Bill 49, because they too

[ Page 6787 ]

are saying — to me, at least, and probably to you — "Yes, I want to be part of the solution, and I want to be creative, and I don't want to go forward into the future looking into a rearview mirror at what happened in the past. I want to do something original, at least for this area."

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, yes, I think the Minister of Science, Communications and Universities has done a lot of interesting things. For example, historically we have been locked into the concept of education in fixed buildings. Now we're into education through satellite, passing on the opportunities. That is reasonably new technology and reasonably exciting, as far as I am concerned. It strikes me that it is far better to have some opportunity than to have none, and if that is what satellites will do, then I am prepared to support that.

We're finding the same thing with people in education. They're saying: "How do we become part of the solution?" That's what this bill will do. It will say to businesses: "If you haven't been operating in British Columbia and you have a chance to do your work here and to do it at a moment in time which will be helpful and will avoid some of those taxes which would just become a burden and not an opportunity, then sure, come."

I can think of opportunities that would fit very well. I would like to see us import a product from overseas and make it into a product here — it's adding value, which everybody talks about so happily — and ship it off to another country.

MR. COCKE: But the feds aren't with you on this thing.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, it's true that our government and the federal government don't always agree, hon. member, as you know. However, it's also true that B.C. has been a leader in very many ways.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, of course we talk about the statistics of unemployment. We've heard those for months and months. We don't hear it now, when in fact job creation is becoming apparent, when more and more people are becoming employed, and when more and more people are feeling optimistic about their chances. Now more and more young people are going into business for themselves, and when the programs for student employment opportunities and entrepreneurship are working.... Little businesses like College Pro Painters.... It was started by a couple of kids and is now a big franchise and a successful company.

That's the kind of thought process we need to encourage. If we can create in the minds of the people...that there are opportunities out there, then it will work. As long as we think of things in a positive way, they will work. If we feel that things are going to happen, they will happen, because we're going to make them happen. It's just that simple, and even if we have to forgo some of the taxes we might want to have, better to have some taxes from these opportunities than none at all. Better to have some than none, and that's what we're talking about here,

[5:15]

If we can make special rules that bring extra money into this province, let's do it. Let's do it, because the people who are going to be working in this zone are here now. It's not going to cost us any more to send them to school. They're in school now. Why not? Why not think of some ways to make it better here? We know why we went through such serious times in B.C.: we were so dependent on resources. We know why, for example, we have a debt in this province. I'm able, as a free enterpriser, businessman and employer, to say to someone over there: "Sure, I'll accept some debt, because I'm prepared to help those people who need help, even though our income doesn't necessarily support that idea financially." Morally, I can certainly do it; compassionately, I can certainly do it.

I think we'd be in terrible shape if we hadn't done some cost-cutting and taken some efficiency measures. There's no question in my mind about that. But you have to have compassion, even when you don't have all the money in the world to solve their problems. Besides, we all know that all the money in the world won't solve all the problems anyway; it's only part of it. I look at the community and I say to myself: "It's going to work. It's going to work."

MR. COCKE: We hang on his every word.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, as a matter of fact, I have noticed you've been doing that, and I'm flattered beyond words. I can hardly think of anything to say, you've been so attentive.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're trying to read your lips.

[Laughter.]

MR. R. FRASER: You're not the first person that's tried to do that, and with luck you won't be the last. Actually, harder than reading my lips is reading my notes; that's even more difficult. I can't do that myself all the time. It's one of the great mysteries of life. I wonder why, with my handwriting, I'm not a doctor. That would have been better, actually. Not as much fun as this, for sure, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: One's enough in here.

MR. R. FRASER: We could use some more of these high-flying guys.

I've had the opportunity to do some things in the community that have been fascinating for me: touring the plants with management and with union leaders, and having them both say to one or all of us on the tour: "We know what security is in B.C. Security is not the contract you have with your collective agreement. Security is not the fact that you outright own a home or something like that. Security, in the real sense of the word, is a paycheque." That's what it is. Security now means profit for the business, and everybody will support the idea of the profit motive now. Before, when it didn't seem to matter what we did, it wasn't such a lovely word, but it's a lovely word now, and every industrial trade unionist in the world knows that profit is a lovely word.

This is the kind of bill that will bring some profit to the community, some money into the community, some food into the community. Sure, if we have to be innovative and we have to do some things that are new to this province, then we will do them. If we have to amend every act in the Legislative Assembly in order to get this province going again — and it is going already, in fact — I'd be prepared to consider that kind of activity. I certainly want to say to the hon. Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips):

[ Page 6788 ]

"Sure, take the trip and go to see the other countries, and let's make a deal. Let's trade our products for theirs, and let's make it happen."

I'm going to support this bill, in case you haven't noticed. I, in fact, would be happy to quote page after page, and if I had to delay the speech any longer, I would go back to a speech by my friend from Atlin, who said one time when asked to say some nice things about a bill: "The holes are punched good, and the printing's done neat." I think he was an English teacher at one time, which I found even more amazing, but then in Atlin maybe that's okay. Where is he, by the way? Where is the guy from Atlin today?

MR. BARNES: Vicious attack.

MR. R. FRASER: Listen, I'll tell you, if you weren't so tall I'd ask you to go out in the hall.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: I beg your pardon. What are you mumbling about from over there?

MR. LAUK: She was offended at your comments.

MR. R. FRASER: Was she offended at my comments? Good heavens....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker is over here.

MR. R. FRASER: Oh, the Speaker is over there. Sorry, I see your face in the light now, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're offending a lot of people.

MR. R. FRASER: That's right. Well, one of the things I've noticed about my speeches is that I evoke the passions of the crowd consistently.

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: Yes, that's right. When I'm on a hotline program, the phones are always ringing off the hook. An incredible performance by the member for Vancouver South.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, wholly and wholeheartedly. I will support any bill that will help make this province gain ground faster.

MR. KEMPF: I'll be fairly short this afternoon, because my voice is not what it used to be, and I'm sure that members opposite will be happy to hear that.

I support Bill 49, because I would support any initiative and attempt to bring investment and development into the province of British Columbia. Whether the members opposite realize it or not — and Mr. Speaker, I'm sure they do — it's investment and development that create jobs, wherever that investment comes from.

For months on end I've heard opposition members suggest to the government that we should be creating more jobs in British Columbia. On many occasions in the last weeks in this assembly, I heard the members opposite talk about supporting present industries and creating more jobs in those industries in British Columbia. But when I heard the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) just a few moments ago in this chamber talk about placing sanctions against the United States of America for even the hamburger buns that they export to Canada.... He spoke of those things in this chamber at a time when everyone in this chamber should be very concerned about the situation regarding our lumber exports to the United States. I've heard concerns from both sides of this House in that regard, and to sit here and listen today while the member for Nelson-Creston took his place to speak, the week before the Premier of this province is to be in Washington, D.C., to plead the case for the export of British Columbia lumber into the United States.... I really wonder where that member and that party are coming from.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Come on, Jack. You can do better than that.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), to talk of those things when our lumber industry could hang by a thread because of a loss of exports to the United States is a shame. Shame on that party and shame on that member. I wonder what their friends in the IWA would say. I'm sure that if any of those friends of theirs in the IWA would read Hansard and the words that the member for Nelson-Creston had to say — but I'm sure they don't want to; they don't want to hear what their friends on the socialist side of the floor on this Legislature have to say — they would wonder where it was that they should be placing their support in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to laugh about these things in this chamber. But I want to tell you, I represent an area that depends a great deal on whether the United States does or does not buy our dimension lumber — a great deal. Many of my constituents rely for their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families on whether or not that transaction takes place. To compare that and to talk in this chamber about placing sanctions on McDonald's hamburger buns coming from the United States into this province.... I've really got to wonder about a member of this Legislature in that regard. I'm sure that Mr. Jack Munro would have those same doubts.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talked of the creation of jobs and how this bill, Bill 49, may or may not create jobs in the province of British Columbia. Well, maybe it won't. Maybe there is that remote possibility that it won't. But what harm is there in trying? That's what is wrong with that party over there. I heard it earlier from other members on this side of the floor. They haven't changed their views. They haven't changed their philosophy; they haven't changed it in 55 years. It's quite apparent from the debate that has gone on from that side of the floor here this afternoon that they still haven't changed it.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talked about the creation of jobs. Statistics prove that 47,000 new jobs were created in the province of British Columbia in the last year — those same statistics that they use over and over again. But they use them only when it is to their benefit. When the unemployment rate is going up, they use those figures, but not when it's going in the other direction.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) smiles. You don't want to hear those kinds of things. I've heard you say that very same thing in this chamber. You don't

[ Page 6789 ]

want to hear those kinds of things. I've heard it over and over and over again. No, they don't want to hear those kinds of things, Mr. Speaker. They don't want to hear the good things; they just want to spread the doom and gloom in this province.

I want to tell you, they think they know what the people of British Columbia want and what they are thinking. This afternoon I heard one of those members over there say that he thought that what the people of British Columbia wanted was an election. Well, he's been talking to different people in British Columbia than I have, Mr. Speaker, because that's the very last thing on their minds. That's all they want, two short years after they had one and returned this government with a larger majority than it had before.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia want bills like this, which may or may not give them jobs; but at least we're trying. At least there's some initiative there — initiative that you members over there would have taken away. That's typical socialism: take all the initiative away; don't give anybody anything to live for, to look forward to; let government do it all; bring them to their knees and take them over, as the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) would do.

I remember those words well. I listened to what those members opposite were saying when they were on this side of the floor. That's why I'm here today. I didn't like what I was hearing, and neither did the people of British Columbia. That's why they will never again be government in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that Ocelot is going to spend $80 million and only create 15 jobs. Well, I want to tell you that that's Ocelot's money; that's not taxpayers' money.

MR. LAUK: You're wrong.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, am I? That's not taxpayers' money. That's not a socialistic scheme like you would have — socialize all the industries in British Columbia. You were going to give away all the natural resources of British Columbia, if only the federal government would socialize them. I know that. I remember that, and so do the people of British Columbia. They'll never forget it, and their children won't forget it either. They talk to different people in British Columbia than I do.

MR. LAUK: Ocelot is getting a welfare payment of $1 million.

MR. KEMPF: Yes. They knock Ocelot, they knock the fertilizer plant at Annacis Island, they knock the pulp mill for Britannia and they knock the LNG plant. They knock everything — doom and gloom, because that's the perpetrator of their philosophy. The more doom and gloom you can spread, the more votes the NDP will get, they think. But, Mr. Speaker, that's not true — not if I am hearing correctly the people I listen to, not just in my own constituency, which is solidly behind this government, but all over this province — even in your constituencies, members opposite, even in your constituencies. They're fed up. They were fed up with you as government, and they're fed up with you as opposition. I don't know what they're going to do with you next.

I wasn't going to say very much on this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I think you have to set the record straight, and it has to be put in the record of this House. You can't just let those idle words of opposition members go without saying something of what it is that the real people out there think. It's about time that we adjourned this place, so that those members opposite can get out there and talk to the real people, because they've been too long away from those people to realize how they really think and what they really feel.

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 49.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to be up here speaking on Bill 49. I hadn't intended to get up and speak, but it was the Leader of the Opposition in one of his infrequent appearances in this House today who stirred me to get up and make just a few comments on this legislation.

MR. LAUK: Table your speech, and we can take it home.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I won't table the speech, but you know you can get Hansard tomorrow and have the pleasure of going to sleep reading it tomorrow night.

But listening to the Leader of the Opposition talk about this bill and knock everything we are doing in British Columbia, I can't help but feel sorry for him as the leader of a party that has always had division within itself. Now he is watching this province, after a government that has taken some very tough stands in the last couple of years, and seeing things turn around. How frustrating it must be for him to be leader of this party and see some of this great legislation that is bringing industry into British Columbia turning things around. He stands there in place today — as I say, his infrequent place in this House, because he seems to spend more time on the road than he does in the Legislature.

MR. LAUK: In your constituency.

MR. REYNOLDS: He's welcome in my constituency. He can speak there every day. One of his questions.... The Leader of the Opposition says, why is industry not locating in British Columbia now? I don't know where he's traveling within the province. Maybe he's just staying at home sleeping. But he should come in this Legislature once in a while. He should read the papers and start listening to the industries that have been mentioned here today that are locating in British Columbia because of the job that this government has done in this province over the last two years.

It's interesting to hear the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). He doesn't talk about the Victoria Plywood Cooperative that the workers in Victoria got going again.

MR. LAUK: No thanks to you.

MR. REYNOLDS: Thanks to this government. Thanks to the workers, who are the most important people. Thanks to the feeling that those workers had that British Columbia was going to expand and they want to put their own money in that plant and get it going again.

Why doesn't the second member for Victoria want to talk about the Victoria Plywood Cooperative? Is it because the workers in that plant, after they got it going again, decided they didn't need the union? Is he afraid to offend some of his friends? A positive thing in British Columbia was that plywood plant starting up again. Yet we don't hear........

MR. LAUK: Are you attacking Dr. Munro?

[ Page 6790 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: I would never attack Dr. Munro.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 49, Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act. I want to read a press release. I happened to be up in Squamish yesterday, which happens to be in my constituency. It's an area that was built up falsely by the NDP with a bunch of train cars they tried to pretend would be an industry in British Columbia. The people have suffered there ever since.

MR. LAUK: Are you attacking Squamish? You said you were in favour of it. I've got you on record.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver Centre can go up to Squamish any time and talk. I attended a meeting there last night — the largest ever chamber of commerce meeting in Squamish. I've never heard so many positive comments. It was the annual meeting for the chamber of commerce, and they got all of their committee reports. Positive, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Six people.

MR. REYNOLDS: Not six people, Mr. Member. The room was filled. I would guess well in excess of 100.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read a press release into the record, because I think it indicates what this government is doing. It's not written by the government, it's written by private enterprise. The gentlemen who were at this meeting last night work for this company. I was the guest speaker at the meeting, but I let them stand up and talk about their company, because that's why the people were at the meeting. The excitement that's happening in that area, a community that has signed the partnership agreement.... Excuse me, not signed but agreed to sign. The official signing will be very shortly.

Who would have thought that Squamish would have been one of the leading communities in this province to agree to sign that agreement? Mr. Speaker, they're enthusiastic in that area about what this government is doing in British Columbia, enthusiastic about the future; not the doom and gloom that comes from our friends in the NDP. They don't want....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) says we don't have any land zoned for industry in West Vancouver. He doesn't realize that my constituency goes up into the Squamish area, the Pemberton area, the greatest farming area in British Columbia. And Squamish will be one of the greatest industrial areas in British Columbia.

Let me quote from the press release, Mr. Speaker:

"Major Secondary Industry Planned for British Columbia." "Plans for the development of the first coated-paper manufacturing facility in western Canada were announced today by Makin Pulp and Paper Ltd., a privately held Canadian corporation. Its fully integrated facilities are to be located on an industrial site at Britannia Beach, approximately 50 kilometres north of Vancouver, adjacent to Squamish.

"The initial phase of this project will be a facility to undertake research and development of quality printing and specialty papers from the aspen tree fibre. The company, through its affiliate Makin Project Initiators Ltd., plans to develop coated and uncoated papers for use in magazines, periodicals, glossy advertising flyers and business forms. Once this research and development program has been completed, the company plans to establish a major world-scale paper mill for production of the developed papers. The wood will be chipped in plants in the Cariboo region and processed at Britannia Beach, along with purchased softwood chips, to provide raw material for the paper plant."

AN HON. MEMBER: You're putting us to sleep.

MR. REYNOLDS: If this kind of information puts my New Democratic friend from Vernon to sleep, that's the problem he has with his party. He can't get up with his long-winded statements in question period and go on for three days about tourism. But he doesn't care about new industry, Mr. Speaker. He's no different than the second member for Vancouver East who talks about what we are going to do with the fish.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about pollution?

MR. REYNOLDS: What about pollution in Howe Sound? Have you read in the editorial in the Vancouver Sun today?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I didn't.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, you should read it, because they're talking about.... They don't even know that this is a high-tech plant that is not going to cause pollution in the area. There's the negative NDP again. It's going to be nice for me to let my constituents in Squamish know that the second member for Vancouver East is not concerned about jobs. Wait until I get to the numbers. What about pollution? Let me tell you, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, the Social Credit members of this House and free enterprisers around this province care as much about the environment as any of your NDP friends do. We care about the fishermen in this province; we care about our lakes. You don't have any right, Mr. Member, to say that you guys have a monopoly on those areas.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I've got a lot more to say, and I want to finish this statement tomorrow. But I know we have interns up in the Ned DeBeck Lounge that we all want to pay some homage to this evening, so I would like to adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:43 p.m.