[ Page 8443 ]

CONTENTS

Dental Technicians Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading — 8443

Oral Questions

U.S. shake and shingle tariffs. Mr. Skelly — 8443

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lea

Mr. Williams

Coal industry layoffs. Mr. Williams — 8445

Gasoline and oil prices. Mr. Cocke — 8445

Private Members' Statements

Sewage treatment in greater Victoria. Mr. Blencoe — 8445

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

Cedar Lodge and Skeleem Village. Mrs. Wallace — 8447

Mr. Cocke

Free trade and agriculture. Ms. Sanford — 8449

Mr. Stupich

Teaching peace in our schools. Mrs. Dailly — 8451

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

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

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 44: minister's office — 8452

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Williams

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Blencoe

FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, last evening I met a most pleasant couple in Victoria while I was having dinner. They are from the great state of Massachusetts of the United States of America. They are here visiting British Columbia and Expo, and I would ask the House to give a cordial and warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Lima from Massachusetts.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in the session this morning is Pastor A. Lennox who is the director of public affairs for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. I would hope the members would make him welcome this morning.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, visiting the precincts today and discussing the dilemma of log exports are four people in the industry from the north, very concerned employers. One of the employers is laying off another 50 employees as of this evening, so he is here trying to get some....

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure that I introduce to this chamber Mr. Bill Thompson, Mr. Kelly Williams, Mr. John Williams and Mr. Norm Rae. Would we please make them welcome?

Introduction of Bills

DENTAL TECHNICIANS AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Dental Technicians Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, a couple of comments. The bill just introduced is to modify the regulations with respect to dental technicians and denturists. There will be an expansion of the board to be called the Dental Technicians Denturists Board; the elimination of the requirement of the certificate of oral health for qualified denturists. The board will have the authority to issue certificates of registration which will replace the present licences to students, including apprentices, and to assistants as well as to dental technicians and denturists.

The board will have the authority after receiving a court order to inspect premises, seize records and equipment, in addition to existing powers of reprimand and suspension or cancellation of registration. The board will also be empowered to place conditions on a registrant's entitlement to practise and to impose fines. The rule-making of the board will also be expanded.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments introduced today are the result of a very exhaustive period of time of consultation with the denturists, dental technicians and others.

I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

U.S. SHAKE AND SHINGLE TARIFFS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in the absence of the Premier at the Western Premiers' Conference. One of the ways that a government can express its displeasure with another government is to withdraw its ambassador and to give further instructions to that ambassador. Since Mr. Reisman has ambassadorial rank in the negotiations between Canada and the United States on trade issues, will this government undertake to communicate to the Prime Minister their concern about the imposition of the 35 percent duties on shakes and shingles in British Columbia, and ask the Prime Minister to withdraw their negotiator for further instructions and to further define the mandate of that negotiator so that negotiations will not continue until such time as the U.S. remove their provocative protectionist measures?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I take it. Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is articulating in that rather vague question the policy of his party. That being the case, it's probably the stupidest question that we've ever heard come from that side of the House. The very last thing in the world is to remove ourselves from the table with the United States. What we wish to do is produce results so we don't have this kind of protectionism happening.

Why don't you just cut the cord between yourselves and Ed Broadbent?

MR. SKELLY: It's pretty clear that in the absence of the Premier, he's left his character behind at any rate.

Mr. Speaker, one way to avoid jeopardizing the talks that may be taking place as a result of the threats of retaliation and some of the wild threats made by the other member for Point Grey, one of the ways to avoid jeopardizing the talks, and to follow the instructions that are coming out of the Western Premiers' Conference as to redefining the mandate of our negotiators at the free trade talks, is to withdraw that negotiator and give further instructions without jeopardizing the continuation of the talks. It's one of the few things....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, when there is order. It's one way that this country can demonstrate its concern for what's going on in the United States without jeopardizing those talks.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Please be seated. In view of recent comments, particularly by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). who has asked the Chair to rule on both the time of questions and responses, I would ask members in both posing their questions and responding to them to adhere in some broad general way to the guidelines which bind us. Again, hon. members, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[ Page 8444 ]

MR. SKELLY: It does not seem appropriate in any legislature for a minister of the Crown to respond that any question is stupid, or to respond in the way that this minister responded, which further undermines the reputation of this House and this government.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, could I please make one very simple observation for the hon. member? It's question period. Does he have anything interrogative in his mind?

MR. SKELLY: My question, Mr. Speaker, was whether this minister was prepared to communicate to the Prime Minister a request that our negotiator be withdrawn in order to redefine his mandate so that the negotiations between Canada and the United States could be carried out with the understanding on the American side that we're willing to take strong action if their protectionist measures continue against our industries here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. leader, you may well be dumb enough to want to do that; we are not.

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, from time to time in the course of debate members say things which are not as parliamentary as they would otherwise be. I'm sure that the government House Leader was not making any personal reference in that remark.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no, no, Mr. Speaker. It speaks for itself.

MR. ROSE: The feds are talking retaliation. To the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations — the kind, courteous Minister of Intergovernmental Relations: the feds are talking retaliation; the Premiers are talking standstill. Is it the British Columbia government's position to roll over and play dead?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where has the hon. member been over the past few weeks? Where have you been, sir? Talk about playing dead, we were the first people in the country to stand up against them. Play dead! If the hon. member calls that playing dead, boy, we're happy to be this kind of dead, I'll tell you that.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the government was two months late in advising anybody. It doesn't have to play dead; it is dead. The Premier wrote for financial assistance.

MR. SKELLY: Welfare for the industry.

MR. ROSE: The industry says it doesn't want a subsidy. What kind of assistance does the provincial government want?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What we're striving to have, Mr. Member — and make no bones about it; it's been the position of this party, which will be the economic survival and the economic salvation of our country — is a one-on-one, across the-board free-trade agreement with the United States. And we have run into a very....

AN HON. MEMBER: What have you got?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Shhh! Quiet, young man.

We've run into a very, very difficult situation in the United States. Do we like it? No. Does anybody in British Columbia like it? No. I would hope that you people wouldn't like it. But one thing I did notice, hon. member, when the Leader of the Opposition was making his — I can't use the word "dumb," so I won't — suggestion this morning: boy, were there a lot of grey faces in half of his caucus over there. You're even divided on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROSE: Has the British Columbia government received a reply yet from their pal Brian Mulroney for assistance under the Employment Support Act, and if so, what was the content of that reply?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, I was speaking to the Attorney-General. Could we hear that question again?

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I would like to know....

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

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry, I was distracted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Brummet) who wanted to know whether he was part of the pollution, and I agree with him.

Has the government received a reply to the proposal for financial assistance under the Employment Support Act, and what was the nature of the reply from their pal Brian Mulroney?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't have a response yet. I'll take it as notice and report to you, sir.

MR. LEA: Boys, boys!

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the government can't stop the opposition from making a smart or a dumb decision. However, they can't stop the President of the United States from making a dumb or a smart decision. I'd like to ask the government this morning about their dumb decision regarding the export of logs.

I'd like to go to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forests. Has there been a decision by the government that would allow the export of raw logs and put back to work people on Vancouver Island and in the Prince Rupert constituency, or are you just going to let it slide and let it slide and hope time takes care of it?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, I will take it as notice and bring back an answer at the earliest possible time.

MR. LEA: He's taking the question as notice, I take it, Mr. Speaker, as to whether they've made a decision. Now I'd like to ask the parliamentary secretary another question. Do you think the decision already made was a dumb decision?

Interjections.

[ Page 8445 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Has the government established a position vis-à-vis the federal government on the negotiations through Mr. Reisman that we demand the U.S. drop the countervail with respect to free trade? Because if we have the countervail, we don't have free trade. That's our problem today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's correct. There's not a person who differs with that. We all agree with that perspective, and this is one of the reasons the premiers are meeting and will be meeting with the Prime Minister next week. Surely you've been reading the papers.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister aware, Mr. Speaker, that never in the history of the United States have they given up the countervail or anti-dumping legislation, and that we still would remain vulnerable with the countervail there? No matter what the free trade talks produce, we will still be as vulnerable then as we are today, because the U.S. has never ever forgone that privilege.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a little difficult for me to respond to United States government policy, but I would tend to think that their policy is not etched in stone, as yours is.

COAL INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

MR. WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Speaker, that that will settle the talks very quickly and it won't take very long.

A question for the Minister of Mines: Byron Creek is laying of 139 people in July, Crows Nest 100, and Westar has threatened 700 layoffs in the Crowsnest coalfields. Could the Minister of Mines advise the House whether his department or other agencies of government have decided to intervene to prevent the equally disastrous problems in our coal industry and prevent the continuing whipsawing by the Japanese steel industry that's going on?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, of course we're concerned about that, but we have a fairly difficult time to drag people here by the throat and say: "You must buy coal." So some of the people have had work stoppages. and there have been coal sales lost because of that. Certainly we are intervening to the extent possible, but we cannot drag people by the throat and insist that they buy coal.

The companies are doing everything possible to market coal and will keep doing that.

MR. WILLIAMS: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the small companies of British Columbia cannot deal with the Japanese steel monopoly. The question is: is the minister prepared to jointly bargain with those companies in dealing with the Japanese, and indeed is he prepared to involve the government of Canada? Because it requires that kind of skill and that kind of clout to prevent the disaster that is on the horizon in our coal industry.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are discussions going on at all levels to try to retain our coal markets. I suppose one of the disasters.... The only disaster we face is the constant criticism from that member about our coal industry.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) will come to order.

Interjections.

GASOLINE AND OIL PRICES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like — if I get a chance — to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources as well. Has this minister or this government interceded with the gouging, rip-off oil companies in terms of what they are doing in their reduction of refined gas vis-à-vis diesel and fuel oil? Fuel oil, which has a much simpler refining mechanism — and the same thing with diesel oil — is now more expensive than ordinary gas. As a matter of fact, it was four cents more this morning. Has the minister done anything with this band of cowboy bandits?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, we have had discussions with the industry. Part of it is the federal taxation regime that keeps the prices up. The other part, of course, is that some of the diesel and fuel oil was refined from the more expensive oil. I am sure that in time gasoline prices will moderate.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Quickly, as I see my guest is just leaving.... We still have in our gallery today one of our local aldermen, Vicki Kuhl, who, I understand, heard about the show in the House and came to get a few lessons for council.

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

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I take pleasure in introducing to the House two very gracious people from Delta, Howard and Helen Underwood. With them today are two Expo attenders from Houston, Texas. They've come all this way to attend Expo, and they wanted to see the other part of the activities going on in the province. It's certainly a tribute for them to be here this morning and watch it being carried on. Would the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

SEWAGE TREATMENT IN GREATER VICTORIA

MR. BLENCOE: I wish to address an important issue this morning for the greater Victoria area, one that both members for Victoria have brought to this House before but one we feel is so important that it should be treated in a serious statement this morning. That is the question of sewage treatment and the whole question of composting in the greater Victoria area. It's our position that the current

[ Page 8446 ]

method utilized for removing sewage in greater Victoria is a scandal and is one that is a great embarrassment to this beautiful part of British Columbia.

There have never been, as far as I know, any cost-benefit studies done to look at alternatives for removing sewage in greater Victoria. It's been too easy to continue to dump raw sewage into the ocean not far from this Legislature. In our estimation we need to look at potential economic gain that can be derived from treatment and composting. The theme is "waste as a resource; waste for economic gain." Since 1968 all engineering studies on sewage have dealt with disposal, and that's all they have dealt with. We believe that has been extremely short-sighted, when we consider what other countries have done and the economic benefit they have derived from treating, composting and selling the wastes. The state of Washington no longer dumps raw sewage into the ocean. The last Law of the Sea conference condemned ocean dumping of any kind. Canada participated and supported the recommendations of no more dumping of raw sewage into oceans. We are the only sizeable community in the Pacific Northwest that continues to dump raw sewage into the ocean. That is a serious indictment of all levels of government, and one that we believe has to be rectified in the very near future.

[10:30]

Some local experts continue to support the dumping. But it should be noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prohibits raw sewage dumping into the ocean, with a few exceptions — one, notably, being New York State. In Europe there is minimal dumping of raw sewage today. They have gone into extensive treatment and composting. There has been a dramatic decline in the dumping of raw sewage into the ocean.

We have been introducing visitors in this chamber over the last few weeks who are visiting our province. I wonder how many of them realize how the greater Victoria area continues to dump raw sewage into the ocean. It is, indeed, an embarrassment.

Important reports in the United States have cited various pollution problems from dumping into the Atlantic from municipal wastes: toxic effluents, sedimentation and the pollutants have created the growth of algae and have depleted oxygen supply. These kinds of studies on long-term impact have not been done in our waters off greater Victoria. We need to look very seriously at this dumping problem. We do not know the long-term results, now that the interceptor will be built. And, of course, we are going to dramatically increase the volume of raw sewage being dumped off Victoria. We don't know the results. Indeed, the reports of 1973 by Dr. Ellis have quite clearly stated that we don't really know the ultimate fate of the large amounts of wastes presently being disposed of in the ocean, and we really are playing with the future of our water environment.

It is a resource. Nitrogen and phosphorus are key elements in commercial fertilizers, and manufacturing them is very expensive. It's estimated that we have dumped thousands and thousands of dollars worth of nitrogen and phosphates right off the coast here in greater Victoria, and there have been estimates that between 1973 and 1986 we have dumped in excess of $700,000 worth of phosphates and nitrogen off greater Victoria. We are spending millions of dollars to dump raw sewage into our oceans. We need to look at composting and treatment plants in the greater Victoria area. And we believe there has to be a political will to do that.

In that regard, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), who unfortunately is not here today, agreed to a meeting with myself and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and we had a very useful meeting. We talked about how we could bring this about, what would be the costs and what would be the possible sites, and we encouraged the Capital Regional District to fast-track their liquid wastes management plan.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We believe that there should be a waste management plan for sewage in the Victoria area as fast as possible, and we believe that the studies should end with a sewage treatment plant for the greater Victoria area. There should be public meetings as quickly as possible on this project. We have suggested to the CRD that there be a hastening of the process of bringing sewage treatment to greater Victoria. It has to be a top priority, and we believe that local government and provincial government support can bring this about effectively and quickly. It needs leadership, and it needs the political will.

It is an embarrassment. Greater Victoria residents don't support the current methodology. In the last few weeks, when we have talked about this, both members for Victoria have received letters and calls of support. Victorians once and for all wish to deal with this issue in a very efficient and, I believe, productive manner. With the political will, with the leadership, we can establish formulas, and we can bring sewage treatment to greater Victoria. We hope the other side of the House will be a partner in developing that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to respond briefly on behalf of the Minister of Environment.

I'm surprised when he says that there have been no studies. This thing has been studied back and forth for some time. I'm sorry that that member for Victoria is the only one who seems to be publicizing all of this, and yet he says it's an embarrassment. Other people are trying to work towards a solution. He keeps publicizing the evil of the beaches, that sort of thing, and he has medical tests to support that, I presume. I also know that he was a member of council here at one time. I don't know what happened at that time.

Certainly there needs to be a political will, and I would imagine he was addressing his comments as much to the Capital Regional District as he was to the government here.

Everybody supports a cleaner environment; it's not new. I think the House might benefit from some background on sewage collection and disposal. Some 20 years ago work began in accordance with planning at the time to collect all of the many local outfalls in greater Victoria to four main locations, at Macaulay, Clover and McMicking Points and Finnerty Cove. Subsequent engineering studies indicated that it makes better sense to divert Finnerty Cove and McMicking discharges to Clover Point through a new northeast trunk sewer, which the member referred to. This project should see all of the remaining beach areas cleaned up and removal of the cautionary signs at those beaches. In their planning activities, the core municipalities and the ministry have recognized the trend toward treatment of all waste before disposal. It is for that reason that land at Macaulay Point was set aside for a possible treatment plant.

It's my understanding that the Minister of Environment recently met with Mr. Sturrock and Mr. Williams of the

[ Page 8447 ]

Capital Regional District, and that the Capital Regional District stated that it was their intention in due course to produce a liquid waste management plan. The minister agreed that that would be the proper time to consider the need for and the timing of the remaining Macaulay Point treatment plant and the disposal project.

I hope that that member will support all the efforts that are being done towards a solution, instead of just this constant carping and criticism.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to point out that before the member for Victoria was an alderman and certainly long before the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) was the Minister of Energy, there was a study done jointly by the provincial Ministry of Energy and the city of Victoria on the possible building of a plant to produce energy from the sewage waste. That study....

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't sewage, it was garbage.

MRS. WALLACE: Garbage, sewage, everything. The study indicated that in ten years the investment would be recouped from that plant. What happened? They recommended further study.

These are the kinds of issues that many of us have been raising in this House and around this province and on any platform we can find, to try to point out to people that you don't necessarily put your garbage into landfills or your sewage into the sea — that there are other methods that are much more economical and certainly much safer, much healthier.

As my colleague from Victoria has mentioned, sewage is being reutilized in many areas around the world. One of the first places was Dusseldorf, in Europe, where they make money from their sewage. They make fertilizer.

Methane gas is another good source. There was a university in the United States which found that it could use the waste from its university dairy farm to produce 90 percent of all the heat and energy requirements of that particular operation. The technology is there. All that is required is the will to do it.

It's the economic answer, the safe answer and it's the most environmentally sound answer, because it means that we're not going to destroy those waters that surround this island. It relates not just to Victoria; it relates all up the inland coast where those inland waters of Georgia strait and Stuart Channel are fast becoming so polluted that we may have reached the point of no return.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this has been a useful discussion and I appreciate the remarks of the minister. I certainly must indicate that I appreciate the support of the Minister of Environment in terms of holding a meeting and discussing this issue in a frank and open way.

The studies I referred to the former Minister of Environment — 100 percent of the studies — have really concentrated on how to get rid of it. There have been no serious studies, as far as I know, on a cost-benefit analysis of utilizing those waste products as a resource. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the irony of this thing is that phosphate rock, for example, thousands of dollars of which goes out the pipe, has to be imported into Canada for fertilizer manufacturing.

Composted sewage in the form of fertilizer has been imported into the Greater Victoria area — tons of it annually — for years at $750 a ton. Yet we are putting out, it is estimated in a study that was done by an alderman in Saanich, between 1973 and 1986 a minimum of $700,000 worth of value of phosphate into the salt chuck.

Those are the cost-benefit analyses and studies that I think we need to be doing. There is great potential here. That's what we're suggesting here — not only clean up the ocean, clean up the beaches and deal with the long-term effect, but also look at the economic viability of this kind of treatment composting solution. But what it takes is leadership, and it also takes senior government, provincial government, to be on board in terms of a very favourable costsharing formula.

This is the capital of British Columbia. It is a tourist mecca, and if many tourists knew that we put out raw sewage just off these beautiful beaches, I think they would be very embarrassed. Citizens of Victoria want a long-term solution. We are going to continue to advocate that, and hopefully meet with the Minister of Environment and CRD officials to get on track with a long-term solution and a liquid waste management study that can be put to this community with the options, with the sites and with the dollar value of what this will cost us. With the province as a partner, we will solve this problem in the long term.

CEDAR LODGE AND SKELEEM VILLAGE

MRS. WALLACE: I'm only sorry that neither the Minister of Health nor the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who happens to be the same person, is in the House today. It seems like I'm talking to a vacuum. I want to speak about an issue that I have raised with that minister before, and it's still a very crucial issue in my constituency.

We have in Cowichan-Malahat a place called Skeleem Village. It's situated about ten miles south of Duncan between the highway and the Cobble Hill road. Skeleem Village is a series of group homes for mentally handicapped young people. They are beautiful log homes that were built in part by the young people who live there. They have a resident in each home, someone who guides these young people, and in conjunction with this there is a series of workshops.

The young people are taught to do things like carpentry and woodwork; weaving; there is a very good bakery. They sell a lot of their products locally. In addition to that, many of them are able to acquire sufficient skills to take a job outside of Skeleem Village and still live in that situation.

The village is operated by a society known as Cedar Lodge Society, and at one time they also operated a boarding school for seriously disturbed young children. That school did receive funding from Human Resources and later from the Minister of Education, but it has been closed under rather unfortunate circumstances.

[10:45]

Be that as it may, the society now finds itself in very severe financial straits.

They own approximately 150 acres of beautiful, valuable property between those two roads, and the society has been forced, as a result of their financial position, to offer it for sale. They thought at first that they would sell just the school, and they had an offer from a religious organization known as Wycliffe Bible Translators, who were going to buy half of the property and use that school for translation of religious works.

[ Page 8448 ]

However, the department of health science at the University of B.C. heard about the property and are most anxious to use it as a treatment centre and outpatient area for the patients they treat. They have all the skills, all the qualifications, and they certainly have the need. They are a local concern. They are a taxpayers' responsibility, if you will, and I believe that it is the responsibility of governments to provide adequate care for these young people. I understand that the people involved with the Health Sciences Centre — the man in charge of it is a Dr. Robert McDermit, the president — have made a lot of overtures to both the Ministry of Health and Human Resources to try to obtain some startup funding just to get the program in place. That has not been forthcoming. At the present time they seem to have decided not to put in a bid. However, as a result of their wanting to take over the whole operation, the Wycliffe Bible Translators joined forces with something known as Christian Horizons, from Ontario, who operate homes for the mentally retarded, and they have made an offer. I understand that they're going to come and live there this summer. However, the board of the society is still hanging tough. I think they would like to see the Health Sciences Centre in there.

We still have until the fall before a final decision is made, and to me it's most critical that the funding is available so the Health Sciences Centre can have the opportunity to take over that property and use it for a very worthwhile purpose.

There are many things that go on there. The local riding club, for example, has a riding ring on the property, and the young people who live at Skeleem Village join the young riders. So that's another recreational thing that happens there. The whole community is involved. At one time we had the society that deals with ex-prisoners — the John Howard Society — doing wood-cutting and selling firewood there, getting those ex-prisoners rehabilitated.

It's been a very valuable social and community asset, and it can continue to be that if the health science people have the opportunity to come in there and give it its full potential.

I certainly have nothing against religious groups, but I do not believe it is the job of a charitable organization to deal with young people who have the great misfortune to be mentally handicapped, I think that is a responsibility of society as a whole. We have a very modern and extensive service available to us at the Health Sciences Centre at UBC. We should be making the best possible use of it. We can do that in the form of an outpatient service, if the government can see its way to providing sufficient funding to have that health science centre set up a program and establish it at Skeleem Village. It's in the best interests of the province as a whole, and certainly in the best interests of those residents at Skeleem, who are extremely happy there at the present time and would like to see a similar situation continue. And it would be in the best interests of my community.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Day came out yesterday and again today indicating precisely what topics were going to be discussed in the House this morning. Four of the members of the opposition have been chosen for....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member rise on a point of order or in reply?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking to the issue, and I will get to it. I am preambling my remarks by saying that under the circumstances there is no reason, with a very important issue like Skeleem before us, that the minister responsible is not here. This leadership thing that's going on in the Socreds is driving us crazy.

Mr. Speaker, Skeleem Village is important, for the reason that for the last number of years this province — that minister and his predecessors — have been sending young adults out of this province....

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two points. One is that there is nothing in the rules that requires a response from the minister. The member has the right to make the statement. Secondly, I would ask the Speaker to encourage the member from New Westminster to speak to the issue of Cedar Lodge and Skeleem Village, and not the leadership race in the Social Credit Party.

MR. COCKE: Oh, too bad.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The first part of the member's point of order had some merit. The latter part....

Would the member continue in reply.

MR. COCKE: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we in this province have been sending young adults — adolescents — out of British Columbia because we don't have the care facilities here. We have an opportunity now of looking after a number of our own responsibilities at Skeleem and Cedar Lodge. When the program.... Incidentally, I was quite in favour of them taking the young retarded people out of there and placing them in the community with care, which then gave us an opportunity to utilize that facility for a need that is out there.

The university's Health Sciences Centre has, along with the rest of their facilities, an amazingly appropriate psychiatric facility. With that, of course, go staff who understand the problems in our province. They have offered in the interim, until such a time as the proper program can be developed — that takes a little while — to operate Cedar Lodge and Skeleem, and it will only cost $100,000. Do you know what this government has said? That they cannot allocate that $100,000 out of their millions of dollars of budget in order to facilitate that move. This government should hang their heads with shame, for heaven's sake. That resource out there — our children, our young people — needs to be protected against this government, it would appear.

There is absolutely no reason on earth why this practical utilization of that property would not be adopted. I agree totally with the member for Cowichan that that facility should not be left fallow. Fair enough; if a religious order wants a facility to do whatever they want to do, let them build their facility. This is a facility that has been operated by a non-profit society for a number of years for another purpose. Now that purpose has indeed been reduced to the extent that they could close that facility. Therefore let's use it in the way that the Health Sciences Centre has suggested. Not only suggested; there is total backing for this particular program at that Health Sciences Centre. The Health Sciences Centre is affiliated not only with UBC but with Simon Fraser and UVic. The kind of talent that we could get to run this program is absolutely without peer. I suggest that they could run a program there to take care of this problem that we hang our heads about.

[ Page 8449 ]

Every time a child is sent to Edmonton or down to the United States for care, I feel ashamed in a rich province like this, absolutely ashamed at the way we're handling it. Mr. Speaker, let's get that minister back on the job. Let him forget about this leadership race just long enough to sign the warrant for the Health Sciences Centre to look after his responsibility.

MRS. WALLACE: That property is valued at something like $2 million. If the government doesn't come through with the $100,000, I understand those religious groups are going to pick it up for something like $150,000. I think that's disgraceful. We need to retain that facility in the hands of Canadians and British Columbians for Canadians and British Columbians. It's a grave need in this province to have that kind of treatment centre. Yet the minister doesn't even have the courtesy to be here to respond — and he's in the House; he was here for question period.

When I raised the question during his estimates, he said they were considering it. Well, they've been considering and considering. We thought the axe was going to fall in the middle of May. The society managed to put it off until the fall. The minister has a second chance to redeem himself in the eyes of all those British Columbians who are concerned about the unfortunate young people who suffer the kinds of afflictions that could be treated there.

I really have nothing more to say, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: It speaks for itself.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, it speaks for itself.

I had hoped to be able to raise it once more, to bring it to the attention of the minister, but that is apparently not possible. The minister is not sufficiently interested to be in the House and respond. I believe that that not only indicates to me that he is not interested in this particular subject, but it is also disrespectful to the very purpose of this Legislature. Of course, no one is obliged to speak; but a minister of the Crown does have a responsibility to let his position be known as far as the responsibilities of his ministry go. And that minister has reneged on that responsibility today.

[11:00]

FREE TRADE AND AGRICULTURE

MS. SANFORD: Free trade is an issue that dominates the news these days. We have the start of the free-trade talks, we've had the tariff applied to shakes and shingles by the U.S., and we've had on-again-off-again compensation representations made by the federal government. There seems to be a lot of confusion right now surrounding this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I'm particularly concerned that very little has been said about the impact of free trade on the agriculture industry, at either the federal or the provincial level. I would like to state right at the outset that I'm very disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is also not in his place as this discussion is taking place this morning. The agriculture industry in this province is very concerned about what is happening and what will happen to them as these free-trade talks proceed. The front page of the edition of Country Life which has just arrived today quotes the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture as saying that it's the issue that dominates every conversation they have now in the agricultural community. Yet the minister is not there. Agriculture is in enough difficulty without having to face the concern and the worry that these free-trade talks might bring them. But we've had no assurances from either the provincial or the federal government that agriculture need not worry as these free-trade talks proceed.

"Everything is on the table," says the Premier of this province, "and we want everything on the table." Yet it's very clear in the eyes of the agricultural community that if they are included in these free-trade negotiations, they stand to lose. There is no doubt that agriculture is the biggest industry in this province that will be negatively affected by the move towards free trade. It's a concern for them.

What they would like and what I would like, as debate leader for Agriculture and Food, is some statement from this provincial government that the interests of agriculture will indeed be considered and will be protected during these free trade talks. We don't have that assurance. We haven't had that assurance from either federal or provincial governments. Agriculture very often takes a secondary place whenever there is a push and pull among the various resources. The farmers are worried in this province that they again will take a second place when the issues are raised at the negotiating table regarding free trade.

The committee which advises our negotiator, Mr. Reisman, is made up of people who have only one person with an agricultural background on it. That person happens to represent the Wheat Board of Canada and knows very little about all of the various commodities in this province that stand to go down the drain if, in fact, they are negotiated away at the table. There is no guarantee whatsoever at this point, and it's no wonder that the front page of Country Life talks about the concerns, and that it's the predominant issue among the farmers today.

I would like to know — and I don't know if any of the people who are sitting here now would be able to respond on behalf of the government — what specific studies the Minister of Agriculture or the government have undertaken with respect to the impact that free trade may have on, for instance, the dairy industry. Right now in this province we have in the dairy industry some 2,800 people who are directly employed. We also understand that the surplus that is produced in the United States each day would virtually take care of all of the fluid milk needs in this province, each day.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

That's the surplus that's produced down there. Is it any wonder that the dairy industry is concerned about what might happen at that free-trade table? What studies have been done by this government on that issue? What studies have been done by the government on the impact that the free-trade discussions might have on the chicken producers in this province, or the turkey producers? What about the egg producers? What studies have they undertaken? I do not think that the government paid the kind of attention that is absolutely necessary to this industry before they went back to Ottawa in order to push for free-trade talks.

If they have done the studies, then let's see them. Let's see what kind of impact this government has learned the freetrade talks will have on one of our most important industries in this province, the industry of agriculture.

MR. STUPICH: For a moment, I thought it was a toss-up as to whether we'd get one of the cabinet ministers to respond. I share the concern of the hon. member for Comox, a

[ Page 8450 ]

concern that B.C. agriculturists, farmers, food producers, are not represented at the free-trade talks. I don't mean that one of their numbers should be there, but I'm talking about the concerns that they have about what might happen to the farming industry and the agricultural industry in the province of British Columbia with these free-trade discussions.

I think everyone would agree that it is important that we move towards free trade. I would hope everyone would agree that we should also move carefully and that we can't all of a sudden one day wake up and find out that we're in a completely free-trade situation without very carefully defining how free trade is to work with respect to every commodity. In this instance, the hon. member for Comox raised the concern....

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader wants to cancel the talks.

MR. STUPICH: Madam Speaker, there is an opportunity for a member of the cabinet to speak, and that particular cabinet member never seems to be able to speak standing on his feet. Now perhaps arrangements can be made for him, as has been done for another member in the House. If he can't speak standing, he could have arrangements made so that he can speak sitting down. Perhaps he thinks best then, if he thinks at all.

It is a very real concern. The member has raised several food-producing groups, and didn't mention fruit-growers, for example.

MS. SANFORD: Or vegetables — I didn't have time.

MR. STUPICH: There are many, and how can we move into a system of total free trade from the position we are now in without protecting the rights of groups like that? When I think of the fruit growers, I recall, for example, that the fruit growers on the American side of the border, at least the Pacific northwest part of the United States, are competing very directly with our fruit growers from the Okanagan. Yet they are using the same water supply that we are using.

It is water that originates in the province of British Columbia. The dams are in British Columbia. The Columbia River Treaty provides that we let the water go down the Columbia River through those dams just as fast or as slowly as the Americans want us to let it go down. They control the flow of the water. They sell that water to their fruit growers at a price of roughly one-quarter of what our fruit growers are paying, and yet their produce moves relatively freely northward into our markets here in Canada. Because they happen to be to the south, their product matures earlier, so of course they come onto the market at a time when they can command a premium price for being first in the market. Then when our fruit is ready, theirs is past its peak. They drop their price because the prices are dropping down there anyway, and they come up here and undercut the prices that our own food producers have to have for the first part of the season.

Now it can be accommodated, Madam Speaker, but it means, as I say, carefully discussing the effect and the provisions of how free trade will work. And that's just one example. I have talked about fruit growers, but the same kind of example could be used with respect to almost every product that we grow in the province.

It is not just a concern for those who are directly involved in food production. It is a concern for our whole community.

People living in British Columbia should be able to live in a community where they can see food being produced, where they can see fruit trees in bloom, where they can see cattle grazing, where they can see dairy cows being milked, where they can see broilers being raised and hens even in batteries, where they can experience where food comes from, where school children can be taken out on field trips and see these operations. This applies not only to people who are working directly in the processing plants, but field trips should be organized so that the rest of our citizens can have a first-hand view of what it means to produce food and what it means to process it.

Now if we lose our production — which we are very liable to do, the way free trade talks have been talked about in this House where the government appears to have little concern for anything other than our very large industry.... It is certainly something about which they should be concerned, but I am afraid their concern has not been very evident to date. Nevertheless, there are other important sectors of our community whose interests must be looked after, not simply for the people involved directly in those particular groups, but also for the total community. Remember we would all lose something if we lose any contribution to our economy from any such group. Free trade yes, but it must be properly negotiated, sector by sector.

MS. SANFORD: Again, we have had no information from the government at all with respect to the position they have adopted, the kinds of studies they might have undertaken or the representations they may have made to Simon Reisman, our negotiator on the free trade issue.

The chief economist for the B.C. Central Credit Union, Richard Allen, has indicated that if we move towards full free trade without some special recognition of the status that agriculture occupies, it will be an absolute disaster for agriculture — an absolute disaster. We just have not had the assurance from government. We have not had any indication that they have studied or even looked at the impact these great free trade talks may have on that industry. The dairy, egg, chicken, turkey, vegetable, grape, wheat, oyster, tree fruit producers — they are all concerned about the possible impact hat these talks may have on them. They have had no assurances from government, and this is what worries me.

The other thing that happens is that if we move towards free trade and the prediction of Richard Allen does in fact happen and it becomes an absolute disaster, then we will find hat the land, the agricultural land on which we produce our food, will disappear because it will be eventually paved over, and as a province it seems to me it is absolutely essential that we retain that land and that we retain the production.

I would like to finish my statement with a quote from the B.C. turkey growers association. I am going to quote:

"Growers cannot see how either the federal or the provincial governments could contemplate any move which would endanger the Canadian or the B.C. food supply and place the people of Canada or British Columbia at risk of being held for ransom for the very food they eat."

Now that expresses, I think, the depth of the concern of he agricultural community in this province. I hope that even bough the government has not spoken at this time, that they will later today, tomorrow, or next week indicate what they think, what kind of studies they have undertaken and what kind of assurance they can give to the farmers of this province

[ Page 8451 ]

and to the future generations of this province, because, Madam Speaker, it is the very food that we eat that's at stake.

[11:15]

TEACHING PEACE IN OUR SCHOOLS

MRS. DAILLY: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to see that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is here. It's unfortunate that the other speakers didn't have the same opportunity I have to be able to relate directly to the minister who is responsible in reference to my statement.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm not going too far in praise. We'll leave it at that.

My statement today deals with the whole topic of teaching peace in our schools.

I think that in laying the groundwork for this statement and to point out to the minister why I feel it is very important — vitally important — for any Minister of Education today to take a strong leadership role in promoting and encouraging a curriculum for the teaching of peace in our schools.... I think we would all agree that there is a whole new breed of child in the world today, and they are going to grow up into a new breed of adult, primarily and mainly because they have been brought up with the threat of nuclear warfare. I was not brought up under that threat, and I look back now and think how relatively peaceful my existence was, even though I was — to tell my age — brought up at the time of the Second World War. But that was remote, even though I had friends and relatives who were involved. But today every child and person living in the world is affected by the horrible possibility of nuclear war. So the children of today in our schools are being brought up under this threat, and so do we not have a responsibility as politicians — particularly the Minister of Education — to deal with this problem?

You may say: "Well, isn't this something to be handled in the home?" Well, of course it is, but children are every day exposed when they go to school to the problems in the newscasts — nuclear disasters, more peace talks breaking down — and they have to deal with those fears every day. If we continue a wall of silence about these fears in our schools, we are not doing our job. Lack of ability to talk about nuclear fears which most children have today is doing a disservice; the schools are an ideal place to give them this opportunity.

A psychiatrist at Yale University doing a report on this whole matter stated that children today are growing up without the ability to form stable ideals. This is because of this fear of the world coming to an end because of nuclear warfare. In North Vancouver, to bring it closer to home and to leave the United States, in a high school last spring students were asked in an essay to describe what they thought the world would look like and be like in the year 1999. Sadly to say, out of 78 students who wrote, 45 percent foresaw a world devastated by nuclear war. Those are the facts that we as parents, teachers, politicians or whatever we are have to deal with today, and to keep this quiet, to not give children an opportunity to discuss it, is doing a great disservice, as I said earlier.

Now I want to pay tribute to the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who have developed an excellent curriculum on the teaching of peace, and I'm sure the minister is aware of it.

Some people may say: "Well, how far are you going to go?" And, you know, it's really interesting: as I was doing some research on this little statement today on what I consider of major import, I found the same concerns being expressed about the teaching of peace — and this may sound rather foolish — as you find when you try to bring up the teaching of sex education. People say: "Oh, but it's controversial. Who's going to handle it? Who's going to teach it?" And then they're afraid of some small minority who would come out, particularly in the matter of teaching of peace, and perhaps say: "Oh, you're all communists. You're supporting the communists by talking peace." Of course, I find that absolutely ludicrous. The communists themselves know that they too are going to be destroyed by nuclear warfare, as do the people in this part of the world. I do hope that that kind of irrational fear about the teaching of peace can be put aside and that we can deal with it rationally.

I watched a program recently from the United States, and actually it was about a Catholic school. It was fascinating, because they have a curriculum in some of the Catholic schools in the United States — a very strong, good curriculum — to teach about peace. They were bringing in advocates of the need for nuclear deterrence, and then they were bringing in speakers who were against it. This is the point.

The point is not to advocate in the school system one way to solve peace. The point is to bring forward different opinions so that those students can think for themselves. When they grow up, they will take an active part in working for peace. My personal bias, of course, and I have to say it here and now, is that I am absolutely against using nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I know that many people agree with me.

I don't want to get off my main theme, which is to say to the Minister of Education that I think it would be doing a tremendous positive service to the children of this province if you and your ministry gave leadership in this. May I suggest one small way you could start, and it is something that I did when I was minister so many years ago: ask that the schools, when they celebrate Remembrance Day, not talk war anymore, but talk peace. I'm sure if the Minister of Education brought this up in a declaration at the time of Remembrance Day, it would be well received.

I see my time is almost up, and I look forward to hearing the remarks from the Minister of Education.

One final statement. May I say to the minister that I do know that above all, the only way that we can teach children and teach the world peace is to change attitudes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite. I don't think there's a member in this assembly who does not concur with her concern about peace and the need to "teach peace," whether it be in our schools or our homes. I'm not sure that I can identify with her that there's a need for a structured curriculum.

I guess the question has to be asked: "What is peace?" It's love for our fellow man. That's really what is the key to achieving peace. I'm not sure a structured curriculum would achieve that goal. I think that setting an example may well do it, whether it be in our place of work, in our competitions, in our homes or in this hall. We can recognize the apparent animosity from time to time within debate. We parry and thrust with words as opposed to weapons, but sometimes, Madam Speaker, the concern is attitudes, as the member says.

[ Page 8452 ]

I agree with her that we have to change attitudes in all walks of life, not just in the classroom. She's quite correct in saying that there will be a new breed of adults, the adults of the twenty-first century. But interestingly enough, what she's really saying, or the message I'm getting from her — because she did finally get to it — was nuclear warfare, nuclear power. Madam Member, all people are against nuclear war. You made that comment. All people are against war of any kind, aggression of any kind. You, as do many others, take the approach that nuclear war is the enemy, when it's really conflict, aggression, war of any kind that is the enemy.

I've been supported and I've been reprimanded as Minister of Education for saying that I see no problem with prayers in the schools. Yet others say: "You should not have prayers in the schools because not all our students are Christian. They are of other religions." In the global sense, I look at that quiet time where prayers are read.... Because they are words of wisdom that give some guidance to our young children, regardless of their religion. All religions come back to pretty well the same basic philosophy: Love thy neighbour. The ten commandments: whether they're from one religion or another, all the concepts are the same. Whether it's an Indian religion or a western religion, they all come back to the same thing. So I don't have too much difficulty in having that quiet time in a classroom for people to reflect and to think what the words really mean — not quote whether it's Christian or Jewish or whatever, but what the words really mean because that's where the message is.

The structured course, Madam Member: I'm not sure we need that. I think there should be a message in the school. You mentioned bringing in advocates that are pro and con nuclear war. I don't think that's the answer because that gets into two mindsets, one for — if there is anybody for — and one against nucular power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nuclear.

HON. MR. HEWITT: N-u-c-l-e-a-r. My teacher from the North Okanagan is correcting my English and the Minister of Health is correcting the member from North Okanagan, which we have to do from time to time. I'm not sure the pro and con advocates with regard to nuclear warfare should be the answer, but you certainly have agreement from me as Minister of Education, Madam Member, and I'm sure from all British Columbians, Canadians and people around the world, that we should be talking peace, but peace of all kinds, not just the question of atomic or nuclear warfare.

I see my time is up. I appreciate the comments of the member. It is the responsibility of us all, parent, politician and educator, to ensure that we achieve peace in this world.

MRS. DAILLY: Once again, it doesn't matter if we're talking economics or whatever; now we're talking peace. The minister and I both agree that we all want peace, but we certainly don't seem to agree on how to go about it.

The minister seemed to miss my point entirely. I'm trying to make the point to the minister that we have an absolute responsibility today to deal with the threat of nuclear war. He has said it's a matter of changing attitudes, which I have said too. But the only way you're going to do that is by education. It's up to the Minister of Education to see that that education takes place in our schools, yet the minister has said: "I don't see much point in doing this." Therefore he is actually saying to us that it doesn't have quite that importance; we can just leave it to happen. That's not good enough.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The minister says bringing in opposite sides to talk isn't good because you'll have polarization. That's the way you learn to think — by presenting the different sides of a question. That's the thing we need in our school system above all: to have students think for themselves. When you have an opportunity for only one side, you are not giving that opportunity. By not taking a stand, by not allowing a set curriculum to take place in our school system, you are therefore not giving that opportunity for the necessary debate.

[11:30]

I regret that the minister does not see it as his responsibility to provide the students of this province with a peace curriculum. To sit back and let it go is not the answer. It needs to be done. Many parents are now asking for it. I'd like to quote from a parent who said at a recent meeting: "I believe that in the matter of peace — stopping wars — you should start talking in your own home." I would still like to see parents press for a peace curriculum in the schools with age appropriate materials. We have to learn how to negotiate, to find just compromises when faced with opposing viewpoints, without resorting to violence and threat of violence on a personal basis, before we can really expect that to happen on an international level. We can only have lasting peace in the world if we change our attitudes.

I feel that the Minister of Education has a direct responsibility to see that we bring about that change of attitude; to bring up children in British Columbia — and hopefully all across the world — who realize that there is no hope for anyone in this world today unless we work together for peace. That means the destruction and the removal of all nuclear weapons.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mrs. Johnston in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 44: minister's office, $215,347.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Over the past few years this province has been suffering from what I think we can best sum up as being the mega project blues. The problem is that we've continued to hold all our eggs in one economic basket for too long. We've talked about this before: about the need for diversification in British Columbia, the need for expansion of our small business sector, the need to diversify, the need to took at regional economies and pump money that has been tunnelled into mega projects into regional job creation projects throughout the province.

You know, in projects such as northeast coal and other large capital-intensive projects, it has been estimated that it takes $1 million of capital investment to create one long-term job. If you took that $1 million and put it into job creation programs in the small business sector throughout the

[ Page 8453 ]

province of British Columbia, you could create 10 to 40 times the number of jobs.

I have to ask that minister where this government's priorities are, because that's not happening. We're dumping money — we're firing it out of cannons — into megaproject developments, and not enough energy and resources have been going into our small business economy, particularly in the service and retail sectors, where most of the job creation is taking place now and will be taking place within the immediate future. There has been very little help for small business in British Columbia.

Small businesses are the major front for job creation. It is estimated that 71 percent of all the new employment not only in British Columbia but also throughout Canada has been in firms that employ less than 50 people. By 1990, it's estimated that 800,000 new jobs should be developed from that small business sector.

The problem is that in British Columbia the government is ignoring those realities, and it continues to dump more and more funds into the capital-intensive investments such as northeast coal and other mega projects and has been ignoring the need that small business has been demonstrating, has been crying for, in this province.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We've got about $39 billion in personal savings locked up in bank accounts in this province — pension funds and whatnot. That's $36 billion locked in savings accounts throughout B.C. Now what could we do? It's amazing what we could do with that kind of spending power if we could release it into the economy to get the cash flow there that is needed by stimulating sales, by stimulating investment. What has happened in the past is that sales have gone down, investment has gone down; there has been no confidence in the business sector in this province largely because of the programs and the lack of initiative of this present government. There has been no confidence in investment. Investment has been on the decline, and I think it's a clear indication that the programs of this present government have failed.

I want to give you an example. With great fanfare prior to the 1983 election, the government brought in the LIFT program. I think it was $190 million put into bonds that were supposed to stimulate the small business economy. The problem was, when small businesses went to get hold of some of that money, they found that 85 percent of the small business sector couldn't qualify because the money was used for secondary manufacturing, and service and retail sector industries didn't have access to those funds. The program was collapsed after this government was elected, and if memory serves me, about $135 million was left in the LIFT program, sitting in BCDC bank accounts and not used. So they brought in a program with great fanfare, got elected, and then proceeded to dismantle it right after that.

Mr. Chairman, last year I brought to the minister for his consideration — and I want to do it again — the concept of the development of small business enterprise bonds. This is a concept that is not new. It is a concept that has been discussed at length in the federal House. It is a concept that has been used successfully in other countries. The idea is that interest bearing bonds with equivalent tax credits to make an attractive investment for the investment community would release a pool of money at low interest for small business development. As a matter of fact, we could focus that on the small business sector that is presently being ignored, and that is the service and retail sector. I suggest to the minister that that is an area that we could be looking at. I know I have made that suggestion before, and he has turned it aside. I would like, in the spirit of cooperation, to make it again, because I think it is a valuable concept and should be explored.

Well, what has happened in the past little while? Restraint and increased taxes imposed during the last few years have in fact led to a collapse, to a decrease in consumer spending. As a result of that decrease in consumer spending, the small business community has been the hardest hit. Retail sales in British Columbia decreased steadily between 1980 and 1984. Although it is turning around, the increases we witnessed in British Columbia in 1985 were the lowest in Canada.

Business bankruptcies in this province increased 166 percent in the last five years. Business bankruptcies in Canada as a whole have decreased by 9 percent. Now I ask you, why the discrepancy? Why do they go up 166 percent in British Columbia while they are going down 9 percent in the rest of Canada? Clearly something is wrong. What is wrong is the policies and the programs and the direction that this government has taken, particularly with respect to initiatives in the small business sector. Consumer bankruptcies increased from 979 in 1981 to 2, 666 in 1985. That is a 172 percent increase. What about business bankruptcies? Is it any sunnier in that area? Let's have a look. The latest big business bankruptcy statistics for this year show that 480 businesses have gone under in 1986 so far — five months into it. We're already showing a 2.6 percent increase in business bankruptcies from last year, and last year alone was bad enough.

Mr. Speaker, these figures show the real story behind what is going on in this province, despite all the good-news advertising and partnerships in enterprise blitzed throughout the news media, the radio and television. Despite all the good news, it is not happening!

I have got some information for the minister. This is a poll recently conducted in the Greater Vancouver Regional District by a professional survey firm. The poll asks whether the individual would agree or disagree with the statement. First of all, it says the provincial government's restraint program has failed to improve the economy in British Columbia — 37 percent of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement; 27 percent somewhat agreed. Over 60 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that this government's program of restraint and recovery has been a failure. The next question asked whether the provincial government's Partners in Enterprise program would likely lead to many new jobs in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, it's a washout. It doesn't sell. People don't believe it — 42 percent agree and 42 percent disagree, despite all of the media blitz and money that has been wasted in trying to sell this idea that the province is on a new upswing, despite all the good-news advertising and the money that has been spent on advertising the Partners in Enterprise program. It doesn't wash; people don't believe it. They don't believe you anymore. If you'd take that money that you're spending on ads and put it into the small business community where it damn well belongs, maybe we'd get somewhere.

[11:45]

It's a wash. That's why the leader of that motley crew over there is now ducking out. He knows it's a wash and he knows that he can't restore it.

Some other figures, Mr. Chairman. Between 1981 and 1985, right in the time of the restraint program, the total

[ Page 8454 ]

number of bankruptcies in this province climbed, as I mentioned before, over 127 percent. Business bankruptcies increased 124 percent. But particularly I want to reflect upon what's happened in the north Okanagan, because this government has spent so much time and so much energy and so much money on projects in the Vancouver area that it has neglected and turned its back on the economies of the interior of this province. It is selling the economies of the interior regions of this province far short. In the north Okanagan, business bankruptcies showed a 216 percent increase between 1981 and 1984 — a 216 percent increase. Consumer bankruptcies climbed 213 percent over the same period of time. I'll give you the figures for the city of Vernon: a 260 percent increase in consumer bankruptcies and a 189 percent increase in business bankruptcies over the same period of time. Mr. Chairman, if that's progress, I'd hate like hell to see what failure is. I really honestly would, because if that's progress, we've got some real troubles.

The figures speak for themselves. This government's program has failed. This government has failed. This minister has failed. It's very clear that there needs to be a change in direction in this province. It's very clear that there needs to be a clear long-range plan for economic recovery and renewal in this province, a plan that's workable. I don't see any evidence of any planning whatsoever, nothing beyond the next six months. It's time that this government and this province set out some long-range priorities for economic planning to diversify this economy, to pump some vibrancy into the small business sector, where most of the job creation is going to be taking place, and to remain committed to that principle of diversification and expansion of our small business sector so that we can create the jobs instead of just talking about it.

Moving on to another area, I want to talk specifically with respect to a document that was presented to the minister and his cabinet committee on economic development last December. That document was produced by....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Ah, sorry. I see the light is up, and perhaps I will resume in just a moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might make an observation with respect to the use of parliamentary language in the precincts or this chamber. It would be appreciated, to add to the decorum.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's important that we continue to hear the member for North Okanagan and the regional problems that we have in the province that are getting overlooked because of the concentration on the Vancouver area. The hinterland has suffered during this period.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I withdraw any previous remarks that were unparliamentary. But you know....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not the unparliamentary remarks, hon. member, it's the language.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, I withdraw any language that was unparliamentary. But, you know, when you've got a fire in your guts and you're angry about the lack of direction that's been taken, sometimes those strong words have to be used.

I want to refer to a report that was submitted to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and his economic development committee from the North Okanagan Development Corp. This corporation has the mandate of long-term business and employment development in the north Okanagan region. The organization, with a local board of directors, administers a federally-funded LEAD corporation program which allows the North Okanagan Development Corp. to provide higher risk financing to small businesses which have been unable to secure adequate funding under reasonable terms and conditions elsewhere. Just to expand a little bit more about the operations of this corporation, apparently the maximum amount allowable under the LEAD program that the development corporation can loan is about $25,000. Despite the limitations, the director of the program says that the program is showing a marked increase in its level of activity, and he says that counselling sessions are up dramatically, and if initial inquiries are any indication of future financial investments or loans, next year's funds will very quickly be oversubscribed.

Mr. Chairman, provincial cabinet ministers were told last December that North Okanagan Development Corp. officials fully expect that the high level of demand for risk capital will continue well into the future. The additional demands on the development corporation will be fuelled by such things as the continuing conservativeness in the banking system, which will make debt-financing increasingly scarce for small business start-ups and expansions. They've recognized the fact that there is an absence of provincial support for this program, and what they're asking for is to see the province participate in the funding of the program in order that they can expand their programs to accommodate the demand that is obviously there. They would like specifically to see the province assess the feasibility of participating with the North Okanagan Development Corp. and the federal government in the LEAD corporations program, and they suggested a financial piggybacking of the provincial government onto the existing structure of this organization. That was a request submitted to the cabinet committee when it came through the Vernon area last December. The minister has had ample opportunity — six months — to peruse these suggestions, and I think that the comments of Mr. Treller, the general manager of the corporation, are well within reason. I would suggest that it is a reasonable request and that the government do become involved.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that about an hour and a half ago I talked with the manager of the main branch of the Royal Bank in Vernon, who's presently in the process of foreclosing on a mortgage that one of the local tourism businesses — one of the local campsite operators — holds with that bank. As a result of that foreclosure this business is most likely to close down. It will definitely go into receivership. It's been suggested that what this firm really needs is some equity investment, but the bank, in its conservative nature, is not willing to stick its neck out. It's pulling the rug out from under this firm. I would suggest that this is exactly the kind of situation that the government, through the regional development corporations, should be looking at, to give higher-risk investment capital to organizations so that we can continue to have these operations remain viable. What's going to happen? Most likely this business is going to close down, and there's a domino effect, Mr. Minister. The businesses around that campground are going to be

[ Page 8455 ]

affected because they will lose the spin-off business as a result of the loss of that economic activity.

I would like to suggest to the minister that the request made by the North Okanagan Development Corp. for the government to get directly involved in higher-risk equity investment capital in the small business sector is just the kind of medicine we need to help some of these firms. I would like to have the minister's response on that at this time.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member for Okanagan North might want to have a quiet chat with the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who yesterday argued against the government's getting involved in loans, particularly to tourism operators. Perhaps when you've resolved that among yourselves, you might want to come back to me.

We are heavily involved in small business enterprises. We have a number of incentive programs. We do not get involved in equity in those programs, and we do not get involved in grants, but we do make many loans to small businesses through a number of significant programs, some of them on our own through B.C. Development Corporation, some in joint programs with the federal government through the various subsidiary agreements under the ERDA program. In the short time that the small business incentive subsidiary agreement has been in place, we have already approved about 75 loans, with over 900 jobs created as a result of them. We have another 56 applications before us in progress, with another 700 to 750 jobs involved.

I could go on with other programs as well that we're involved in. Those are parallel to programs like the LEAD program of the federal government. While we will always be able to offer parallel programs, we do not offer programs which stack on top of other programs. That's in agreements with our federal counterparts as well. But there are many parallel programs, and they apply equally well to all parts of the province.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wonder if the minister can advise whether he has related this decision.... If I'm reading the minister right, he's saying that the decision for becoming involved with these regional development corporations in helping to fund small business activity...that the minister has decided not to become involved directly through a loan program scheme. Is that what the minister is saying? The minister has decided not to get directly involved with the loaning activity of these development corporations?

The request from the North Okanagan Development Corp. was that the government get directly involved with providing higher-risk loans to the small businesses so that they can expand their program. Is the minister in agreement with that concept or has he effectively said no, the decision is that we will not get involved?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've explained how our government programs work. I have answered all of the briefs that were given to me in Vernon and I'd be happy to make copies available to the member.

MR. MacWILLIAM: If you have in fact answered that particular brief, I would like to have the response from the minister to clarify just what his position is on that. With respect to the tourism sector, I've made previous comments about suggestions I've put forward, and I'd like to go over them again briefly for the minister's attention.

The concept of tourism enterprise bonds is, again, to provide low interest investment capital, particularly for businesses in the tourism sector, As the minister well knows, tourism relies very heavily on our small business community; it's largely small business based. I think these small business bonds, particularly in the tourism sector, could be most beneficial.

Student employment bursaries: the idea of providing student employment bursaries to create job opportunities for young people, again in the tourism sector. Has the minister considered any program such as this? I've covered the idea of assistance to small business through low-interest loans. That's on record. Reduction in the overhead costs of small businesses. Some examples: initiatives to reduce the burden of property tax and the broadening of the corporate small business sector by liberalizing the conditions related to proprietorships and unincorporated partnerships. Changing some of the regulations there could go a long way in reducing some of the overhead costs experienced by these businesses which actually have a higher tax level.

I'll leave it at that.

[12:00]

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm intrigued by one of the points the member for Okanagan North makes, and that's the whole business of capital cost per job. Our recent history in British Columbia is very high capital cost per job. I would think we have come to the point where that should be a major issue of concern.

Have we heard what the numbers game is for the Attorney-General, for the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, for the minister of welfare? How is it all going, chaps, in terms of lining up those votes? The runner is checking right now.

The capital cost question per job, however, which is much more serious than the careers of those gentlemen, is a neat question that should be addressed, it seems to me, by the department. I would think we should move into a new phase throughout North America. We've had, at least in the U.S. In recent modern history, pretty sophisticated environmental impact analysis of different projects. The Americans have maybe gone too far in that area. It's a very costly process but it's also a very sophisticated process, like the Americans want to be.

It seems to me that the time has really come for an employment impact analysis of every proposal so that we look at the medium- and long-term....

AN HON. MEMBER: We do that.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you did that, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing, when you take on a northeast coal project at a million dollars a job. Why would you justify that project against one that costs $25,000 a job?

If you are doing it, then you should be responding. I suggest that it is probably a more sophisticated process than you are doing, or that somebody at cabinet level isn't making the right judgments when you get that data, because it doesn't make sense. You will literally break the bank if you go for projects that cost $1 million a job. That is breaking the bank. With respect to the Louisiana-Pacific project, you're throwing in a subsidy of $50,000 a job. That's just throwaway

[ Page 8456 ]

money. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that there are countless potential full-time jobs in B.C. with a capital cost of $50,000 a job, not a subsidy of $50,000 a job. Then you are talking about a lot of work and a lot of opportunities. As the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) and others have said, you tend to go for the big project that is incredibly costly, and has a long-term debt that we all must bear the burden of for another generation or more — longer in some cases. It's amazing that there should be that kind of debt burden for these few current jobs. But that is the situation.

There are American economists arguing for employment impact analysis on a sophisticated basis so that every time a new project comes up, the numbers are there, the analysis is there. Once you start thinking in those terms, it conditions what you do. I don't think there is any doubt about it. It would condition the whole decision-making process.

I am involved in much more modest-scale proposals in a financial institution I help direct. We have moved into a seed capital program just in the last year. That seed capital program is geared to very small-scale entrepreneurs — people out of college, people with a sound business plan, as the minister has said, but people in retailing and anything imaginable. They are all okay by us. So we are not saying it has to be manufacturing, which is essentially the limitation of most of your programs, which also tend to be geared to higher numbers than need be the case. All of our projects so far are around $25,000 a job. We have just begun that process. It is a learning exercise that involves us and the community and the colleges. We are involved with all the community colleges in the Vancouver area — Capilano, Langara, Douglas and so on — and the enterprise programs in those colleges, which are excellent.

We are prepared to fund and we are prepared to take risks where the banks will not take the risk. We analyze them and come to the conclusion that there really isn't much risk there if we think the business plan is solid. I would like to give you a couple of examples of the sorts of things that have been funded in this last little while.

One is a chap who in his back garage in the city was turning out lead weights for divers. It doesn't sound very exciting, but they are simple divers' weights for people who enjoy diving, scuba and the rest. He has developed a process for plasticzing the lead and creating a fine finish on the diving weights so that they can be used as a belt and not be a problem. It is quite a sophisticated process that he has developed. We are satisfied and he is satisfied that he has probably got the best product in weights for divers currently available on the market. The cost of setting that chap up in a solid business exercise is only $25,000. It is extraordinary, and I think that one is going to be a solid — pardon the pun — success story.

I can think of others. One is a flight touring arrangement out of the city and harbour to Pacific Rim Park on a daily basis. In Expo year, it looks like that's certainly going to be a significant success, and it doesn't involve a very high capital cost initially, either — surprisingly. Beyond that, there are kiosks — simple kiosks near the SkyTrain stations, for example. That's another item of low capital cost, but with a decent return. It's an opportunity that can be picked up on the urban street scene, and it makes a lot of sense. We have also been working with small retailers — people in the fashion field and that sort of thing. It is very significant, but it's low capital cost per job.

I think that measure has to be there in your operations all the time, and it just doesn't seem to be. I think you are too narrowly focused. The limitations of mainly centering on manufacturing I think are too limited. There is a whole range of opportunities beyond that in terms of the service sector and the retailing sector, and so on. I don't think that's being covered and it should be.

Now if a market institution can take on projects like the ones I've mentioned, then a non-market institution like the ones you're responsible for could take on much, much more. It could carry on in terms of more creative exercises which we want to get into but haven't yet got into in terms of the institution I work with, and that's in the whole field of community enterprises, where people in the community jointly want to form an enterprise to create new products and provide new services in their neighbourhoods.

I think that makes a lot of sense in my community where I live. I think it makes a lot of sense even in the downtown east side. We have a community centre in the downtown east side called the Carnegie Centre, which is the old city library. It is probably one of the most creative community centres in the province.

You may not be aware of it, Mr. Minister, but Simon Fraser University has been carrying out a degree program out of that skid road community centre. They are going to be shortly graduating arts graduates in literature from Carnegie Centre. People from Simon Fraser have actually been down there for three and four years, and they're going to be graduating people who live in that area. Now these are obviously capable people with significant skills that have never really been tapped. It's a wonderful success story.

The question now for those people from Simon Fraser who have done this worthwhile work, and for the middle-aged and older citizens who are graduating out of that program, is what do we do now? These people have proven themselves. They've proven to be exceptional scholars. They've proven to be better scholars than the people at the university. The results are better. I think it's an extraordinary story. Now the question is: what about employing these people? They're non-traditional; you know, they're not young graduates out of college, shiny, squeaky clean. They're older folks who have been living in that tough neighbourhood and at least have had an opportunity for an education that they wouldn't have otherwise had.

They're obviously skilled, and the community would like to do more in terms of developing community enterprises in the downtown east side. They've kicked around a range of things. There is one such enterprise now in existence, and it sounds pretty modest, but I think that's the way all these things have to begin — low capital cost, light products. I'd like to remind us both about that one. It's a muffin operation. They produce muffins and sell them, and it's proving to be viable. That group calls itself DEEDS; it's not DERA, it's DEEDS. It's a right-wing group politically, so you might really give them a hand. I shouldn't really give you those clues, but I think we're fairly solid in the downtown east side.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. At ten bucks, you just might. Clearly, these are interesting groups I suggest you should have field operations working with. I think you need an extension program working with groups like that and helping foster them and move them along. What are these guys going

[ Page 8457 ]

to do who are going to graduate with a fine literature degree, who understand Chaucer and all the rest of those folks — Blake and so on — once they've graduated? They're talented people who have something to offer. Now it's a challenge in terms of helping them create enterprises on their own which will give them employment.

It's not an unreasonable idea, and I think we're talking about very modest dollars. I think it requires staffing skills that aren't easy to get, because we're talking about unconventional financing for unconventional people. But that really is the challenge for a ministry such as yours, I would suggest. Community enterprises are probably the way to get people like this going. If the Carnegie Centre were funded on some modest scale to work in terms of community enterprises out of the Carnegie Centre, then I think we'd be well on our way to doing something very significant and worthwhile, and establishing these people as productive people in economic terms in our society.

I think they'd like the challenge, and I think it's a tremendous opportunity. I ask the minister: is he prepared to consider programs such as this and extension staff being made available to groups like the Simon Fraser group? They have an enterprise program at Simon Fraser University; they have this training program out of Simon Fraser in terms of graduating people from Carnegie. Would the ministry be prepared to provide some modest seed capital funds if they wanted to establish a community enterprise on a somewhat larger scale than just producing muffins at the moment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't understand quite why you can make better muffins if you understand Chaucer, but other than that.... We'd be prepared to consider something like that. You mentioned the enterprise program at Simon Fraser. We've got enterprise or business development centres in the three major universities now. They are very busy, and while they don't provide capital, they are providing very valuable help for people who want to go into small business.

[12:15]

The member used the term "too narrowly focused" about our programs. Perhaps we are. We do tend to focus either on the production or the processing or manufacturing of goods, as does the federal government in our joint programs as well. I guess governments have been kicking around the idea of broadening that focus into the service sector for a long time. The problem is that whenever we have seemed to have moved into that other area — and I think of the tourist-related problems particularly — we've taken a bath, frankly, so governments get kind of nervous about that.

However, having said that, I had talks previously with Sinclair Stevens, when he was in his portfolio of Regional Industrial Expansion, about broadening the focus on a trial basis in some sector. As a matter of fact, we're meeting with Don Mazankowski next week, and I intend to continue those talks to see if there's a way we might be able to branch out into the service sector, and share the risk with the federal government. I don't want the province to take all the risk, and we can talk about that.

We are also moving in a small way into broadening the scope of the venture capital corporation program to allow it to get into the service sector in terms of engineering skills and being able to market those engineering and knowledge products as an export base for the province.

We're taking some.... I'm sure the member would think they were hesitant steps, but we're taking them. We're prepared to consider further steps in that regard.

I would like to congratulate the financial institution that that member serves for doing what it should be doing, and I wish that he would use whatever influence he might have on other financial institutes to get them to do it too.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The financial institutions show practically no confidence in the economy anywhere in Canada, but particularly in western Canada. I would like to name Vancouver City Savings Credit Union and thank them for moving out in that direction, because it's where they should be in the first place.

We're prepared to continue to consider the ways in which we can move our narrow focus into broadening it out a little bit.

I'd like to just give notice to the member, Mr. Chairman, that when the committee rises I intend to ask the House to permit me to file a document that I referred to yesterday in our debate regarding British Columbia's coal development business opportunities. I'd like the member to be able to have that if he doesn't already have it in his files.

The other thing I didn't want to miss today, Mr. Chairman.... I wanted to ask the member a question. In the Blues from yesterday afternoon the member said that one of the outstanding analysts in the province was never asked: "The southeast mayors asked him and he called the shots. He laid it out and told you like it is." I assume the member was referring to a Mr. Halvorson.

MR. WILLIAMS: Doctor Halvorson.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Dr. Halvorson of H.N. Halvorson Consultants Ltd. Is that correct?

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know the guy.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, but it was Dr. Halvorson. Yes. I just wanted the member to know that Dr. Halvorson, in fact, has done some work for the province in 1975 — 1975?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure it was.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: January 1975. The document was done by Wright Engineers Ltd. and H.N. Halvorson Consultants Ltd., and it's quite interesting, because it was the same subject that the member brought up: "Forecast of Developments in the Mineral Sector of the Northeast Region of British Columbia."

He told the government at that time that: "The major developments in the northeast in the mineral sector will be in coal. It appears that the high-quality coking coals of the region will find ready markets in Ontario, Japan, and perhaps the EEC."

He also says:

"It would appear that in the view of the very large reserves of good-quality coking coal in the area and the rising demand for this product in two firm long- term markets, most probably until the end of the

[ Page 8458 ]

century, and considering the apparently viable economics involved, every effort should be made to encourage and accelerate the putting into production of these deposits on a large, multimillion-tons-per-year scale. This would contribute significantly to the development in this sector of the province, which at present has by far the lowest mineral revenue contribution."

Let's see what else he says. I'll go on to the summary.

"It would appear that in view of the very large reserves of good-quality coking coal...and the rising demand for this product...and considering the apparently viable economics involved...every effort should be made to encourage and accelerate the putting into production of these deposits on a large multimillion-tonnes-per-year scale.

"One of the principal conditions of encouragement and incentive will be the establishing of clear and well-defined conditions of regulation and taxation for industry in this field, involving the commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars for development. Other areas of government assistance will be the planning and implementation of adequate port and rail facilities and services, power distribution and community developments."

Is that the same guy who did the report for the southeast and dumped on northeast coal? I guess it just depends, if you're a good consultant, who's paying you.

MR. WILLIAMS: Brilliant stuff, fed to you by a brilliant staff. Very impressive.

What happened half a dozen years later? Looking at real markets half a dozen years later — not looking at Sukunka a decade ago — that gentleman perceived the problems in terms of marketing today.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, come on! That's just too cheap a shot about a prominent professional outside this chamber. We've become accustomed to that kind of stuff from you folks over there. It's just a cheap shot about a report that's a dozen years old. I really think the minister is capable of better.

I'll just leave it at that, but I would like to try to carry on a constructive dialogue in terms of what can be achieved with modest help from government. He's into his cheap shots and he's helping the other candidates for the leadership, so I think we can all take the pause that refreshes and talk about something totally irrelevant, like the leadership campaign for the Social Credit Party, which is about as irrelevant to the provincial economy as anything I can think of.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the hon. member is well aware, we are on the estimates, vote 44.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed. And the minister, by his absence.... I think it would be more worthwhile to carry on a constructive dialogue.

So there's a political problem — let's face up to it — in terms of providing seed capital for untried people. I recognize, and I think the minister and the department recognize, that it's a political problem. You're making loans to individuals who could go belly up, and do we really want that? It's sort of on one's own record. It would seem to me that what is really needed is some program that's available to lending institutions in the province to provide some supplementary backup for the lending institutions willing to take on these risks. Then it's not on your political copybook if there is some trouble down the line.

Some decent lending analysts for financial institutions have sort of reviewed these things and come to some conclusions, but with the understanding that they should be taking greater risks than they normally take in normal market circumstances. So the province might be prepared to take up some of the losses that might be incurred in a seed capital program. It seems to me that would be a reasonable thing to do. If we're really serious about low-capital-cost jobs and want individuals, in a pluralistic way of evolving them, rather than sort of government-created make-work exercises or government mega projects and the rest, the productive thing would be to look at...okay, we've got the political problem, we are not happy with having that on our backs. What about a program then that helps the lending institutions that are willing to do the job and carry it further? Once they've got some experience under their belts in this area of seed capital....

The Nanaimo Credit Union probably is the first in the province to have moved into this area, with very modest seed capital programs for students in the summer and so on. Some of the credit unions in the province are prepared to forgo dividends to their member shareholders. In most cases that's pretty modest money. A $25 share is probably the average in most credit unions and the interest is generally around 7 percent on that $25. But a lot of the credit unions are looking at forgoing the interest on that modest share capital in the credit union, putting it into job creation projects and seed capital programs. In some institutions that's fairly significant. That means, in effect, they're willing to take bigger risks, non-market risks in terms of seed capital and job creation programs. But that's only sort of the second step after the first steps that are taking place right now in terms of the little jobs that I mentioned with respect to VanCity.

I wonder if the minister and the department might look at that kind of question in terms of having financial institutions carry out seed capital programs with the various enterprise operations in the colleges and campuses of the province, so that that's really the obvious next step. It isn't good enough to help them on a resume. It's a start; it's a decent start to help them in preparing a business plan. That's a necessary part of the exercise, I guess we can all agree. But then they need some money to get going. So then it's a question of how you handle that, and I suggest that some kind of program jointly with the feds, I guess, is one way to go. But it's hard to believe that even within existing funding we couldn't do something in B.C. so that we'd have a bit of a model to show the feds and say: "Look, let's get on with it."

But either way it strikes me that maybe that's the best way to move into this area, rather than using the provincial bureaucracy other than as a monitoring agency and a provider of some backup lending security for various financial institutions. That might really be the better way to go, and then you don't have the problem you've had in tourism of taking a bath, and you've had sort of in effect outside independent people monitor and analyze and come to some conclusions. I suspect that your losses aren't going to be as high then; they're probably going to be a little bit more professionally

[ Page 8459 ]

handled, and we'll probably see more jobs created too. So I wonder if the minister might entertain that.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, at the risk of being out of order, that member is having the terrible effect of convincing me. I like your idea, I really do, and I think we've moved into it in some ways with the Discovery Foundation, for instance. We do it in agriculture to a large degree, and the student venture capital program is exactly what you're suggesting. It's making seed money available to students in the summertime to create their own jobs.

Maybe we should move into it a little further, and I'm willing to give it fairly strong consideration, Madam Chairman. I would like to issue you an invitation right now, and that is if you want to have the chief executive officer of your credit union come over and see us with some propositions, we'll talk to him, and we'll see if there might be a way we can go.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, I'd like to commend the minister for his positive response. I think it is important. I think we might generally both agree in this area, and I think it can be productive for all the citizens of British Columbia. The minister has some experience with the chief executive officer, who has been a long-time civil servant under both administrations, so I think that is encouraging, and I took forward to that dialogue.

[12:30]

MS. SANFORD: I want to raise an issue with the minister. He is in a very favourable mood at the moment, so I think I will raise an issue with him while the going is good.

This is an issue which came to my attention only last night. I haven't had an opportunity to talk to anybody in his ministry about it or to bring it to the minister's attention. But I thought it was important enough that I would raise it on the floor of the House. It means jobs in my constituency, and jobs in the constituency of Comox are of extreme importance these days because there are so few of them available. I had a phone call last night from Island Pole and Piling, which operates a firm up there producing poles and pilings. They have been in operation for some time and have had some success in marketing and everything else. The problem which was brought to my attention last night relates to the fact that they are unable to get rail cars to ship the poles out of the area. The situation has become so critical that they are talking about moving their operation off Vancouver Island in order to ensure that they can get their product moved. They have met with CPR officials on a number of occasions. They need five cars a week in order to move the poles and pilings from their particular little operation — there are two or three other operations in the area affected in a similar way — and, of course, they are special cars. The CPR keeps saying, "Yes, you certainly have a problem, and we'll see if we can fix it," but they never do. As a result, they are getting only one car a week, and they are now at the stage that they can no longer stockpile.

The other part of this is that B.C. Rail apparently has a surplus of this type of car. I am wondering if I could appeal to the minister today to see whether or not there is something that could happen through his office here in terms of providing the kind of transportation necessary to ensure that that small business remains in business and does not have to move to the lower mainland. If they move to the lower mainland, they will simply have to barge the product from the northern part of Vancouver Island to the lower mainland and do the work there. Since there are 20 jobs in this little operation alone, it seems to me important enough that I bring it to the attention of the minister on the floor of the House today and ask that he look into this on behalf of that little company.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, my deputy has taken down the name of the firm. We will have someone contact them and see what we can do.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just wonder if the minister has given any thought — and it's a little early, I know — to the areas that are most impacted by the cedar and shake tariff. It looks like we're going to be stuck with that for five years. If we are, then there's a real need for some programs in areas that are impacted heavily. Certainly the eastern Fraser Valley is one of them, and the town of Mission is clearly heavily impacted.

I think of other small communities like Nakusp. Poor old Nakusp is where I worked in the Forest Service as a student, and it is just one of those spots that seems to get hit and hit again. The only significant industry they have had in Nakusp in recent years is a shingle and shake operation, as I understand. That town is going to be desperately hurt by this American decision.

It does seem to me that what we need is something in terms of new focus programs in these areas that have been impacted. I wonder if the minister is giving some thought to that possibility?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, as was explained during question period today, the first thrust, of course — and I think all of us have to agree — is that we must put all the pressure possible on the President of the United States to have that tariff reversed before June 6. That's what we're doing. I don't think we should deviate from that as our first course of action.

Secondly, there is a need — and I guess this bad news just further reinforces the need — of this province to diversify and to have other areas on which to fall when we do get hurt by either recessionary times in our resource industries or in other unexpected circumstances like this one. I mentioned yesterday our thrust into the electronics industry and other areas of diversified industrial activity. In Mission, for instance — not to downgrade the seriousness of the problem — I met with the shake and shingle people the other day as well, and we agreed that our first course of action should be the one that attempts to get the tariff reversed. But we are moving into.... There's a new fibreglass industry in Mission; we're moving into the Moli Energy plant, which I understand has now broken ground. We've got to do more of that, and more and more and more. But again, I don't want to get our eye off the first responsibility that we have.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I just want to briefly take a few minutes talking a little bit about the greater Victoria area and some of the concerns, and perhaps the minister may want to take some initiative. We've had some good news of late with some of the potential plant closures. The VMD was a particularly good decision, one that we are sure will be a success. Under the worker cooperative kind of style there have been unfortunately in this area some

[ Page 8460 ]

rather.... That particular style has not been particularly successful and there's been some heavy confrontation; but in the VMD one we're optimistic that that's going to be a useful exercise.

In our estimation the whole area of worker or employee enterprise and cooperative is one that should be expanded. This House knows that I have had for some time private member's bills before this House to encourage the government to encourage this kind of enterprise. We are fine-tuning those private member's bills that we've had before this House, and we are consulting with many organizations about how we can move into that particular area.

So I am pleased to say that we are encouraged by the government's response in the greater Victoria area. We think there is room for greater expansion of that concept, and the VMD one is a good one.

There is one area that the minister may wish to respond to; it hasn't had much attention in the last year or so. Very close to this chamber there is a fish plant, the Oakland fish plant. I'm not sure whether this minister was the minister responsible when the government did a study of the future potential for that plant, but the study was encouraging. It said that if the players could get together, it too could be an employee enterprise — a cooperative — and it had great potential. Unfortunately, for various reason that plant has sat idle. As we all know, it's owned by a Japanese organization that would appear not to be prepared to negotiate sale of that plant. I'm wondering if the minister has of late had any contact or any discussions or plans for that plant. It's very sad to see it sitting idle. The potential for 300 to 400 workers.... Victoria still is and could even be a greater manufacturer of fish products. Our fishermen don't have the best services in this area, and it's an area that we need to take a look at.

I wonder if the minister can respond this morning. Has he had any further discussions about that Oaklands fish plant? Is he prepared to take it up again with the owner to see if we can follow through on the government report that it has a future as a worker cooperative?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, I have not had discussions with the people from that fish-processing plant in recent times. I was not the minister when that report was done. I have some vague knowledge of it though, because I recall it coming across my desk some time ago. It was my understanding that the report basically said that if all parties got together it could be a viable operation, and for one reason or another that didn't happen. I'd be happy if a group of people, employees.... You know, with the Vic plywood plant and with VMD the employees came forward. You've got to give them an awful lot of credit, because they just didn't give up. They had the bone in their mouth and they didn't give up.

I'd be happy to initiate discussions again with a group of people who might be interested in doing the same kind of thing. If I could help in any way with the owners, I would. We do have some different mechanisms in place now that make it a little easier for employee shareholders to be put in place. As your constituency responsibility, if you want to get something together, I'll be glad to enter into the discussions with you.

[Mr. Ree in the chair]

MR. BLENCOE: That's a very positive response, and I thank the minister for that.

I think what happened with that situation with Oaklands was that it sort of faded away. The study was good but the initial contact with the various organizations was somewhat difficult. I don't think anybody really gained a hand on it. The Victoria MLAs made some attempts, but I think what happened was that the Japanese firm, Marubeni, really did not want to sell, and they would like to see that plant developed as a condominium site.

It seems that there may be a role for the provincial government to play here. Marubeni has a number of licences on this coast, and I think that through some serious negotiations, and perhaps a little hardball by the provincial government, there could be reflection on their current licences elsewhere. For a favourable response on future or existing licences, maybe they could be persuaded that it would be in the interests of their company, Victoria and British Columbians that they sell that plant to a cooperative venture of the fishermen's union, former employees and management. I think that is where the major role for the provincial government could come in — to say to Marubeni: "Look, you've got some licences elsewhere. We'd like this plant as a cooperative." Maybe that's a role. Maybe the minister wants to respond to that idea.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't agree to govern by threat. I couldn't do that.

I would like to say that I enjoy a political fight with the best of them. As a matter of fact, I love them. I have done it for a long time. But there are times when I hope all members in this House will understand that if there is a really serious problem in a community, there is a way of having that problem solved, and not for political gain or anything like that. My office is open to everybody. For God's sake, if you've got some ideas about it, come on along. We'll talk about getting a business back in place if there is a way we can do it. I give you that commitment, the same as I do my own colleagues; and some of your members on that side will know that that's the truth, because I have worked closely with some of your members. If there is a real opportunity to get some people back to work, please come and see my staff, and let's see if the opportunity really does exist.

MR. BLENCOE: That's very encouraging, and I will take up that suggestion by the minister. I might like to add that that kind of dialogue between the two sides is most useful, and I think it bodes well for the future. I thank the minister.

MR. STUPICH: The Duke Point development in Nanaimo was conceived at a time when the economy was booming. It took several years to put it together and constructed. Unfortunately, by the time the project was ready for occupancy, the economy had turned down to the extent that only one tenant has been able to locate there since the project opened.

There have been all kinds of rumours. Nanaimo is one of the communities in the province hit hardest in the depression of recent years. There are all kinds of rumours from time to time that get everybody in the community excited — everybody that hears about them — but nothing ever happens. I'm satisfied that BCDC is doing everything possible to attract people to that site, but there just isn't anybody moving to B.C. right now.

[ Page 8461 ]

There is one plant that's been much in the news lately. They've tried two locations other than Duke Point. I suppose it's the cost; I don't know. That's Budget Steel. They've been turned down at the two alternative locations. As I say, I expect they just didn't feel that they were able to afford whatever the cost was at Duke Point. Now that Budget Steel has been turned down for the second time, I wonder whether there is any possibility of reopening negotiations with them, or is the amount involved too small to really make any worthwhile impact on Duke Point? Is there anything at all that the minister can tell me — even a rumour — that would make me feel better about Duke Point and Nanaimo's economy?

[12:45]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like nothing better than to be able to do that. I can't at this point. As I'm sure you know, the officials from BCDC recently were in Nanaimo and had meetings with officials to talk about ways in which we might better market Duke Point. They have not yet reported to me as to the results of those meetings. I expect a report from BCDC very quickly.

As far as the Budget Steel thing goes, I have not been directly involved with that project. I'd be happy to become involved, and my deputy tells me that if officials of Budget

Steel want to talk to us and see if there is a possibility of reviving that, we will be happy to talk to them, if that's what you're asking me.

Vote 44 approved.

Vote 45: ministry operations. $46,581,925 — approved.

Vote 46: economic and regional development subsidiary agreements (ERDA), $16,338,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled a document entitled "British Columbia's Coal Development Business Opportunities."

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.