1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9321 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Report on Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative. Mr. Lea –– 9322

Domtar plant closing. Mr. Cocke –– 9322

Housing and employment development bonds. Mr. Stupich –– 9322

Japanese coal shipments. Mr. Leggatt –– 9323

Excess vegetable production. Hon. Mr. Schroeder replies –– 9323

Ministerial statement: Release of dangerous offenders.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9324

Mr. Barrett –– 9324

Commercial Appeals Commission Act (Bill 43). Report. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

Third reading –– 9325

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

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 9325

Mr. Lea –– 9333

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9336

Mr. Mitchell –– 9339

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 9341

Tabling Documents

Committee on Selection report, September 15, 1982.

Mr. Wolfe –– 9343

Financial Administration Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 86). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 9343

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE:

In the gallery today are a number of friends of this government and our

party. I'd ask the House to welcome to Victoria and to the House Henry

Justesen, John Hall, Al Lambrecht, George Smith, Clint Schwandt, Roy

Lisgar, Daryl Anderson, and one other person who is well known to this

House, Elwood Veitch.

MR. SKELLY: On behalf of my

secretary, I would like to introduce two guests in the gallery who have

moved to Victoria from Zimbabwe in Africa: Peter and Margaret Davel. I

ask the members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Here from Chilliwack is Mr. Ben Voth, who is a director with the credit union movement.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Would the House welcome two visitors to the gallery today, Mrs. Shirley

Greenwood of Qualicum Beach and her house guest Miss Felicity Hyde, who

is visiting from London, England.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move that the Premier now be seated. He seems to have trouble taking his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're in introductions, hon. members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to make this statement while the gentleman who

I would ask all members of the House to give a farewell greeting to was

in the House. As you know, last evening, when I asked leave, I was not

able to bring this greeting to him personally. However, in spite of the

fact that he has left Victoria this morning to take up studies at the

Vatican, to enter the priesthood, I do know that all members of this

House would want to wish well one of the young interns who studied

under the internship program of the government, as well as being a

representative of the Employers Council of British Columbia. Mr. Greg

Smith has left his duties with the Employers Council to take up his new

career in service. I would just like to ask all members of the House to

wish him well, as I know he touched the lives of all members of the

House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my few words of

appreciation to Greg, as well as the Minister of Human Resources. I

wasn't here last night, so I am glad it was held over until today.

Young Greg has made a decision on his vocation that is to be admired by

every member of this House, and particularly by the people of British

Columbia. It his intention to come back and be a priest in British

Columbia. I'm sure that his experience in this chamber has added

motivation for him to return and help. In my conversation with him I

was pleased... but disappointed that he is not going into the Jesuit

order. That is the only handicap at this point in terms of his choice.

I hope he will make a decision to stream into the Jesuits. Beyond that,

it is important and graceful for this province to be able to have such

a young man offer himself in community service in that way, after

having already established the fact that he could have had a

magnificent career in other fields. It is a glorious decision he's

made, and I think everyone in the House is happy for him.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I would like members to welcome a good supporter and resident of the

Cariboo who is in the gallery today, Mary Prestwich from Williams Lake.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In the gallery today we have a visitor from the city of Penticton, Mrs.

Virginia Hassler. With her are two visitors from the United States —

from the state of Ohio, I believe — Mr. Michael Swinehart and his wife

Margaret. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. BARRETT: We have in the gallery today a guest from the British Chancery in Ottawa, Miss Sorgensen, and I ask the House to welcome her.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, shortly before the hour of adjournment yesterday

afternoon, upon the order being called for second reading of Bill 81,

the Rate Increase Restraint Act, objection was taken that, as the said

bill had received its first reading during the morning sitting of the

House, standing order 81 should have precluded a motion for second

reading of the bill on the same day without leave of the House.

Objection was also taken that as the Hansard

Blues indicated the bill was ordered for second reading at the next

sitting after today, the bill ought not to have appeared on the order

paper for second reading until today. With respect to this objection,

it was ascertained from the Hansard tape that the Blues were in

error and that the House had in fact ordered the said bill for second

reading at the next sitting, which of course was the afternoon sitting

of the House. Hansard tapes further disclosed that, prior to

the House making its order for second reading at the next sitting,

leave to move the prerequisite motion to do so was neither sought nor

given.

On further points of order, objections were then

taken by the hon. members for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), Nelson Creston

(Mr. Nicolson), Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that the Chair ought to have intervened and

directed the attention of the House to the necessity for leave being

given to advance the bill two stages on the same day, although no

objection was made at the time. That point was well taken, as clearly

the House was, in effect, by its actions, suspending standing order 81,

notwithstanding the fact that the bill in question was the fourth bill,

in a series of bills, which had at the same sitting been advanced two

stages, without objection being taken by any member present.

Accordingly, the Chair assumed that in the absence of any member

calling for leave in any of these four instances, it was the will of

the House to advance its business in that manner with respect to each

of the bills which proceeded in like fashion.

The assistance

of all hon. members is always appreciated when it is perceived that

leave is required and that leave accordingly drawn to the attention of

the Chair. However, there is no question that the Speaker, when of the

opinion that any proceeding is contrary to the rules and practices of

the House, should draw the attention of the House to that fact. With

respect to Bill 81, it is the opinion of the Chair that it was,

irrespective of the question of leave, properly on the order paper for

second reading during the afternoon sitting

[ Page 9322 ]

yesterday, as that was the disposition of the bill ordered by the House during the morning sitting.

I thank members for their points.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ruling. I wonder if it's advisable that

the Chair give us references from May or MacMinn to assist us in

validating your opinion and having references that are appropriately

connected with this particular decision, so that our group can study

the references that deal with this.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his observation.

Oral Questions

REPORT ON PACIFIC

NORTH COAST NATIVE COOPERATIVE

MR. LEA:

I have a question for the Attorney-General in regard to his

responsibilities for native Indian affairs. On June 25, 1981, the

Attorney-General indicated that he was "in the final stages of

producing a report on the affairs of the Pacific North Coast Native

Cooperative." On June 22 of this year the Attorney-General made a

commitment to produce "within three weeks, this chronological report."

No report has appeared to date and there has been no indication that we

can expect it shortly. Can the Attorney-General now inform the House

that he will live up to his repeated promises and produce this report

without further delay?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Persons who

have responsibility with respect to that cooperative, and are therefore

intimately connected with its affairs and knowledgeable of its history,

are working on the report, and it's not being delayed on my account.

MR. LEA:

I have a supplementary question. Is the Attorney-General aware that

since I've asked for this report his government has destroyed the

cooperative, that it no longer exists?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not aware of any government action to destroy the cooperative.

MR. LEA: I draw the Attorney-General's attention to a notice in the British Columbia Gazette ,

August 19, 1982, page 1337, which destroyed the Pacific North Coast

Native Cooperative as of July 29, 1982. I would still appreciate

receiving the report, although the cooperative has already been

destroyed by the government. I would like to urge the Attorney-General

to bring this report as soon as possible. Has the Attorney-General

decided to take steps to restore this cooperative to a legal position,

to turn back the July 29, 1982, order in the Gazette and make this cooperative a legal identify again in this province?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of the notice published in the Gazette .

I'll be happy to examine the reference made by the member. I wish to

assure him that the government has not caused it to take place.

MR. LEA:

A final supplementary. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General: during all

this time that the report has not come back to the House, how could it

even have been started and he not have knowledge that the cooperative

had been destroyed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The affairs of

the cooperative are under the responsibility of the management

committee. They continue to function. As for the legality of the

existence of the cooperative, that, of course, is a matter for its

members and directors. The report is being prepared at the request of

the member. It deals with the whole chronology of the functioning of

the cooperative and the cannery at Port Simpson. It will be produced

when it is complete.

DOMTAR PLANT CLOSING

MR. COCKE:

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Domtar has announced

that its New Westminster-Burnaby plant will be closed on September 24.

Can the minister advise whether he is going to intervene in this

attempt, and will he attempt to prevent the loss of 75 jobs, 25 of

which are held by people with 25 years' seniority? I think it's a very

critical situation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: After that

rather long statement, I am afraid I have lost track of what the

question was. I wonder if the member would repeat it.

MR. COCKE:

It was probably one of the shortest questions we've ever heard in the

House, Mr. Speaker — a very direct question: will the minister

intervene? Domtar bought out Coppers International, which owned that

plant; then they closed it down. So now they have a beautiful monopoly.

Meanwhile 75 jobs are down the tube, and the Minister of Forests sits

there and can't follow the question. Could he please tell us whether or

not he's going to do anything about it? September 24 is the day after

tomorrow.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The job of the Ministry

of Forests is the proper management of the forest resource of British

Columbia. I do not make a habit of intervening in decisions made in the

private sector by companies.

MR. COCKE: The company,

of course, provides nothing but service to the forest industry. With

his high office, the minister could certainly have something to say

about it when Domtar comes and dominates the industry in B.C. and out

go the jobs. The Premier once said: "B.C. is not for sale."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite certain that a question was not asked during that particular statement. Is this not question period?

HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

BONDS

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Premier,

in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for the

second day. Since agreement has now been reached that the $100 bonds

are

part consideration for the preliminary BCGEU agreement, there must

be a value assigned to these bonds. Since the interest rate is such an

important factor in determining value, is the Premier now prepared to

tell the House what interest these bonds will bear?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

[ Page

9323 ]

MR. STUPICH: In the continuing absence of the Minister of Finance, and

with further reference to the bonds, since the employees getting these bonds

will be interested in knowing how long they'll be obliged to keep them,

is the Premier prepared to tell the House what the term of the issue will be?

HON. MR. BENNETT: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH:

In the continuing absence of the Minister of Finance, I have another

question to the Premier. The Housing and Employment Development

Financing Act authorizes the borrowing of $250 million, of which $190

million is committed to purposes under Bill 82; $1.4 billion is

committed for the Homeowner Interest Assistance Act; and $8 million is

committed to pay a portion of the government's salary bill. Social

Credit election promises to date total some $1.6 billion, funded by a

$250 million bond issue. Can the Premier tell the House how he expects

to finance the shortfall of $1.35 billion from consolidated revenue as

is promised in Bill 79?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: The question was "would the Premier tell the House, " not "can he tell it." I ask again: will he share that with, the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Our time is limited in question period.

MR. STUPICH: A further question to the Premier: when?

HON. MR. BENNETT: During this sitting,

JAPANESE COAL SHIPMENTS

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. Coal shipments from British Columbia to Japan are now

running at 20 percent below contract volume. The Japanese steel

industry has projected that by 1985 they will be taking only 16 million

tonnes of coal, although they have contracted for 20 million tonnes of

coal. Can the minister advise how he intends to protect the

shareholders of BCRIC and, more importantly, the taxpayers of British

Columbia from this impending crisis and disaster that's coming upon us?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

The only impending disaster I know of that might befall this province

is if the socialists get back into government, and we wouldn't be

shipping 16 million tonnes, we wouldn't be shipping even 10 million

tonnes. With the attitude of that opposition towards international

trade, we probably wouldn't be shipping any coal at all.

As I have explained many times, we're presently going through a small hiccup

in the supply and demand of coking coal on the international market. It is not

the first time this has happened in the world demand for coking coal. We went

through this in 1975. Because of a fear of labour strife in Australia and a

fear of port congestion in the United States, the Japanese steel industry presently

finds itself in a position of oversupply. The forecast over the long term for

the demand for coking coal on the international scene, because we're not

selling coking coal only to Japan, states that there will be a shortage of coal

by the year 1990. Just the other day I was reading that the Vancouver Harbours

Board, which is finally starting to think forward, are talking about being able

to move through that port 25 million tonnes of coal by the year 1990.

It's

fine for the opposition to continue to wear their blinkers. I tell you,

there would be no economic development, no future preparation for the

economy of this province, if those birds were still in power.

MR. LEGGATT:

I take it the minister wasn't wearing blinkers when he failed to see

any unemployed in the middle of this province last Thursday.

The

president of B.C. Coal has now initiated a move to have Canada's coal

suppliers form a common front in contract negotiations with Japanese

buyers. Why hasn't the minister called a meeting between southeast and

northeast producers to head off this crisis of shortfall in terms of

our markets? What's going to happen — and the minister knows it — is

they'll take northeast coal and southeast coal is going to go down the

drain in four years.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It seems to

be a continuing job of mine to keep that member who just took his seat

straightened out. First of all I want to correct a statement that he's

trying to perpetuate again. What I said is that the small independent

sawmill operators in the centre of this province are not experiencing

as much layoff and unemployment as some of the big guys, due mainly to

an initiative by this government a few years ago in forming Fibreco, a

chip-exporting facility at the coast which has helped those small

independent sawmillers in the interior to stay alive, stay solvent and

keep people employed.

I have to inform the member that I

have already had a meeting with the northeast producers and the

southeast producers. What we're trying to do in this province is to get

the coal industry together to form a loosely knit cooperative like the

Council of Forest Industries so that we can go out in the international

world and sell the coal industry. Prior to northeast coal coming on we

were such small players in the international field that it wouldn't be

worthwhile, but I am already light years ahead of the backward looking

member for Coquitlam-Moody.

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

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to provide answers to questions taken on notice.

Leave granted.

EXCESS VEGETABLE PRODUCTION

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The question was submitted by the member for Cowichan-Malahat:

In recent weeks vegetable producers on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland have been forced to dispose of hundreds of

[ Page 9324 ]

thousands

of dollars worth of fresh vegetables because of a massive influx of

California produce. Why has the minister not taken steps to ensure that

B.C. farmers have an opportunity to sell their produce?

The

answer is that supplies of fresh vegetables in British Columbia and,

indeed, throughout North America have been extremely high over the past

three weeks. This has led to very low prices in all North American

markets. Unloads in the Vancouver market of California produce have not

increased for this period over previous years. Though a major problem

for a period of two weeks, supplies are once again in balance with the

market. Though much produce was sold at quite low prices in bulk sales,

the market appears to be returning closer to normal for this period.

The second question taken on notice was:

Inasmuch

as the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, is responsible for

the production of extra produce, particularly in the Saanich Peninsula,

by refusing to allow potatoes to be grown there, why has the minister

failed to persuade Mr. Whelan to impose seasonal tariffs?

The

answer is that seasonal tariffs are in place for most commodities.

Examples are: broccoli at 2.5 cents per pound, or 15 percent, whichever

is greater; cabbage at 1.25 cents per pound, or 15 percent; cauliflower

at 1 cent per pound, or 5 percent; tomatoes at 2.5 cents per pound, or

15 percent. These tariffs are in place for varying periods, relating

closely to our normal production periods. As well, I have joined with

the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission in petitioning Mr. Whelan to

implement a surtax on tomato imports from the U.S., due to extremely

low prices this year.

RELEASE OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. Yesterday during question

period a question was posed to me by the hon. member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) dealing with the steps he asked me

to take with the Solicitor-General of Canada regarding inmates of

institutions whom he thought might be dangerous. I'm afraid that the

response I gave him was not directly associated with his question. I

think it is important that we have on the record the answer to the

member's question, because it was one that was quite properly asked.

With

regard to inmates of federal institutions, they are released by two

methods. One is by way of parole, after consideration by the National

Parole Board — and that, of course, is discretionary. The other is

under mandatory supervision, which is non-discretionary, being

statutory. In each instance a parole certificate is prepared, which

sets out conditions under which the inmate is released. With respect to

mandatory supervision, if the nature of the offence for which the

person has been incarcerated or the conduct of the inmate while in the

institution raises questions as to whether he would continue to be

dangerous in the community, additional conditions may be imposed. At

the time of release these certificates are distributed as follows: one

copy to the inmate; one to the regional secretary or registrar — and in

the case of parole or mandatory supervision the release is always to a

designated community or region of the country; one to the chief of

police or the officer commanding an RCMP detachment in the community

into which the person has been released; one forwarded to the Canadian

Police Information Centre and thereby distributed to all police forces

in Canada; one to the supervising district office for the use of the

supervisor of that inmate, and if a private agency is used for

supervision purposes one copy is provided to that agency; and in those

instances when either parole or mandatory supervision will result in

deportation, copies of the information are sent to the nearest

immigration field office.

With respect to provincial

inmates, if they are released on parole — and we have about 30 a month

of our people in provincial institutions, those sentenced for two years

plus a day — CPIC is notified with respect to every one of those

parolees, as well, of course, as the parole supervisor. Before parole

is granted, the police in the area into which the person may be paroled

are consulted with respect to the provincial parole aspect — these are

provincial people.

Again, with respect to provincial

inmates, in all other cases when the incarceration of a person is

complete, if the person is considered to be dangerous to himself or to

others by reason of the nature of his offence, or his conduct in the

institution, then advice is given through the director of the

institution to the police department or unit in the area to which the

person may be released, as well as to CPIC. If he is released under

circumstances where he is subject to corrections officers' continued

interest, then that information is provided to that correction officer

as well.

MR. BARRETT: The question asked by the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam which prompted the ministerial

statement, and to which I'm replying, was directed towards a singular

gap in the system, which is still missing in the statement by the

Attorney-General.

There is a deep concern in the community

that the overlapping jurisdiction between federal supervision of

parolees and mandatory supervision, and provincial paroles, is not

commonly known to each other. The minister correctly informs the House

of the procedure whereby the federal authorities notify the RCMP of a

federal parolee being released, or of someone being released on

mandatory supervision from a federal penitentiary, but the question

raised by my colleague was that there is no automatic notification of

the provincial parole service. The gap, therefore, leads to a

continuing part of the minister's statement when he says: "When there

is a provincial parole the local police are notified, and the

provincial parole does the supervision. In the case of federal

supervision it may be a private agency."

What the gap is,

Mr. Speaker, is that when a provincial parolee is being supervised, he

may be in consort with a federal parolee, and there is no way that the

provincial probation officer who is supervising the provincial parolee

knows that that parolee is keeping company — or may be keeping company

— with a federal parolee who may be dangerous. It is a gap in the

administration that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam was getting

at. It is a serious gap — but not serious enough to cause the explosion

that followed later around order-in-council patients. I appreciate the

apology made by the Attorney-General, but there still is that problem.

completing my statement, I want to make it very clear that I am not

satisfied that the community of British Columbia is receiving the

maximum potential protection from dangerous criminal offenders when

there is an absence of that kind of notification, plus a continuation

of a system, recommended seven years ago to be dispensed with, where

the cabinet made decisions about forensic matters. I appeal to the

minister, and to this House, to plug that gap, particularly at a time

when the police and the Attorney-General are going through a great deal

of difficulty in explaining procedures,

[ Page 9325 ]

which may have intrinsic gaps of their own, apart from this, for dealing with serious criminal matters.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Orders of the day.

First of all, I call report on Bill 43, Mr. Speaker.

COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION ACT

Bill 43 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to call second reading of Bill 82.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and support this bill

which will go a long, long way to assisting the small business

community of British Columbia, which is really the backbone of industry

and commerce in the province and a segment of our society with which I

have a great deal of empathy and rapport. Like the home program, the

cornerstone of our small business program is to provide low-interest

funds to enable small business people to help themselves; not to have

Big Daddy government come in and tell them how to run their business

but to assist them in helping themselves, to encourage their growth, to

create new jobs and to preserve the jobs that are there in this time of

high interest rates. These rates are unfortunately not the

responsibility of this government; unfortunately, because if they were,

maybe we could do something about them. High interest rates emanate

from our capital, whose policy over the last few years has been to

follow socialist policies, supported by the NDP in Ottawa and by the

socialists here in British Columbia. It's those policies which have

wreaked havoc on our small business community.

Mr. Speaker,

governments can never have the total answer to the problems of the

small business community. Giveaways are certainly never the total

answer. During the last six years we have endeavoured to create a

business climate where the small businessman could expand, where new

businesses could be established and could flourish, make a profit and

hire people; a climate of opportunity, free from government

interference.

From time to time, I think, it is necessary

that the government use the special resources and abilities that it has

to raise low-interest funds. We have followed this policy to some

degree in the last six years. We should direct these funds in a dynamic

way to those businesses which can use them and multiply their effect —

to use direct grants or forgivable loans only in the areas of greatest

need, and where there will be the creation of something new or the

holding on to something that exists. I refer specifically to

high-technology industries in the manufacturing sector.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

program I announced yesterday has been developed by the Ministry of

Industry and Small Business Development in conjunction with the Cabinet

Committee on Economic Development, and certainly in cooperation with

the British Columbia Development Corporation, which has taken a keen

interest in the development of small industry and small businesses in

the province and has worked well with them during the past few years.

We've also had meetings with the financial institutions of the province

since the announcement of this program, and I might say that we have

their commitment to full cooperation. During the past six years we have

worked with the financial institutions so that there is not one group

of lenders going one way and the government going another, and the

British Columbia Development Corporation going yet another. There has

been a great deal of cooperation and working together for the common

good of the small business community.

The program to be

instituted under this bill is called, for short, the LIFT program —

Low-Interest Funding Today — and indeed it will do just that: give a

much-needed lift to the small business community in British Columbia.

Already, this morning, people have been phoning me to congratulate me

and the government on this much-needed program in a time when it will

be used by the small business community.

Of course, the

money from the program will be the second major example of our tax

exempt B.C. development bonds: another idea from the Social Credit

government giving the people of the province the opportunity to invest

their money in the province and to get a little break in their taxes. I

regret very much that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

There's the lady over there who doesn't believe in free enterprise,

doesn't believe in the private ownership of land, as she has stated

many times. Therefore she certainly is not for the individual or the

small businessmen in this community. I wish she'd just keep her ideas

to herself and let me finish my little talk.

The proceeds

from the sale of these new bonds will create a $200 million pool and

maybe more. The low-interest funding from this $190 million will be

used for new and expanding companies in the key job-creating areas, as

I said before. The bulk of this low-interest funding — $190 million —

will be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation.

Unlike some other provinces where they have brought in a program and

have had to hire 100 new staff, we will be able to handle this program

with existing staff, plus maybe four or five additional staff which

will be brought on part-time by the Development Corporation. We're not

going to build in a huge bureaucracy so that in some instances it may

cost the taxpayer more to administer the program than the results would

provide. That's just part of our overall good planning. The other

beautiful thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that the staff in my ministry

are on hand, ready to handle the first portion of the program, and the

staff are on hand in the Development Corporation so that the program

can start immediately.

From the new $200 million funding

pool, $10 million will go to forgivable loans in a special small

manufacturers development assistant program. Another $20 million will

go to the expansion of the low-interest loan assistance program. These

two programs alone, based on our experience of the six years, will

create some 5,500 jobs. The small manufacturers development assistance

program is really a program to assist the small entrepreneur who has an

idea, who maybe is better at running his business than he is at dealing

with the bankers, and who needs some seed money, some initiative and

some help from this government to proceed and either build new

[ Page 9326 ]

premises to put his idea into manufacturing something or to expand the plant that he already has.

This

has been a very successful program over the past few years. What it's

really doing is preserving that entrepreneurship of that little fellow

who wants to get started but can't quite make it. It's giving him that

little boost. You will see as time goes on that the little companies

that we have given this little bit of initiative to — this little bit

of seed money — will go on and expand. Some of them are already going

into the next portion of our program, where they go to the Development

Corporation and borrow up to $200,000 in low-interest money to further

expand. Some of them are already selling in the international

marketplace. That's the type of program that we have brought in very

successfully in this province. This new program is a cornerstone of an

expanded small-business development program. We are constantly working

with the small-business community. New marketing and tax incentives are

being developed and certainly will be announced at a later date when

completed.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we're working on

further programs. They will be announced in due course. The low

interest financing that we are providing here provides the immediate

help that is needed today and makes it clear that this province will do

everything that is within its power to ease the burden of high interest

rates on homeowners and businessmen in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of important aspects to this new program. I

want to say again that it is the small business community that is

really the backbone of the economy of British Columbia. Don't forget,

Mr. Speaker, that most of the large and medium-sized businesses that we

have in this province today really started out as small businesses.

They started out with an idea, with a man who wanted to work maybe 18

hours a day, seven days a week. Some of them put their family in it,

and they worked and they worked. That's really where it's at. Those are

the type of entrepreneurs that we must preserve and indeed help in this

province.

These funds, Mr. Speaker, will be directed into

new and existing small businesses in the critical economic sectors

throughout British Columbia, as I said before, where they can have the

greatest job-creation and job-preservation effect.

The funds

will provide for three almost separate and distinct programs, two to be

administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation and one to

be implemented by my ministry, really a continuation of an existing....

The

target economic sectors for these initiatives, Mr. Speaker, will be

manufacturing and processing, with heavy emphasis on high technology

and certainly resource-related transportation. Small and medium-sized

businesses in these sectors will be eligible.

It is not a

giveaway program, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, because those who are

in business today recognize that any money that goes out has to be paid

for out of taxes. They don't mind us helping and being of assistance,

but they also don't want any great giveaway program. So the small and

medium-sized businesses in these sectors will be eligible, but they

must be able to demonstrate strong management, growth potential, job

creation or preservation, and, of course, need. In other words, we

don't want companies that are solvent and don't have any loans at the

bank to go and take advantage of this program where there really isn't

a need. They must be able to show us that the company resources have

been depleted by the current economic conditions, and that the

enterprise has a continuing viability in a more normal environment. In

other words, this isn't any bail-out, giveaway government program.

want to assure the taxpayers of this province that this is not a

giveaway, bail-out program. It is a program to preserve, to enlarge,

and to ensure that our viable small business community is intact when

this recession recedes, which I hope will be very shortly. Certainly

priority will be given to British Columbia-owned and — operated firms

which have at least 75 percent of their assets and employees in the

province. This isn't a giveaway program by the taxpayers of British

Columbia to European; Japanese- or United States-owned companies; 75

percent of the assets must be right here in the province.

MR. LEA: It's a giveaway to the Europeans and the Japanese in your big business program!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, we don't have any....

The

member for Prince Rupert is trying to perpetrate a myth on the

taxpayers of this province which emanated from the Leader of the

Opposition, who does not feel that we should even be in the

international marketplace; the leader who, last week, on the Jack

Webster show, said: "Oh, when I was in Japan I told the Japanese...."

AN HON. MEMBER: He played football.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No, this is his last trip that somebody paid for. I don't know who paid

for it. I don't know how he got there, but he went over.

the Jack Webster show, Mr. Speaker, he said: "Oh, when I was there I

told the Japanese steel industry that we were going to do this, and we

had to do that, and we had to do something else if you are going to

develop northeast coal." Well, I have to say that was a very misleading

statement by the leader of the socialist party, because the leader of

the socialist party, before he went to Japan on that trip that somebody

paid for — I don't know who paid for it.... He didn't go over to talk

coal, because he came to my office before he went to Japan and he said:

"I realize the difficulty you are having in putting this multi-faceted

northeast coal deal together, having to deal with eight steel

companies, and trading companies in Japan, and the banking system in

Japan, and the Japanese government. I know that you're in very ticklish

negotiations, and I wish you well. While I am in Japan I will not

mention, I will not talk coal." And then he had the audacity to go on

the Jack Webster show and say: "Oh, when I was there I talked to the

Japanese steel industry." He never mentioned coal or talked to the

Japanese steel industry when he was in Japan on that trip that somebody

paid for, that he hired one of these experts to go around and put out

information on. That's the type of misleading statements we continually

get from those socialists. You can't trust them anywhere. You can't

trust them in the Legislature, you can't trust them on the hustings and

you can't trust them on the Jack Webster show.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I'll have to call the minister to order. We are in second-reading stage

of a bill discussing small business. The debate is quite irrelevant.

[ Page 9327 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, just how this relates to small

business, because, as I said before, it's the climate and the major

projects that create opportunities for the small business community in

this province, and allows them to enlarge, grow and establish new

businesses. That's what it is all about.

You know, this

government isn't only for megaprojects. I can show you literally

thousands and thousands of initiatives that we've taken to create small

businesses in this province, helping entrepreneurs and starting other

projects. But, oh, the opposition would just love to forget all about

those. I'm going to read some of them into the record this afternoon

for your information.

But I just wanted to say — since the

member for Prince Rupert brought it up — that they are against the coal

project. They say that if they were elected government they would

renegotiate northeast coal. Well, the people of this province are not

stupid. They know that they were going to renegotiate the Alcan project

in Manitoba when the socialists got into power down there. They

renegotiated it all right. They renegotiated those opportunities for

the small business community, for individuals to have gainful

employment in the province of Manitoba, right out the door. There could

have been a major development in Manitoba today by the Aluminum Co. of

Canada, providing thousands and thousands of jobs, and opportunities

for the small business community in Manitoba. The big socialist hordes

come in there and renegotiated the deal. They negotiated it out of the

province of Manitoba forever and ever.

That's what I'm

bringing this up for. It bothers me when the socialists go around and

say they'd renegotiate northeast coal, that they'd get a better price.

There's another one of the myths that they've tried to perpetuate in

this province. A study recently completed by my department states that

northeast coal is receiving the highest price paid for coking coal

anywhere in the international marketplace. Yet the socialist hordes

over there would try to perpetrate the myth on the people of the

province of British Columbia that we're giving our natural resources

away. We're getting paid a bonus of over $10 a tonne for coal out of

the northeast, and I cannot allow those socialists opposite to

continually go around and perpetuate the myth that we're giving away

the coal from the northeast part of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please, for the last time: to the bill.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: To the bill, to the bill, to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 82.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you how what I have been saying relates to

this bill. There are opportunities out there because of the expanding

economy of British Columbia, and high interest rates are not giving

them that opportunity to expand. So we've had to come in with this

program to assist the small business community, to allow them to expand

and to allow them to take advantage of the growing economy that we have

here in this great province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

The man says: "Really?" I want to take you back to 1975 when there was

no world recession at all. What was happening in the province of

British Columbia? There was no construction. There were no plans on the

drawing boards. There were no projects going ahead. As I've said more

than once, the construction industry would never have been able to go

out on strike in 1975 when the socialists were in there. Do you know

why? There was no construction. Nobody was working in the construction

industry. I know. The construction industry came to see me and they

said: "Mr. Minister, you've got to get us some work." And I said:

"Yeah, I'll get you work. If you tell me that you won't go out on

strike for five years, I'll tramp the highways and the byways of the

world, and I'll tell them to come to British Columbia and build, that

now is the time to build, because the construction industry says there

will be no strikes. You won't have a $5 million or $6 million project

held up for two and a half months, seven months or whatever by some

construction strike, be it the elevator workers, the electricians or

whoever." Well, of course, the union leaders told me: "We can't do

that." They weren't interested in the working men of the province at

that time, and they weren't interested in the working men when they

took them out on strike this year either, at a time when thousands of

people were unemployed.

This program has three aspects to

it. Development assistance for small manufacturers is a $10 million

program. The object is to encourage and assist the modernization,

expansion and establishment of small manufacturing and processing

companies and, of course, high-technology enterprises throughout

British Columbia. This is really a tried and tested program. In the

last five years it has created literally thousands of jobs in the

province. As I said, it gives seed money to the small entrepreneur who

has an idea, a plan, but who doesn't seem to have the faith of his

banker. I'm not for giveaways, but I feel that this particular aspect

preserves the entrepreneurship of the small individual who has an idea;

he knows how to manufacture, but he may need a little help selling. In

other words, he's learning as he's growing. This bit of seed money

gives him the little boost that he needs.

You know, the

proof of the pudding is in the eating. This program received its first

application for financial assistance in 1977. It remains a very

successful and popular program. It is designed to stimulate small

business ventures in the manufacturing and processing sector by

providing interest-free forgivable loans for capital expenditures.

Applications totalling 1,438 have been received, and $9,572,183 in

assistance has been approved for 536 projects. It is projected that the

assistance will create 2,389 new jobs. It's creating something new or

expanding on something that already exists. There's the proof. It's an

excellent program. Of course, this money is in addition to our

ministry's existing programs. This program will be administered by the

provincial Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

The

first criterion for eligibility is that the proposed project must

involve manufacturing, processing, high technology or a maintenance or

repair facility directly relating to the manufacturing, processing or

high-technology sectors. It doesn't involve the service sector of the

commercial world. The proposed project must indicate commercial

viability. It must provide socioeconomic benefits to the province. In

the case of an existing business being expanded, average sales for the

two most recent years of operation should not exceed $500,000 per year,

and eligible capital costs may not exceed $100,000. Regarding new

facilities — new manufacturing, processing or high-technology

facilities — it's 50 percent of the eligible capital cost or $30,000,

whichever is less. New

[ Page 9328 ]

maintenance

or repair facilities directly relating to the manufacturing, processing

or high-technology sectors — 30 percent of eligible capital cost or

$18,000, whichever is less. Those are some of the financial terms. If

you're going to modernize or expand existing manufacturing, processing

or high-technology facilities — 30 percent of eligible capital cost or

$18,000, whichever is less. Existing maintenance and repair facilities

directly relating to the manufacturing, processing or high-technology

sectors — 30 percent of eligible capital cost or $18,000, whichever is

less.

The opposition have been demanding a debate in this

Legislature on the economy and that we do something for the small

business community. I notice that not one single member of the

opposition is here, or interested in what we're doing. All they do is

talk, talk, talk, yack, yack, yack. They don't care about the economy.

They don't care about the small business community. They don't care

about the future of this province. There's not a single one of them in

their seat; not a single opposition member was in their seat, Mr.

Speaker. Oh, they go out and mouth around about how interested they

are, and they hide under all kinds of legal technicalities in this

House to try to get a debate going on the economy. Now that we are

discussing the economy and that great business community — the small

business people in this province — not one opposition member was in his

seat. Now the little lonely old member for Prince Rupert, who talks out

of both sides of his mouth at once, depending on whether he's in his

riding in Prince Rupert or here in the Legislature....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. Personal allusions are unparliamentary and are not allowed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I wasn't attacking him personally, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly will withdraw.

have to tell you that it depends on where that member is — whether he's

in Victoria or Prince Rupert — as to what he says about northeast coal.

When he gets up there he says: "Oh, it's a great project." He comes

down here and gets with his leader and the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt), and he doesn't know quite how to talk because one would

close it down, one would renegotiate it and one would buy an interest

in it. So they are all over the map. You never know where they are at.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I know what would happen if they

become government in this province. They'd close the project down.

That's what the member for Coquitlam-Moody would say. That's what the

Leader of the Opposition has said innumerable times. He's said: "I'd

close the project down." Anyway, that just goes to show how little

interest there is from the socialist opposition.

Mr. Speaker, there is some forgiveness built into this program.

AN HON. MEMBER: We noticed that. It's a giveaway.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No, it's not a giveaway. I'll tell you, there's a member over there

talking about giveaways. That member over there, when he was an NDP

member in Ottawa, supported the Liberal government on hundreds and

hundreds of initiatives that they took down there. That's why Canada

has the problems is has today, because the NDP in British Columbia and

their members in Ottawa support the Ottawa government. They are

espousing the same type of socialist policies here, policies that have

brought this great nation to its knees. They're the policies that those

socialists over there would bring into this province, the policies that

the Ottawa government has had for years, the policies supported by that

NDP member when he was in Ottawa, and the type of policies that this

socialist opposition has supported for years in Ottawa: socialist

policies that haven't worked in this country. They didn't work in this

province, but they're socialist policies that they would love to impose

on the people of this great province. They would love to be government

again and, my gracious sakes alive, Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that

that never occurs in British Columbia again.

MR. LEA: I'll bet you do. Where would you work?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

It isn't only where I would work; the question is: where would

thousands and thousands of people work? When they were government,

there was no world economic disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the forgiveness part of this: 50 percent

of the loan will be forgivable one year after operation has commenced, and the

which the loan was granted have been met. In other words, it is not a giveaway

program; he has to maintain his facilities and make a commitment to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Do you have something to say, Mr. Member? You are usually yacking about

Ocean Falls or something. Do you have something to say? Would you like

to say it? We'll give you an opportunity in just a moment.

Mr. Speaker, there are criteria that have to be met, so it is not a total giveaway.

The

low-interest loan assistance end of our LIFT program will be

administered, as I said, by the British Columbia Development

Corporation. It's a $20 million program. The objective is to enhance

the economic base of the province of British Columbia through the

provision of low-interest loans to businesses in key economic sectors

which wish to modernize, expand or establish new facilities. This end

of the program sort of goes up another step into the next bracket of

small or medium-sized businesses. The $20 million will be provided over

two years to augment this established and successful program, which has

been administered over the past few years by the British Columbia

Development Corporation.

These are new funds which are in

addition to those that have already been available under the program,

and because of the high interest rates existing out there we feel quite

sure that this money will be taken up almost immediately. The program

will be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation as

a trustee of the fund provided by the province. Again the applicant's

business must be engaged principally in either manufacturing,

processing, high technology or the provision of services to

manufacturing, processing and high-technology sectors.

The

proceeds of the low-interest loans assistance must be used for plant

modernization, expansion, or the establishment of new production

facilities which will create new economic activity and benefits for the

province of British Columbia. Businesses receiving assistance under

this program must be economically viable. It is not a giveaway; we must

be going in to preserve the business. If the business

[ Page 9329 ]

cannot

be helped anyway, we are not coming in with a giveaway of taxpayers'

money. I want to advise all of the taxpayers of British Columbia that

we're not going to have a giveaway program. We're not going to help

businesses that will compete against them. It's to preserve and enlarge

our manufacturing base.

The applicant applying for the loan

must have a minimum total tangible asset ratio of not less than 15 per

cent on a pro forma balance sheet basis.

MR. LEA: What does that mean?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

That means the owner must have some equity, Mr. Member for Prince

Rupert. I'd be quite happy to sit down with you and give you a lesson

in accounting.

The loan size is one-third of the capital

cost for fixed assets, subject to a maximum of $200,000 — so there is a

cap on it — and a minimum of $30,000. Again, this has been a very

successful program.

MR. LEA: Is there anything left in the fund?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, certainly.

MR. LEA: How much?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be quite happy to get you the latest information.

Mr.

Speaker, we pay the opposition thousands and thousands of dollars for

research staff to do their work for them, and then they come in here

and want me to do it for them. I don't know what you do with your

research staff, Mr. Member. You probably use them for politics instead

of doing basic research. If they started doing basic research they'd

find out just how good the economy of this province is today.

There

is an attitude out there.... Sure, things are tough in the lumber

industry and tough in the mining industry, but the other sectors of

this province are doing fairly well. They also recognize the initiative

of this government in diversifying our sales away from the United

States in the lumber industry. Maybe they don't realize over there that

British Columbia is now selling lumber in Holland. There are more sales

in the United Kingdom and a great number of sales to Italy and other

European communities. We're selling lumber to Japan. We've worked with

the Japanese housing construction industry and they're now building

houses, thanks to the initiative of this government in cooperation with

the Council of Forest Industries. We are selling a lot of lumber to New

Zealand, Australia and the Middle East because of the initiative of

this government. We're not totally dependent now on the United States.

If you look at the figures over the last five years you'll see that the

percentage of external sales to the United States has gone down, and

that our sales in the international marketplace have increased. Our

lumber industry today is not in as bad shape as it could have been,

because we diversified. That is just another of the initiatives this

government has taken.

With regard to the British Columbia

Development Corporation, of course they administer other loans besides

the LILA program. It might be interesting to put some figures on the

record so that we can advise our small business community that it's not

only the low-interest loan; the British Columbia Development

Corporation has other loans as well which they have been administering

over the last six years. These are active loans, a number of them paid

off: 13 percent of the loans they have put out into the business

community, or 31, are between zero and $50,000; 32 percent, or 76, are

between S50,000 and $100,000; 31 percent are between $100,000 and

S150,000; 15 percent are between $250,000 and $500,000; 5 percent,

$500,000 to $1 million; and 4 percent are over $1 million.

The

Development Corporation, in their regular loan program to assist the

business community, has a wide variation of the total segment of our

industry out there. It is not aimed particularly at the large

industries, not aimed particularly at the small industries, but has a

very balanced portfolio. Also, the development business finance

division of the corporation has acted as a lending institution, and

operates on business principles. Its primary objective, of course, is

to improve productivity and employment in British Columbia by

encouraging other businesses, primarily manufacturers and processors,

to expand and increase their efficiency through the purchase of such

fixed assets as equipment, building and land. They have done an

excellent job out there in the community. They work in great

cooperation with the existing banking system. with the existing

financial institutions, and, of course, with the federal government's

programs for the business community. I just have to think that if the

rules of the banking system were such that it was in there doing its

job, we wouldn't need all of these programs — government wouldn't need

all of these programs. Ottawa sets the rules for the banking system and

then comes in behind it with another bunch of programs. No wonder the

small businessman sometimes gets confused, and that's why we make the

rules of our programs as simple as possible.

The Development

Corporation also has a number of active LILA loans in existence. For

instance, 20 percent of their LILA loans are between zero and $50,000,

34 percent are between S50,000 and $100,000, and 46 percent are between

S100,000 and $250,000. They have 335 active LILA loans at the present

time.

It's also interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note where

these loans are going. For instance, in the food and beverage sector

they have seven loans out, but have either created or preserved about

232 jobs. In the wood products sector, which is our largest industry in

British Columbia, they have 13 loans, creating or preserving 99 jobs.

In printing and allied industries there are 15 loans, creating or

preserving 66 jobs. This is just for last year — the fiscal period

ending March 31, 1982. Here's an interesting one in the metal products

industry. This is very important, because the metal products industry

will be doing a great deal of fabrication for our coal-mining industry,

not only in the southeast but also in the northeast. Because of the

enlargement of our coal-mining industry, a lot of these manufacturing

facilities were not able to manufacture or fabricate supplies and

services for the smaller mining industry in the southeast. My

department is working with the coal industry, and with these

manufacturers and fabricators. Of course, a lot of them will now be

taking advantage of the expansion in the coal-mining industry. A lot of

them will be doing fabricating and actual manufacturing of parts and

pieces which will be used in the coal mining industry. A lot of them

will be retooling, and a lot of them will be able to take advantage of

this program to expand and create jobs. That, of course, is one of the

great spinoffs from the northeast coal development.

[ Page 9330 ]

The

other day I was talking to a small fabricator who landed a $450,000

contract to manufacture bulldozer blades. They used to be brought in

from the United States or eastern Canada. This small manufacturer will

now be actually manufacturing those bulldozer blades. Hopefully,

because he landed this one small contract, the coal-mines in the area

will recognize his ability, and those bulldozer blades, which make up a

large portion of the costs of mining coal, will be manufactured right

here in the province of British Columbia. That's just one of the other

benefits being derived in our business community. There are literally

thousands of small business people in the province who have benefited

from being awarded small contracts on this massive project.

I say, last year the Development Corporation had 34 loans out in the

metal products industry, and either created or preserved 137 jobs. In

transportation equipment four loans preserved or created 41 jobs.

Here's an interesting one — electrical apparatus and supplies: six

loans, but 42 jobs. These may sound like not very much, but this is the

type of thing that we have been doing through my department in

cooperation with the British Columbia Development Corporation during

the last six years. Scientific and professional apparatus. This is

interesting, because this would be considered high technology — seven

loans and 35 new jobs. Aircraft and aircraft maintenance parts, two

loans and 112 jobs. Building products, nine loans, 39 jobs. Plastic

products, four loans, 20 jobs. Miscellaneous manufacturing, 12 loans,

65 jobs. Clothing and allied industries, three loans, 22 jobs. In other

words, last year the loans that I have talked about put out by the

Development Corporation have either created or preserved 948 jobs. That

certainly is low profile. That's the type of thing that we are doing,

creating or preserving jobs in British Columbia.

I sometimes

feel, Mr. Speaker, that the general population of British Columbia

actually doesn't realize that we have a tremendous amount of secondary

manufacturing in this province. We employ four times as many people in

the manufacturing sector as we do in what you'd call the primary

industry. We have a good, healthy secondary manufacturing industry.

Something came to my attention just recently — as a matter of fact,

very recently. Last Friday I was opening the great new Microtel Pacific

Research Centre at Simon Fraser University. I have to recall that when

B.C. Tel were taking over Automatic Electric and Lenkurt, Mr. Gary

Lauk, the then Economic Development critic, chastized that takeover and

said all kinds of bad things about it. Yet, Mr. Speaker, as a result of

that we now have a very healthy high technology electronic

manufacturing industry in British Columbia. The member for Vancouver

Centre, who goes around chastising banks, almost put the run on the

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and the same type of thing happened

when he mouthed off about what was happening when B.C. Tel tried to

bring those high technology companies back to British Columbia and

establish them here. I just want to give you some facts, Mr. Speaker,

because it's very interesting.

People of this province do

not understand that we have a very healthy, high technology

manufacturing industry. The electronics industry in British Columbia

has showed a rapid rate of growth in recent years, and has been little

affected by the recent downturn in the economy. In other words, high

technology industries have maintained their employment and actually

have been growing. They are the industries of the future. That is why

this government, in doing our forward planning for the economy of this

province, recognized from the beginning that it was in the high

technology field that our growth was going to happen. We wanted to

develop high technology industries. That's why this little ministry,

working with the minister of science and technology, got together and

formed the research

part in conjunction with the universities. That's

why we were able to go out last Friday afternoon and open a $10 million

facility for research and development of the electronics industry here

in British Columbia — simply because of the planning done by this

government.

The opposition are not interested in that. They

have yacked all session about the economy. The opposition have one

member in the Legislature. The socialist leader of the opposition goes

around yacking about the economy. He could be in this House this

afternoon learning something about what is happening in this great

province. Where are the socialists today, when we are discussing the

small business community? Oh, Mr. Speaker, it makes my heart sorrow to

see that they're not interested. They're not interested in working for

the good of British Columbia. The socialists opposite are not

interested in working for the good of the province. All they're

interested in is politics, politics — negative, negative, harping,

harping critics! That's all we hear from the socialists. When the

debate comes to the floor of the Legislature, where are they? Where are

the socialists, Mr. Speaker? They're all gone! They run and hide behind

their telephone books. That's where they are this afternoon. They're

not interested in learning the facts about the economy of this great

province.

MR. LEA: They're on the phone, getting orders from Moscow.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker.... There's that little member for

Prince Rupert, mouthing off again! He has a great deal to say sometimes

in the Legislature. He gets up and he talks about philosophy, and he

hedges around about northeast coal. He comes out and says: "Oh, the

government should be buying an interest in northeast coal. That's why

we're against it." He wants to take the taxpayers' money and put it in

the coal mines. We have a situation here today.... I don't know where

they'd get the money from in these tough times. They'd probably tax the

people or borrow against the future of our young people, go into debt —

so that the young people would have to pay and pay, like we're paying

for what Ottawa has done in the past. That's probably what they'd do so

that they could say, "We bought into northeast coal."

When

they were government, they didn't create one single thing. They went

out and bought a bunch of companies that were on the verge of

bankruptcy, and that probably should have gone that way anyway. That's

all they did. And what did they start? They started a little processing

plant that cost the taxpayers of this province $10 million. What did

they create that was new? Absolutely nothing. Oh yes, they did; they

opened a plant to manufacture railway cars. They put it in the wrong

place and the overruns were almost 100 percent. It was supposed to cost

$4 million, but it cost $8 million. Sure, we closed it down. If we

hadn't, today every British Columbian could have had his own railcar

right in his own backyard. That's how many there would have been. They

wouldn't have been competitively priced; they would have cost 25 to 50

percent more than for the same railway car in eastern Canada or

somewhere else.

[ Page 9331 ]

the meantime, as I've said, with just one little program we have

created literally 300 to 700 percent more jobs than were created by

that disastrous railcar plant, which never would have been efficient.

If we had kept it open, every British Columbian would either have had

his own boxcar, or there wouldn't have been room on the tracks of the

British Columbia Railway for anything else but newly manufactured

boxcars. We wouldn't have been able to run the trains; they'd have been

backed up clear to Prince George.

I was talking about the

high-technology industries we have helped through our programs in the

past. Today in British Columbia approximately 100 companies are

involved in the manufacture of high-technology apparatus. Those have

been created since the Social Credit came to power in late December

1975. I remember it well — putting up signs in a snowbank. It was a

desperation move by the then government to try to win a winter

election. Yet they yack about one little car manufacturing plant. Today

in the province of British Columbia 100 companies are involved in

high-technology parts manufacturing, with sales of $350 million in

1981. How many are employed? Not the 50 or 60 employed in the only

thing the socialists ever created in this province, the railcar

manufacturing plant.... Oh, I'm sorry; Swan Valley Foods, which cost

the taxpayers $12 million. How many people are employed in these

high-technology industries that have been brought in by the initiatives

of this government in the past six years? One hundred companies, with

sales of $350 million in 1981 — the latest year probably show a lot

more and employing 3,500 people. How many did this little railway car

plant employ? Forty. As I said, had we kept it open, every British

Columbian would have his own boxcar in the backyard.

I want

you to understand what I'm saying. Because of the initiatives of this

government, because of the programs of the British Columbia Development

Corporation and my ministry to help small high-technology manufacturing

industries today, there are more than 100 companies in the province,

with sales of $350 million in 1981, and employing 3,500 people. What

else is significant about this? Sixty percent of their sales are

outside the province of British Columbia. The opposition would have you

believe that all we do is chop down trees and draw water out of the

lake. We have a healthy, high-technology manufacturing industry in this

province, due to the initiatives of this government selling into the

international market; some of our companies competing against the great

giants in the United States, some of them competing against the great

giants in Europe, and, yes indeed, some of them competing against the

Japanese in the electronics high-technology industry. That's little old

British Columbia, mainly because of the initiatives of the government,

and does the opposition give a dam? There isn't one of them in the

Legislature.... Oh, yes, there is. I'm sorry. They sent the period in

from Esquimalt; he wouldn't know what a high technology industry was if

he fell over it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once, again, order, please. All members are reminded not to make personal allusions against other members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wasn't alluding to him personally. I was alluding to his policies. Sorry, I do withdraw.

Now

we get down to British Columbia's small business development fund of

$170 million. The objective is to enhance the economic base of the

province of British Columbia through the provision of fixed interest —

and I want a heavy emphasis on the fixed — loans at economically

attractive rates to businesses in key economic sectors which wish to

modernize, expand, establish new facilities or improve their working

capital positions to meet the challenges of the marketplace. This $170

million will be provided over two years, to provide affordable loans

for eligible businesses. This is a new program which would be

implemented at no cost to the B.C. taxpayer. The program will be

administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation, as

trustee of a fund provided by the province of British Columbia.

want to outline for you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, and for the one

single socialist opposition member that is in the House.... And I want

to remind you that the socialists, oh, they've been yacking, yacking,

yacking for weeks and months about the economy. They talk about their

great what is it...?

MR. MITCHELL: Twenty-six point program.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We analyzed that 26-point program. It wouldn't create one job. It's nothing but a bunch of political fluff.

Here I am, Mr. Speaker, talking about the economy, and where is the Leader

of the Opposition? Where is the economic development critic? Where are they?

They're not interested in anything but pure old politics; that's all

they're interested in. They're not interested in the working people

of the province or in the long-term viability of the economy of this province.

All they're interested in is politics and getting in bed with the labour

union leaders of this province. They're not interested in the working man,

No, they're not interested in men, women and children, and the long-term

security automatically that comes with a Social Credit government Social Credit

government: long-term security.

Back

to the program. The program will be administered by the British

Columbia Development Corporation, but there's an eligibility criterion.

We're not going to be like the socialists were when they ran BCDC.

"Come in, and if you ve got an NDP card you get a loan." No, we have

eligibility. We had to write off literally tens of thousands of loans

from British Columbia Development Corporation which the socialists put

out after they established it. It didn't matter whether you were

economically viable or not; it depended on whether you were socialist

or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were bad debts.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Certainly. If you were a socialist you got a loan. We have some

criteria. The record speaks for itself. The record of repayment of

loans through the Development Corporation is fantastically good,

because we put them out on sound business principles. We're not wasting

and giving away the taxpayers' money. As I outlined just a few moments

ago, were creating jobs — the proof of the pudding is right there.

Now

I want to talk about the eligibility. The applicant's business must be

engaged principally in either manufacturing, processing, high

technology — one of the industries that I talked about a moment ago —

or resource-related transportation. The proceeds of the loan must be

used for plant modernization, expansion, the establishment of a new

production facility which will create new economic activity, and

[ Page 9332 ]

benefits

for the province of British Columbia, or replenishment of working

capital. Replenishment of working capital is a new twist, one which I'm

sure many companies will take advantage of. But, again, they must be a

viable enterprise. We're not going to establish working capital for a

business that is not viable or would not be viable. So it is not a

giveaway program, but it will help a lot of industry and small business

in this province.

Businesses receiving assistance under this

program must be able to demonstrate strong management, growth

potential, job creation or preservation, and financial need; that

company resources have been depleted by current economic conditions,

and that the enterprise has continuing viability in a more normal

environment. Priority will be given to British Columbia-owned and

-operated firms which have at least 75 percent of their assets and

employees in the province. All areas of British Columbia will be

eligible. They must have security. If available, the security will

consist of a mortgage or realty debentures secured by fixed assets

owned by the company and guarantees of principal shareholders.

The

average loan is expected to be in the range of $100,000 to $200,000,

and provisions will exist in some cases for a maximum of up to $1

million. The interest rate is initially 3.5 percent per annum, payable

monthly. The interest rate is fixed for the term of the loan. The terms

of the loan shall be three years, and principal payments will be

tailored to meet the needs of the company, so that we have some

flexibility.

That end of the program will be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation.

just want to say that my ministry has recently been instrumental in

re-establishing the Electronic Manufacturers Association of British

Columbia, which now has 60 member companies and certainly is an

important aspect of our local industry activity. I'm very disappointed

that the socialists opposite are not really interested in what I have

to say today. All they're interested in is politics. They are certainly

not interested in the business community, because they don't understand

it in the first place.

You hear the socialists opposite from

time to time saying that the great megaprojects are a tremendous drain

on the budget of the province of British Columbia. They know full well

that less than 4 percent of our total budget this year is going into

such great projects as northeast coal, B.C. Place and ALRT, but they

continually, for some unknown political reason, go around this province

trying to mislead the people of this province into thinking that money

from health and education is being diverted away from those social

services into items like northeast coal and other great projects. Yet

they say they are interested in the economy of this province. Have they

told us what they would do? No, they are void of all ideas. They don't

stay in the Legislature when we are discussing....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

They don't stay in the province of British Columbia; they don't stay in

their seats in the Legislature when we are devoting time and energy to

discussing the economy. They yacked all last session about the economy,

and yet what happened? My estimates came up and sailed through the

House in three and a half hours, and right after that they said: "Oh,

we want to discuss the economy." Well, whose portfolio do you think you

discuss the economy under? I'm here today to discuss the economy. I'm

here today to discuss all aspects of the economy. I'm here today to

discuss the aspects of this great bill that I am bringing into the

Legislature, and where are the opposition, Mr. Speaker? Where are they?

All they do is yack, yack, yack.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

There's another armchair specialist sitting down there. He's never

earned a day's wages in his life. He's never worked a day in his life,

Mr. Speaker, and yet he stands around here and tries to tell us how to

run the economy of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The member for Victoria seeks the floor.

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, to correct a statement by the minister. He asks

why so few members of the Legislature are here. Workers' Compensation

Board regulations forbid being within such close range to

hearing-damaging effects, like this foghorn from South Peace River.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development continues on the bill. Please avoid making

personal reference to another member of the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw any personal reference to that

member for Vancouver Centre, who can only talk — yack, yack, yack — and

never listens. Yack, yack, yack, that's all he does, and never a

sensible statement emanated from his mouth in his life. He never

listens to the facts, because all he is interested in is politics.

Mr.

Speaker, this is going to be a great deal of assistance to the small

business community in this province. We're not draining the coffers;

we're going to allow British Columbians to participate in the economy

of this province, to have a little tax break. We asked the socialists

down in Ottawa to go along with us. But no, they're too busy running

the oil companies out of the country, too busy telling investment that

we need in this province not to come here, through their Foreign

Investment Review Act. I don't know what the socialists down there

think about, and I don't know what the socialists opposite think about,

but we need investment capital in this province. What we're trying to

do is create a climate for the small business community; but we need

those big projects, we need that foreign investment. The Leader of the

Opposition stood on the floor of this Legislature, I think it was about

four years ago, and chastized me for allowing foreign money to come

into this province. He said: "We don't want foreign investment." I'll

tell you, the socialists over there have a great way of attacking the

business community, of attacking those who make a profit. You don't

hear them today. They've changed, haven't they, but they don't know

what to do.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that during the

past five years some of the programs which we are continuing and

enlarging have been very excellent programs. We want to continue.... As

I said not long ago, when I announced that we were going to push ahead,

and made a commitment on behalf of this government to develop the

northwest

section of the province, we're making a commitment to economic

[ Page 9333 ]

stability.

As that happens, there will be new opportunities for our food

processors. There will be new opportunities for those in the service

sector. There will be new opportunities for small bakeries. There will

be new opportunities for small drugstores. There will be new

opportunities for grocery stores. All of that is development. Call them

megaprojects if you want to, but all of that great development will

take place in the next decade. In the northwest part of this province

there will be development of minerals and other resources which are

needed by the world, and development of processing facilities to

process those metals here in British Columbia. All of that is economic

development. All of that growth will create opportunities for the

existing small business community, and indeed, for the expansion of the

small business community.

The Leader of the Opposition goes

around yacking about some contracts that have gone to firms outside

British Columbia and outside Canada on the northeast coal project. We

specifically let out small contracts on that program so that small

contractors — small businesses — were able to have the opportunity to

bid. But what did the Leader of the Opposition do when he was going to

build a refinery in British Columbia a few years ago? He went to London

and hired people to draw up the specs for a refinery. Yet he goes

around talking about it all staying in British Columbia. You know, you

can hardly believe a word that the socialists say any more, Mr.

Speaker, because they have endeavoured to mislead us and the people of

British Columbia so many times.

Mr. Speaker, we have a good

bill; it's going to do a lot for the small business community in

British Columbia. I hope that the tremendous growth and employment that

is taking place in our shipyards today, providing opportunities for the

steel fabricators in the lower mainland....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No interruptions, please. The hon. minister is speaking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, we don't seem to realize that the shipbuilding industry in

British Columbia today is probably employing more people than it has

ever employed in its history. We are selling, for instance, tuna boats

to Mexico, fishboats to the Philippines, and we're building barges for

Peru — keeping people gainfully employed in this province. A lot of it

is the result of the work that has been done by my ministry in helping

some of these companies get into the international marketplace.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This

is a good bill. I know that the opposition will stand up and speak

against the bill, and they'll yack and yack. But when it comes to the

vote, they'll do the same as they do all the time: they'll make a 100

percent turnaround and vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in moving second reading of this great bill.

MR. LEA: I guess the polls have been counted.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to address my remarks to the bill and some of the

comments made by the minister in his introduction when moving the bill.

First

of all, I'd like to point out the great lack of programming ability

that they've shown in this bill. The government has tried to leave the

impression that somehow or other this piece of legislation is designed

to meet the needs of the small business community in its entirety.

They're trying to leave the impression that people in the small

business community who are in the service industry — such as restaurant

owners, hotels, garages, transportation not necessarily involved in

resource transportation — have access to some of these moneys. That's

not true. The service industry is absolutely left out of this piece of

legislation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Would you put it in?

MR. LEA: Yes, I would put the service industry in.

would like to point out a number of things about this bill that the

minister has brought up. He says it's not a Big Daddy government bill.

When the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and I travelled this

province, we spoke to a great many business people individually, and to

over a hundred groups of business people. Each one of those business

communities, each one of those individuals whom we spoke to said: "We

do not want grants. We want decent interest rates and a tax structure

that would be conducive to the economy." This bill does exactly the

opposite. No matter how you slice it, a no-interest forgivable loan is

a grant. The business community has asked specifically not to have this

approach, yet here we are, discussing exactly that approach.

MR. LAUK: It's welfare.

MR. LEA: No, it's not welfare, but it is a policy that the business community itself has made a point of not asking for.

For instance, if you look at the New Democratic program, "Let's Get

to Work, " you'll find that in these areas covered by this bill — that

is, manufacturing and processing, high technology — you'll find that our

policy is one of tax incentives. In other words, business people in the community

who want to do research and development, or do some manufacturing and processing

and get into high technology, can make the decision on their own. It's their

decision; they make it or break it on their own decision. But if they make it,

there is a tax incentive for them. Under this there's is a grant or a low interest

loan, and he says it's not a Big Daddy bill? Wouldn't it be better to

allow the business people in this province to make up their own minds as to

when they want to go into business and what they want to do, as opposed to having

to go to government and say, "We'd like to do this, " or "We'd

like to do that"? And the government would say, " You can do it," or "You can't do it," according to the whims of whom?

Business people will be going to government and BCDC, and talking to an economist

3, and a clerk 4, and the economist 3 and the clerk 4 are going to decide who

gets the grant or who gets the loan. That's who will decide.

it is actually Big Daddy Social Credit government and the bureaucracy

that are going to decide whether or not a person should expand a

business; whether or not they should go into manufacturing, into

processing; whether they should go into high technology or whether they

want to go into resource-related transportation industries. They're

going to have to go to the government and ask, "Is it all right?" If

you agree, Mr. Government, then we can do it because then there's some

funding available. But if you don't agree, clerk 4 and economist 3,

then we're out of luck."

[ Page 9334 ]

just don't believe that a Social Credit government.... Actually, a

Social Credit government would not bring in this bill; only a coalition

would. A self-respecting Social Credit government would not take this

approach. First of all, a Social Credit government, and a New

Democratic government would not leave out the service industry. As the

member for Nanaimo and myself travelled the province on our

fact-finding mission, we found that the people who need help more than

any other sector of the economy are in the service industry.

The

minister said he was getting all kinds of calls. Well, I got a call too

— more than one. A small business person in my riding phoned me

yesterday. He had heard my remarks on radio and had heard the release

from the government. He owns a small shoe-store, and he's in financial

trouble. As far as I know, he has been a lifelong supporter of Social

Credit. He said: "Graham, is there any help for me in this bill?" The

answer is no. He's in a service industry, and this bill in no way is

designed to help the person who owns a shoe-store.

MR. SEGARTY: We'll help him out: we'll all buy some shoes.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, it may be a joke to the member for Kootenay, but a small

business person in my riding is in financial trouble, he's looking to

this bill for help, and he won't get it. It's no joke to me.

The

part that I hate about this legislation is not embodied in the

legislation itself. It is the sham that this government is trying to

pull on the people of this province, the small business community.

They're trying to tell the small business community that there is help

for them, and there isn't. If any member of the Social Credit caucus,

either cabinet or back bench, will get on his or her feet and tell me

that there's anything in this bill for any business related to the

service industry, I'll be glad to hear it.

MR. RITCHIE: We'll be doing that.

MR. LEA: Then you'd be lying; and you may do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. LEA: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is groaning....

HON. MR. GARDOM: At your level of debate.

MR. LEA: Oh, my level of debate! My level of debate is that there is not one red cent in this bill for anyone in the service industry.

MR. RITCHIE: Red cents don't help people.

MR. LEA:

Neither does a stench, and it's a stench to actually let the small

business community believe that there's some aid for them in this piece

of legislation when there isn't any. The minister says to me across the

floor: "Would you put in the service industry?" I say yes, I would. I

will further say that when we get to the committee stage those members

are going to have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to put in the

service industry. You'll have the opportunity over there to stand up

and be counted, whether you want to help the small businesses in your

community. You're going to have to decide whether a small business

going down the tube because of the bad economy in Cranbrook gets some

aid from this bill. In Central Fraser Valley the member is going to

have to decide.

MR. RITCHIE: No problem.

MR. LEA: No problem if you vote for my amendment.

Mr.

Speaker, you can tell they're a little nervous, can't you? They know

that when the small business community finds out that this government

is putting one over on them, or trying to, they're going to be darned

angry.

Along with the legislation that was entered in the

House, other pamphlets and information were put out at the same time.

The government would have us believe that by putting $30 million into

the economy they're going to produce 5,500 direct jobs. When the

minister is closing debate I'd like to have a bit more detail on that,

because I don't believe any economist in this province or any other

state will go along with those figures. As a matter of fact, when you

take a look at our present economy, you'll find that the non-resource

based secondary manufacturing area in B.C. accounts for only 4.6

percent of the gross provincial product and 4.5 percent of employment.

This bill is aimed mainly at that sector.

I would like to

talk a bit about the reason any government in British Columbia would

have to look at giving a helping hand to the small business community.

Why are we in Canada in a recession? The government tells us it's

because of the policies of the federal Liberal government, which they

say is socialist oriented, like ourselves, and that this has brought

chaos and ruin to the British Columbia economy, along with the rest of

Canada. If that's true, then I have to ask why the Social Credit

government, in their 1978 position paper on economic development, go

along with the federal Liberal policy on economics.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We didn't.

MR. LEA:

Oh, but they did. In their 1978 paper to the federal government, over

the signature of the Premier, W.R. Bennett, it said: "We agree with the

policy of the Bank of Canada on high interest rates." They said we had

runaway inflation. In order to curb inflation the Social Credit

government said: "We agree with the policy and direction of the Bank of

tight money and high interest rates? What are they hoping to do that

would bring down the inflation rate?

MR. COCKE: Put people out of work.

MR. LEA:

Exactly. That's what happened. If you put up the interest rate and put

in tight money policies, which this government recommended to the

federal government in 1978, it's designed to do some things. First of

all, it's designed to create unemployment, as a dampening effect on the

economy in an attempt to bring down inflation.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

The minister says: "You can't sell that." Has he ever read anything

about economics? If you put up high interest rates, along with other

policies which they also

[ Page 9335 ]

agreed with — in the paper, it's called gradual monetarism....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let's talk about the National Energy Program. You were in support of that.

MR. LEA:

Let's just talk about what you and your government supported, MR.

Minister. In 1978 you and your government supported the government of

Canada and the Bank of Canada on high interest rates and tight money.

That policy is designed to create unemployment. It's designed to put

marginal business out of business. It's designed to create unemployment

by doing that. Then, when we get high unemployment, they go around and

ask the taxpayers to bail them out. Do you hear them talking about the

banks? The banks in this country also went along with the Bank of

monetarist, tight money policy.

This government can say

anything it wants, but it is in print, over the signature of the

agree with your policy. Carry on."

Interjections.

MR. LEA: It won't wash, eh?

When

the minister gets up I'd ask him to deny that his government in their

1978 paper to the federal government did not say what I said it said.

You won't do that, Mr. Minister, will you? You won't do it because this

government, along with Ronald Reagan and Mr. Bouey, believed that the

way to curb inflation is by high interest rates and tight money, to

create unemployment and put businesses out of business, creating more

unemployment.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, the hon. "Barney Rubble" is at it again.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Name-calling isn't the answer.

MR. LEA: That's a compliment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you for restraint or against it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the biggest giveaway artist the province has ever known. He wanted to give everything to Ottawa.

MR. LEA:

Why is it that when the printed word, signed by the Premier of this

province to the federal government, is presented to them as a fact —

which it is — they get all squirmy and squiggly and say, "Oh, it'll

never wash"? Well, I'll tell you one thing it did. It washed away good

times — the economics of Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bouey, Mr. MacEachen and this

Social Credit government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: All the socialists over there are Ottawa supporters.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it would be very difficult to carry on a debate if the minister were not in the chamber.

would ask members to remember that they have an opportunity to take

their place in debate at the proper time. At this time the member for

Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I

know that the Social Credit members have been told by their leader to

carry this debate on all day. because they've been having meetings

going over their latest polling, and they are now deciding — by polling

— whether or not it is time for them to go to the electorate. I guess

they've had their meeting, because the....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just ask the member for Prince Rupert

to stick to the principle of the bill, the same as I had to.

MR. SPEAKER: You ask a lot, hon. member.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, there isn't really very much more you can say. A policy of

Social Credit, articulated in their 1978 paper, is one of the things

that has led us into the dire straits that we are in economically at

this moment. They can't deny it. It's true, it's fact. It's on record.

is also a fact that there is not one cent of help for the service

community, for that small business person who is not manufacturing, not

processing and not in transportation in a resource way — absolutely no

help.

I mention in passing that I could have brought a

privilege motion in today. I'm not going to do that, but I am going to

mention the circumstances of what, I believe, could have been a

privilege motion. This bill was brought into the House yesterday at

9:30 in the morning. The bill is in second reading, and even if every

Social Credit member voted for it and it went through this House, it

couldn't possibly be done before tomorrow. Yet this morning in the Vancouver Province

there is an ad outlining the contents of this bill, and saying to the

people of this province that it is already a fact that it's a program.

Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that that would be a very legitimate

point of privilege for this House. As a matter of fact, you will recall

that there were questions surrounding the resignation of the federal

Minister of Finance for exactly the same thing.

We know that

it is all part of the election package. What they are hoping is that

the election will be over before the small business community finds out

that there is no help for them in this piece of legislation. They're

hoping that that little operator of a hamburger stand that I visited

with in Kimberley, who is having a lot of problems and who could use

some of this money — not as a handout, but as some aid, a helping hand

to get that small business person through this current recession.... He

is purely out of luck. Visiting in a shopping mall in Cranbrook,

talking to those business people who are in dire need of some

assistance.... There is nothing in this bill for them, nor for the shoe

store in Prince Rupert. In fact, there isn't anything in this bill that

will stop the soaring bankruptcy rate and receivership rate in this

province. There is no help. It's a sham. Worse than that, it's an

election sham.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You won't vote for it.

[ Page 9336 ]

MR. LEA:

The minister says: "You won't vote for it." There is some help in this

bill for people in the processing industry, in the manufacturing

industry and in resource related transportation industries. There's

some help in here for those industries, so for us not to vote for this

bill would be for us to turn our back on the people in this province

who are in these industries. We are not turning our back on them. It's

only the government that is turning its back on everybody else.

The

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), when talking

about another program, said people don't want a handout, they want a

helping hand. I agree with that. Do you know who told me that more than

anybody else? The small business community, when we travelled around

the province. They said: "We don't want a handout. What we want is a

helping hand through these very bad times." Yet for the individual in

society, the Socreds gave them a helping hand, but no handout. When it

comes to grants to the business community, there are some handouts in

here, and very little of a helping hand. If this government is only

prepared to give handouts to the small business community — if that's

all they're prepared to do — this party isn't going to hold it up. I

think we should put it on the table and have everybody know exactly

what's going on. A no-interest forgivable loan is a grant, pure and

simple. It isn't what the small business community asked for either; it

isn't what we've asked for. In our program we have a tax incentive

program for this. That's what we have. We believe in letting

individuals make up their minds about when they want to go into

business, how they want to go into business, and whether they meet the

criteria of the tax incentive system. It's up to them. We didn't Big

Brother them like this government, and say: "If you want some money,

come and see us. We'll decide whether you are able to be in the

business world." That's up to the person who wants to be an

entrepreneur.

The service industry is left out. During

second reading of this bill, I want to make that clear. In committee

stage the government is going to have an opportunity, because we're

going to amend this bill, to allow the service industry also to be part

of it. The government will, at that point — and the government

backbenchers as well — have the opportunity to vote to let the service

industry in or to keep them out. It's going to be on their conscience

what they do. Believe me, they're not going to get through this coming

election without the small business community finding out that they've

been left out. I watched the news last night, and I'm sure not blaming

the news people, because I missed it, too, when first reading it. I

missed that the service industry was left out altogether. Last night,

watching the news, and listening to the news, it was obvious to me that

the media had missed it also. What can you do in five minutes of

research? After taking a longer look at this bill I now know that

that's the case.

It's not only the small business community

that was duped by this piece of legislation; the media were, and I was,

at first. I just hope that the media will now go out, as they did last

night, about this program and tell them that they're not eligible,

because they aren't. Mr. Speaker, as you know, there are businesses in

Delta that need some help. They don't qualify; they're not eligible for

the program. The bowling alley — there isn't one business in Delta in

the service industry that can get a cent out of here, and they're going

to be asking you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what your answer is going

to be. I know that if you were able to vote in these proceedings you'd

want the service industry in. I don't know about the members of the

government and the backbenchers, but they're going to have the

opportunity to stand up and be counted, and to allow the people in this

province who need the help the most today in. They can vote them in, or

they can vote them out. This opposition is going to give them the

opportunity to vote on that issue. I would like to get to the committee

stage so that we can see how they are going to vote.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, it's so interesting to hear the convoluted argument from

the member for Prince Rupert. I think he has just typified their

standard approach to any bill that comes before this House. If any bill

comes before this House that will help any segment, or some segment, or

a major segment, of the people of this province, of the community, they

tell us that they're going to support it because it will help some

people. Then they spend all of their time and all of their arguments in

their typical negative fashion, attacking one segment or some group

that the bill does not serve.

So we have that member

making the statement that it's a sham because it doesn't do something

for everybody. At the same time, out of the other side of his mouth he

says: "We're going to support this bill because it does something for a

bunch of people in this province." Now what is it that they really

want? That any one bill is going to help every segment.... So for

partisan purposes, I imagine, he'll move an amendment to try and find

one segment of society that it does not help, and try to capitalize on

that. I think the people of this province are a little smarter than

that. I think they can recognize that this bill.... In my previous

bill, when they spoke against it they condemned it because it didn't

help some groups, and then they all stood up and voted in favour of it

because they said it would help some people in the province. Certainly

not every program will help everybody. Talk about a sham, their

promises to help small business people. Oh, they are ever on the side

of the small business people! What do you think the small business

community depends on? It depends on the major projects in this economy.

talks about tax incentives. Let me tell you about the tax incentives

that they provided to the mining industry when they were in a position

to provide such tax incentives. Now they can promise them, but when

they were in a position to provide those tax incentives, did they ever

do a job on the mining industry! And did they ever do a job on the oil

and gas industry in my part of the province! Oh, yes, there were tax

incentives there — incentives for people to leave the province. That's

what the incentives were. Their mining incentives, their tax

incentives, were for the Yukon. They certainly weren't for British

Columbia. Their oil and gas industry incentives were for other parts of

the world, and other parts of the country. They certainly had nothing

to do with helping the people of British Columbia. How dare they stand

up and talk about helping the small business community and the small

businessmen, when they remove the business that these people exist on?

For

instance, the oil and gas industry. They support the national energy

program. They drive out the oil and gas industry, the major companies

which do the drilling. When they drive them out, they destroy by the

hundreds the small businessmen and small service companies, that depend

on those big oil companies to develop the oil and gas industry.

[ Page 9337 ]

And

then they say, "we are here to help the small businessmen." It's great

to help the small businessmen after your major policies have been to

drive them out of business. When they were in a position to provide

these tax incentives that they promise now, they virtually destroyed

the economy of this province by their negative tax incentives and their

attack on the big corporations and the big businesses. What they forget

is that every one of those service industries in my area depended on

those big oil companies to drill, to sell, to market the gas and oil,

and they destroyed them. You can't help a small businessman who has no

business to carry on.

There's no use in them making these

fantastic promises about helping the small business community. Talk

about a sham, those promises. And now again, just last year when the

national energy program was touted by the federal Liberals. When that

program wreaked havoc on the land, they started trying to link us with

the federal Liberals. But when that national energy program was

announced, they were fully supportive of it. They were fully supportive

of the nationalization and confiscation that the national energy

program implied. They were fully supportive of the taxing-through

pricing system on gas in order to allow the federal government to try

replacing these outside investors who were quite willing to put money

into the land. And so they said, "No, let's take it out of the pockets

of our own people." Yes, they took it out of the pockets of our own

people, and what did they put in? Two hundred people or something in

Calgary, just to administer the funds that they would hand out.

Taxpayers funds; funds that we paid at the gas pumps, funds that

destroyed the oil and gas industry.

I so well remember their leader....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Which one?

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

The one that goes by the title of Leader of the Opposition. He went to

the B.C. Federation of Labour convention and said: "The only thing

wrong with the national energy program is that it's not going far

enough and it's not going fast enough." His suggestion was 45 percent

to the federal government, 45 percent to the provincial government and

10 percent to the industry. What is 45 percent worth when you've driven

the industry out? Forty-five percent of nothing doesn't amount to very

much. They supported that. And then when that program really destroyed

the economy of this province, what do we have? They try in this House

and elsewhere to link us with the federal Liberals. This province

fought against that national energy program. My people fought against

it, this government fought against it; but they were fully supportive

of it at all times. Then they turn around and say they help the small

business community. For heaven's sake, you can't help somebody who has

no business left, and they've taken away all that business from those

people.

The member for Prince Rupert talks about help for

businessmen in his community. I wonder what all the development that

has been generated by the northeast coal project has done for Prince

Rupert? When they build that port facility and the rail line there,

that brings business to the small businessmen. Yet he and his party

have done everything possible to discredit that northeast coal project,

to undermine it and destroy it if they possibly can. Then he has the

audacity to stand up in this House, or in public, and say that he is

for the business people in his own riding. The member from Skeena (ML

Howard) said he was against the export of LNG. That is a stimulant to

the oil and gas industry. Then, I suppose, he gets together with the

member for Prince Rupert and says: "Now what we've got to do is tell

the people that we're in favour of helping the businessmen in this

province." But they're against the northeast coal project which is

providing that sort of business. They're against the LNG project and

the pipelines. Then they say: "But we'll provide tax incentives." You

can't possibly benefit from a tax incentive when you've got no business

to do. Then they talk about sham.

We talked about the

restraint program. They fought the restraint program every inch of the

way. They're trying to say that we have followed the federal lead on

the restraint program, I'd like to say that the restraint program was

put in by this government, in this province. We suggested it first of

all, and they were against it. They attacked it. Now that the thing has

caught on and is across this nation, because it's the salvation of this

nation that we're going to have some restraint in government spending

and quit trying to price ourselves out of the market — now that that

has happened, guess what? They have been completely silent on the

restraint program, because they haven't got the nerve to say they were

wrong all along. All along they've supported any efforts by any group

to say: "No, we will not go for restraint: we demand more." When we get

that "more" by some political pressure, what happens when you price

yourself out of the market? You don't have an industry when you don't

have a market. You don't have a market when you can't possibly sell or

compete. Other countries in this world are trying to compete as well.

We have a great deal of building going on — actually an industrial

building boom in Prince Rupert — and that member is saying that this

government has provided no help for his constituents. I wonder what he

says in Prince Rupert. Is he against the coal project there? Is he

against the LNG project there? Or does he go home and say: "I'm trying

to help you"? Then he comes down here and works against all of the

things that are designed to help all those people.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He lives in Tweed City. What are you talking about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought he did visit his own riding every once in a while.

They say the policies of this government have hurt the people and the economy.

How ridiculous! What has hurt this economy is the socialist economics that they

have supported at the federal level. Nationalization programs are destroying

the will of investors to invest. They try to do it by socking it to the people

— by taking it away from the people and screening it through government channels.

That's their answer. When the investors are quite willing to put the money

up, they want to do it the expensive way and the hard way. Oh, yes, they're

supportive of the National Energy Program which is putting taxpayers' money

that we pay at the pumps where we live up into the Beaufort Sea and into all

those places, where even if you got the thing down here it would be so expensive

that you can't possibly compete. A fraction of that money put into the oil

and gas industry right here in the province where we can get access to it, where

we have pipelines, would generate far more jobs, far more revenue for the province

and for this country than all of those projects. They're great stuff, great

spending projects, but what good is it to find gas in the Beaufort Sea when

you can't possibly market it anywhere? We're having a difficult time

marketing the gas that is available at lower prices. But what are we doing?

We're adding taxes. We're adding charges to that gas that we can market

[ Page 9338 ]

from

where it's accessible in order to find and develop gas and oil fields

where you couldn't possibly afford to bring it south where the markets

are. The Eskimos, walruses, seals and the polar bears don't buy and use

very much gas. We need to sell it where people can use it.

They

have gone out of their way, Mr. Speaker, to destroy the major programs

that make the economy work — programs that provide a need for the small

businessman, that provide a need for the service industries in this

province. They've destroyed the goose that lays the golden egg and then

say they're going to find the egg somewhere else. You can't have it

both ways. They can't be condemning and trying to undermine and

discredit all of the programs that are providing a need for the small

business community — need for the people to provide those services.

This

bill is not going to do everything, but it is certainly going to

encourage growth in the small business community, and that growth means

jobs. Those jobs mean people can then afford to live and benefit from

the many amenities we have in this province. This bill will help small

businessmen in a very real way — certainly in quite a different way

than their promises of tax incentives after they have destroyed the

need for their existence. I don't know how they can expect to try to

sell that project, and I don't think the people of this province are

naive enough to buy that.

I indicated that we've come up

with this program, with the housing program, with many programs in this

government, in order to try to help people recover from the damage done

by the federal Liberals with the full support of the socialists, both

here and at the federal level. I guess you could say their support

worked. And how it has cost us! We're paying and will be paying for

many years, when you consider the federal debt that has been incurred

in order to bring about this nationalization and confiscation of the

industries that were well supported by others under the guise of: "We

don't want others to take our resources." Well, as long as the wells

and the land exist in this province we have control over that, we have

control over our forests, and if somebody wants to put up money to

develop them they say that is wrong. Then they say they are trying to

help the small business community. Their philosophy and their policy

has worked, but to the detriment of the people. Local firms have been

hurt by this.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

might even mention that you talk about how they helped small business.

When the federal government decided to restrict the import of Japanese

cars for their purposes, a member on that side of the House stood up

and said: "We support that. We think it's good and necessary." But he

didn't get into the fact that it didn't hurt the Japanese that much. It

certainly didn't hurt the federal government that much. I think one of

the members in favour of that program was driving a Japanese car,

saying: "We've got to buy our own cars." It didn't really help anybody

buy Canadian-made cars. But what it did was this: for that period of

time it hurt the small businessmen, the truckers, the small car

dealers. The big car dealers were maybe not in as difficult a position,

because they had much more stock to deal with. But I know of car

dealers in this province, even in these difficult times, who had made

sales and then couldn't get them because of that federal tactic,

supported by the NDP in this House. Then they say they were in favour

of those small businessmen. I'll tell you, I have had an awful time

trying to convince the small businessmen to whom I have talked that

that was any help to them — the parts people, the car salesmen, the

owners of those small firms. They were hurt by that program, which got

the full support of.... . unless those members don't speak their

policies, but just talk. I'm assuming that when one of their members

stands up and says, "We're in favour of that program, " that is the

policy they espouse. So those people were hurt.

When the oil

and gas industry got hurt — and we go back to that again — they crowed:

"We are certainly hurting those big companies." Nuts, you hurt those

big companies! They just moved to greener pastures. What you hurt were

the service firms, by the hundreds, as I mentioned. The bit companies,

the mud companies, all of these people were hurt. It hurt the road

contractors who build roads into those sites. It hurt the people who

build the sites, the surveyors, the draughtsmen. Those were the people

hurt by that program which they so fully supported.

It hurt

the truckers. Many truckers have lost their trucks, not because of this

government's policies but because of the national energy program

policies which that Leader of the Opposition didn't feel went far

enough. I'll tell you, it went way too far for those people. What about

the bulk dealers? They're in the oil and gas business; they got hurt.

Some firms that had 12 trucks all of a sudden were down to one. With

that went 11 truck-drivers' jobs. Your support of that national energy

program actually created thousands of unemployed in this province. Then

you say we're doing nothing for the unemployed. We're doing everything

we can to undo the damage caused by your support of the national energy

program.

It hurt the tire stores, the welding companies, and

all of those small businessmen, many of them individuals, many

employing three or four people. Those are the people who were hurt by

your view of the major companies as the bad buys. When those companies

move out, it's these little guys who are hurt. These are our people.

Those big guys just go somewhere else where they don't have to face

this socialist philosophy. It not only hurt those people directly

involved, it also hurt.... People had to worry about losing their homes

because they had lost their jobs. So the homebuilders lost, and the

home service trades — the plumbers, electricians. All those firms had

to lay off people, which created unemployment, but it was not by

desire. They wanted to keep operating, but they couldn't when there was

no business. That business was destroyed by your socialist hate of big

industry. What they don't seem to realize is that, by the ripple

effect, that hate hurts- the small business people.

This

bill is not trying to do everything, but somethin