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)

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9345 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Dangerous Health Practices Act (Bill M201). Second reading. (Mr. Mussallem)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9345

Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates and

Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (Bill

M202). Second reading. (Mr.

Leggatt)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9345

An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places (Bill M203). Second reading. (Mrs.

Wallace)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9345

Employee Participation Enhancement Act (Bill M204). Second reading. (Mr. Ritchie)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9345

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act (Subsidiaries Disclosure) Bill M206). Second reading. (Mr. Howard)

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 9345

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

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 9345

Mr. Ritchie –– 9348

Mr. Leggatt –– 9352

Mr. Kempf –– 9356

Mr. Cocke –– 9358

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M205, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, a week ago the government House Leader did the

same thing. But I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that he doesn't

have that prerogative to hop, skip and jump over the items on the order

paper. I draw your attention to standing order 27(1) which says: "All

items standing on the orders of the day, except government orders" —

and that's what we're dealing with now, public bills in the hands of

private members, which are not government orders — "shall be taken up

according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper." The

order paper gives precedence in this case to Bill M201, moved by the

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). Debate on that was adjourned, and I

suggest that's what the government House Leader should be dealing with

— that's what the House should be dealing with. It's in the property of

the House right now as an adjourned debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I would like to speak to that point of order. It's one well taken by

the hon. member for Skeena. It's one of the first points that he has

well taken throughout the session, but it's a very good point. The

reason that I went to Bill M205 is that I thought the hon. member for

Victoria would have liked to be present to debate this bill. But since

he's not here, we're more than pleased to call adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill M201. I therefore call for adjourned debate on

Bill M201, and I gather that I adjourned the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, hon. member, the point of order by the member for Skeena is appropriate and accurate.

DANGEROUS HEALTH PRACTICES ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that debate on second reading of Bill M201 be adjourned until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M202, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE TELEVISING AND

OTHER BROADCASTING OF DEBATES AND

PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

HON. MR. GARDOM: I did adjourn the debate, and I readjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M203.

AN ACT TO REGULATE

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am

learning from the very wise remarks made by the proponent. We're slowly

getting there. I did adjourn the debate, and I adjourn the debate again

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M204.

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION

ENHANCEMENT ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: It may well be a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker. but I adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M206.

RESOURCE INVESTMENT

CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

(SUBSIDIARIES DISCLOSURE)

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adjourn this debate until the next sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: After today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Once again, to give the hon. member for Victoria an opportunity to

speak to this, if he so chooses, I call second reading of Bill M205. He

does not appear to be present. That being the case, I would move to

public bills and orders.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 82.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I'm very happy to take my place and say a very few words in support of

this move on behalf of the minister to encourage and assist small

business in the province of British Columbia.

Yesterday I

listened with some dismay to some of the very few comments made by

members of the opposition, particularly the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea), who challenged anyone on this side of the House to get up

and say that this bill will help the service industries of British

Columbia. I will accept that challenge and say that this bill will do a

great deal to help the service industries in the province of British

Columbia. It will help — the member said it would not — the people who

sell hamburgers. It will help the people who have shops in shopping

malls; it will help the people who sell shoes. It will help all service

industries and the manufacturing industries in this province. By

helping the manufacturing industries in British Columbia it will

certainly provide jobs for many people who then, in turn, will have

money to spend

[ Page 9346 ]

with

those people who provide services in the service industries. So I say

to the member for Prince Rupert, this bill will be a great help to all

sectors of British Columbia, including the service industries.

British Columbia many people seem to think that the megaprojects are

the only way to go. Megaprojects are, of course, a very important part

of the economic development strategy and of the job creation program

brought about by this government over many years. The megaprojects are

not the sort of thing that can be turned on as quickly as can jobs be

created through harnessing the entrepreneurial efforts of those in

small business.

For example, the northeast coal development

is the only remaining megaproject in Canada. That project is directly

employing many thousands of construction people and people in the

service industries in this province. This, of course, is a project

which was, and still is, objected to by the opposition, a project which

they say would be renegotiated were they the government, just as

socialist governments in other provinces have renegotiated megaprojects

right into oblivion. The jobs that are being created on a project like

northeast coal are things that take many years in planning. This began

with this government in early 1976 when we first formed the government

after those disastrous three years under socialism in British Columbia.

I must congratulate the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development for the leading role he has taken over all these years in

pulling that megaproject together. That megaproject not only creates

jobs in itself in construction of the coal-mines, the railway

extension, the highways and the hydro services to that community, but

it also generates jobs in Prince Rupert in the construction of a new

coal port that will service all this country. At the same time, all of

these major construction jobs have to be serviced, and they have to be

serviced by and large by small business people who have specialties in

various areas manufacturing tools and equipment that go to work to

provide the means by which that megaproject can be carried out. The

industry that manufactures the commodities needed on this megaproject

will be assisted tremendously by Bill 82, the Small Business

Development Act.

Megaprojects will carry on in the future,

but at the present time another job-creation measure that is being

taken which has been pooh-poohed by the negative socialists has been

the northwest development strategy. That development strategy is at the

same stage northeast coal was at in 1976. If it had not been for the

planning and coordination taken on by that minister and this government

over the last six or seven years, we would not have had the many

thousands of people working on northeast coal today. I can see, with

the tremendous potential and resources and the energetic people of

British Columbia, particularly of the northwest, that within a few

years — and it will probably be much fewer years than most people think

— the northwest development will be at about the same stage we are at

with the northeast coal development today. There are tremendous

resources to be tapped in that part of British Columbia, and it's the

government's role to try to pull together the various players in what

will be a very exciting game, to pull those resource companies

together, to encourage the establishment of the power, the

transportation infrastructure and the port facilities that will be

needed to develop the northwestern part of British Columbia. As that

planning and coordination takes place there will be many small business

people, consultants and otherwise, employed even almost immediately on

the planning of that tremendous part of British Columbia which in fact

is larger than many countries in Europe. It's larger than our three

maritime provinces combined, and yet it is pooh-poohed by the

opposition as being a charade, when in fact it is a part of the ongoing

planning of the future of this province. The bill before us is not just

a single incentive for small business in British Columbia; it's three

parallel undertakings which will provide a tremendous lift for the many

hundreds of people who are currently involved in small business in

British Columbia and who, through the incentives in this legislation,

can be encouraged to take those chances that are needed to get into

business, and to create jobs.

The first prong of this bill,

Mr. Speaker, is the small manufacturers development assistance. This is

a relatively small part of the total $200 million dollar effort that is

being made here. It is a total of $10 million. This small manufacturers

development assistance provides forgivable loans to people who have

what could be a viable small manufacturing idea — something that can be

deemed to be successful in the proper economic climate and can be

encouraged to take place right now so that it can create jobs and

opportunities not only for the entrepreneur but for the people who will

be working for him. Small business in British Columbia is the biggest

employer in British Columbia that we have. More people are employed by

small business than by all of the large corporations in all of our

resource and manufacturing industries in British Columbia.

For

example, there is a fellow in the small village of Lillooet in my

riding who needs assistance in establishing a woodstove manufacturing

business. He has done his market research, he knows that he can

efficiently and effectively manufacture these wood heating units, and

he knows that he can sell them. He knows that there is a demand for

them in British Columbia. I'm sure that the minister will encourage him

and that he will get approval to go ahead with this very small

undertaking. He'll employ only five or six people, but five or six

people in a small undertaking like that will benefit that village; it

will benefit that individual who wants to produce, and it will benefit

the people who will buy his products. It is only five jobs, and it's

not a megaproject by any stretch of the imagination. If you take all of

the people in British Columbia who have that type of entrepreneurial

instinct, who can see an opportunity and go out there and seize that

opportunity and take advantage of it to create something, if you put

all of the people in British Columbia who right now are thinking of

things they can do and who are just needing a little bit of

encouragement, then this particular part of the three-pronged incentive

program brought forward by the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development can be of great assistance to them. It can create literally

thousands of jobs — a few at a time. It's not something where you turn

a switch and create 5,000 jobs here, or 200 there, but when you add up

all the employment created by these very small people you have a

tremendous total.

The second part of this program is the

low-interest loan assistance, a total of $20 million. Again, this is

designed to enhance the economic base of British Columbia in many small

ways. This part of the program will provide loans at one-half the

current rate charged by the B.C. Development Corporation. It's the cost

of money today which is discouraging many people who have good plans

for either expanding or establishing. manufacturing businesses in

British Columbia. It is making them put off those plans until money

costs are

[ Page

9347 ]

better, and this program will give them the encouragement they need to go ahead

now to carry out these programs.

The

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

yesterday went into great detail in describing the tremendous potential

that the high-technology industry has for British Columbia, and the

tremendous advantages that we have in this province attracting that

type of business to British Columbia. These things can happen almost

immediately, providing we maintain a climate in British Columbia where

people will not be afraid to invest their money, time, effort and

skills in helping to promote and develop this province. This type of

assistance will get them to do it sooner, rather than later. If we can

solve some of the other problems that have been a discouraging factor

to this type of business in British Columbia, then I'm sure this part

of the three-pronged program will lead us a long way towards creating

jobs and opportunities in British Columbia today, and not at some time

in the future.

The other part of this program is the small

business development fund. This fund of $170 million will be used not

only to encourage British Columbians to start new businesses, but also

to help in overcoming some of the problems created by high interest,

giving them the assistance and encouragement to hang in there and carry

on with the businesses they already have. One of the major problems for

small businesses in British Columbia is the loss of their working

capital because of the tremendously high interest rates that they have

to pay to meet their operating costs, and also to carry the inventories

that they need to do business.

I have, in my ministry, a

positive and aggressive small business enterprise program in the forest

sector. Over the last couple of years in my ministry I have made sure

that the small entrepreneur in the forest sector has every opportunity

in the world to gain direct access to cutting rights in the provincial

forests. This has been successful. We have had almost a thousand sales

over the last couple of years in the small business program, sales

taken on by small contractors and manufacturers, having direct access

to Crown timber, which gives them a chance to create new ideas and

innovations to help the future of our forest industry. These people

have also been suffering with the high cost of capital, the high

interest rates that they have to pay to finance their equipment,

particularly those in the log-hauling business — the truck loggers in

British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Along with ranchers and farmers, truck loggers are really the basic spirit

of free enterprise in this province. Many of our truck loggers are having trouble

maintaining the high payments on their logging trucks because of reduced work

times as a result of this world-wide economic recession, particularly as it

affects the wood industry in British Columbia and North America; indeed, throughout

the world. This particular part of the three-pronged approach taken by Bill

82 provides assistance to people in the resource-related transportation business.

That includes the logger, the truck owner-operator or the truck logger who perhaps

has a number of vehicles in his fleet. Unfortunately, because of the slowdown

in the forest products industry, these people have not had enough work to be

able to earn the money to pay those very high interest rates they have been

faced with over the last couple of years. This bill provides them with the possibility

of obtaining a loan at something like 4 percent below the rate currently charged

by the B.C. Development Corporation. I believe that rate is now 17.5 percent.

These people will be able to get a loan at something like 13.5 percent, which,

of course, will be much easier for them to manage. It will give them the opportunity

of hanging onto their equipment, of replenishing their working capital, so that

they can carry on as basic free-enterprisers in this great province of British

Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, I have to congratulate the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development for the way he has thought through this program so

that it covers the widest possible variety of business endeavours in

the manufacturing and service parts of our industrial base in British

Columbia. As the member for Prince Rupert challenged yesterday, I will

say again that by generating this activity in the basic manufacturing

industries there will be a tremendous spinoff effect because of the

employment created and the money put into circulation. There will also

be tremendous spinoff effects in assistance to all of the service

sectors.

Yesterday the member for Prince Rupert said: "We

wouldn't do it that way. What we would do is provide tax incentives so

that the private sector can make up its own mind." Of course, this

government's basic fiscal policy is that we will carefully control the

spending of government, particularly in a restraint period like we are

in now, so that we don't have to increase taxes, so that this tax

incentive is available for everyone in British Columbia. If we were to

instigate a program such as that put forward by the socialists

opposite.... What do they call it? "Let's Get to Work." If we were to

implement a program like that, with a cost of something like $2 billion

to the taxpayers of British Columbia, the taxes would have to go up to

such an extent that no end of tax incentives could possibly reduce the

taxes back down to the level presently in place in British Columbia.

Our tax incentives are in place, ongoing, and through this great extra

help — this $200 million of extra help that we are offering to the

free-enterprisers in this province — we will in effect create thousands

of jobs now, rather than a few years down the road. I think it will be

a tremendous help to all those people who have ideas and want to put

them into place, but who just can't quite swing it now because of the

cost of money.

Mr. Speaker, megaprojects are important. As I

said, the only ongoing megaproject in British Columbia — or in Canada,

for that matter — is the northeast coal development project, which is

really the largest single undertaking in the history of the province of

British Columbia, and probably in the history of Canada. It is because

it was developed a number 4 years ago that it's in place today. Because

that megaproject is in place today we have literally thousands of small

businesses.... And most of the service and supply contracts for that

megaproject — or for that series of megaprojects, because that's what

it is — are being carried out by people here in British Columbia. Where

the expertise cannot come from British Columbia. or when British

Columbians cannot be competitive, of course some of it is coining from

outside the province, mostly from Canada. I don't know of any borders

between the provinces of our country which make it impossible for

people from other provinces to come to this province to take advantage

of the activity that is going on here — activity that wouldn't have

been taking place at all had it not been for the minister who has

presented this very forward-looking bill to us. It's a bill that will

create many jobs and provide many opportunities for the people of B.C.

[ Page 9348 ]

Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite have a habit of not debating what is in a

bill. They always like to debate what is not in a bill. That, of

course, is the easy way, the way that requires the least effort, the

least research and the least thought. Because it requires the least

thought is why, I guess, it is taken up by those members. The member

for Prince Rupert did not talk about what is in the bill. He talked

about what is not in the bill, and that is the fact that the service

industry is not directly helped; but it will be indirectly helped to a

very great extent.

I would like to read a couple of comments

from a news release put out by the B.C. Government Employees Union.

It's referring to their settlement. It said: "This settlement was

reached against a backdrop of extremely difficult economic times and

represents a recognition by the membership of our union that all

British Columbians must contribute to our economic recovery." That is a

fact, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that "all British Columbians" should

really include those socialists who have been elected and sent to this

chamber by their constituents.

Here is another quotation

from the BCGEU newsletter, relating to each member of that union

accepting $200 in the bonds that are being developed by this province

to finance both this program before us and the very positive and

forward-looking housing program brought forward by the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I think this demonstrates

the fact that our public servants in British Columbia are playing their

part in restraint. They are positive about the future of British

Columbia and really want to be part of the solution rather than part of

the problem. The newsletter says: "These recently approved housing and

employment bonds represent an $8 million commitment by our union

towards the economic recovery of our province." I have to congratulate

each and every member of our B.C. Government Employees Union for taking

that positive approach. I would hope that those members opposite would

learn from what these union members are saying and, for once in their

lives, take a little bit of a positive approach towards something.

take great pleasure in supporting this tremendous bill, brought forward

by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. RITCHIE:

I too take a great deal of pride in standing here to support this bill.

I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate the minister on his

innovative and excellent approach to further stimulate job-creation in

this province. My congratulations also go to that committee, which, no

doubt, was very influential in some of the plans behind this bill.

know it would be unparliamentary for me to call the opposition members

a group of lazy, do-nothing, good-for-nothing fakes. While the

description is very fitting, I won't use it; I won't do that, because

it falls on deaf ears. With only four of their members in the House, I

can see that it's really meaningless. Certainly this debate on our

economy that is taking place also seems to be meaningless.

think back a few days when the Leader of the Opposition interrupted the

business of this House on many occasions to try to get what he called

an emergency debate going on the economy. We've been debating the

economy for two days, and he hasn't once been in the House. I would

call him a fake, if that were parliamentary; but I won't do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the term itself is unparliamentary. I ask the the hon.

member to withdraw it. A simple withdrawal will be sufficient.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to withdraw that very fitting remark indeed.

Only

those of us who come out of the business sector can understand some of

the problems faced out there: the problems created by government

policy, such as that brought in by the federal Liberal government,

supported by the NDP of British Columbia.

As examples of

some activities that really are a sham, that deceive, and that are

strictly political, I'd like to read a small

article from the North Island Gazette ,

March 24, 1982, by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). It

says: "It is not hard to identify the immediate source of the trouble —

high interest rates and credit policies of the major banks." Well, I

give him credit: he did identify the problem. It seems to me that each

and every one of them, as they get up to talk in this House about some

of the difficulties out there, blame the Social Credit government.

Here we have another

article from the Daily Free Press ,

from Courtenay, and the heading is: "Business in Rough Shape, Says

Roving NDP Committee." This is a roving committee — a committee of

socialist rovers. The

article says:

"Independent

business people throughout the province are blaming cash flow and bank

policies as the two prime reasons why small business is in its current

state of decline in British Columbia."

They say that the reason people are having difficulties in the

business sector is cash flow and bank policies. One goes with the other.

"That's the summation made by NDP MLAs Graham Lea and

Dave Stupich, who have been gathering information at the grassroots level around

the province as the NDP standing committee on small business.

"'It would cost money and it would mean

borrowing...but we could balance the budget over a five-year period,

rather than a 12-month period. The province has a triple-A credit

rating on the New York money exchanges and so would not have to pay the

high interest rates charged other borrowers.'"

Again, we have to give them credit for recognizing the results of the sound

fiscal management of this government during its term of office, which brought

about that triple-A credit rating which the business people of this province,

the homebuyers of this province, and indeed everyone in this province are now

benefiting from. The cost of money is not as high as it would be had we continued

under the policies that the NDP embarked on in their short term of office.

Speaking

on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I have to go through some of these things

because it is such a hilarious joke to listen to the few that have

spoken in this House on the economy, and then reflect on some of the

things that went on a few months ago as this roving socialist small

business development committee toured the province.

Here's

an

article from the Coquitlam–Maple Ridge paper of Tuesday, March 9. It

says: "With only three delegates out of seven scheduled actually

showing up to present briefs and only a handful of people in the

audience...." This is the message that I think they should take

seriously. Not only did

[ Page 9349 ]

recognize the sham of this roving small business committee; the people

out there recognized it. They recognized it by not showing up. They

said it's a joke.

It says here that the NDP has to work hard

to overcome an image that it opposes business ownership: "The NDP is

holding a string of nine open forums throughout British Columbia. It

has to work hard to overcome the image that it opposes the small

business owner." They'll never overcome that image, because that is

part of their philosophy. They don't believe in private ownership of

business or property at all; it's a coverup. We know indeed just what

their philosophy is as far as business is concerned. I for one, from

personal experience, can tell this House, and will continue to tell

this House and the people of British Columbia, that they oppose the

private ownership of business. They believe in a controlled economy, a

controlled business environment, and they cannot do that and keep it

free at the same time.

As a businessman, before coming into

this chamber as a member, I experienced their type of philosophy in

business. Maybe we'll go into that as this debate continues. Again, as

I relate the statements made by them, their activities, to this bill

that we're debating now on the small business assistance program.... It

says here, Mr. Speaker, about this Coquitlam meeting that "the two MLAs

attribute the party's negative image partly to a misconception gained

when the NDP attacks business, and also to misinformation bred by the

Social Credit Party." We don't have to come out with any

misinformation; the record is there. The record is in South Peace Dehy,

the record is in Swan Valley, the record is in Panco Poultry, the

record is in all of those businesses that they bought that were in

trouble. We don't have to tell the public; the public knows. It was

intrusion. Not only were they desperate to get in and to compete for

the business of those small independent businessmen, but they used

taxpayers' money to outbid them in the acquisition of private

businesses. It's on the record; the record shows that they are opposed

to anything in the small business sector that would not give them the

right to control.

Mr. Speaker, I can go on. Here we have another

article that comes from the Campbell River Upper Islander .

MRS. JORDAN: Who represents that area?

MR. RITCHIE: Who is the representative of that area anyway? He's over there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He's another one who doesn't believe in the ownership of land.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RITCHIE:

Again we have a member of the opposition being quoted by his local

press on something that must be very embarrassing to him or to his

party.

Here is this high-calibre so-called specialist saying:

"'High interest rates, an undiversified economy,

irresponsible federal and provincial governments and unsympathetic

banks and lending institutions are driving established and well-managed

companies out of business,' NDP MLA Graham Lea said in Courtenay

Saturday.

"He also singled out the banks, saying that in

many cases they were only giving struggling businesses three or four

hours' notice when announcing foreclosure."

It's obvious

again, Mr. Speaker. to someone coming out of the business world that

this person just doesn't have a clue about what's going on out there,

about what takes place under such circumstances. He obviously is

playing politics, and at this particular time he seems to be hammering

the banks.

"He said the government should

borrow money for such programs over a five-year period. Lea further

added that tax incentives should be made to small businesses to buy new

machinery to spark a little economic activity.

"'We're at the mercy of the international marketplace,' Lea said."

That's a real winner!

I could go on and on and on about this sham of an approach of

the NDP to try to gain some confidence from the private business

sector, but it will never come about. It will never come about. Mr.

Speaker. because there are many people out there like myself who have

spent almost a lifetime in the business sector. No. they're not for the

independent ownership of business or anything.

I said in

this House before. and I'll repeat it: I left a country; I chose to

come to Canada. I chose to come to British Columbia because British

Columbia offered me the opportunity of getting into business and

succeeding without a lot of government involvement. It so happens at

this moment that I have a sister visiting us from my homeland. They're

in business. They're desperately trying to get out of it because of

government intervention in their business, because of government

involvement in their lives. Socialism, Mr. Speaker, does not go along

with private business. Now they're attempting to undo it in that

country. They are, and they're making progress. Socialism doesn't work

anywhere, and it's not going to work here either.

The reason

I'm in Canada, and the reason I'm in British Columbia, is because I

could see the opportunities for me and my family....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

One moment, please. I will ask the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) not to interrupt the

member for Central Fraser Valley. Perhaps if the hon. member for

Central Fraser Valley would relate his remarks to Bill 82, we could

continue in parliamentary order. Please continue.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, Bill 82 deals with assisting businesses. I have not for

one moment got away from talking about business. I'm talking, about the

approach of governments to business — the difference between the

approach of this government to business and the approach of the

socialist party to business.

I'm speaking on Bill 82 because

I want to talk about it and support it, I'm excited about it because it

makes real those beliefs that we had when we decided to come to this

great land. When we came to British Columbia we had a Social Credit

government here, Yes, we got into our own business and it was highly,

successful.

But it was because of the change of government

in 1972 that I am in politics today. I'm in politics because I want to

do my bit to assist those who want to follow in small business. and to

assist this government in telling the people that socialism doesn't

work in business: nor does it work anywhere

[ Page 9350 ]

where

free enterprise is desired. I'm in politics because I wish to assist

this government in making sure that the people of this province will

never again expose themselves to the type of economic policies that we

would experience under a socialist government.

The member

for Prince Rupert said we're discriminating, that we're only helping

some businesses. The program, designed as it is to assist in the

manufacturing sector, assists everyone. It assists teachers, doctors,

farmers — everyone. When you create economic development and activity

in the manufacturing sector, the spin-off affects everyone. I come from

the manufacturing sector; I know. I can tell you very simply, as one

who comes from the manufacturing sector where fairly large activities

take place, that the service industries serving our industry prosper. I

can prove it by the bills we have covering the costs of trucks,

fork-lifts, hoses, gasoline, diesel, maintenance, shoes, clothing,

drugstores. I could go on and on. The whole economy benefited because

we, as a manufacturing company, worked hard and succeeded and created

that activity, and that is exactly what this bill is going to do.

know we're going to hear from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace), the agricultural critic, that it didn't do anything for the

farmer in a small business. The farmer knows that a bill of this nature

attracts people to our province; a bill of this nature puts money in

the pockets of people, money to spend on the products that our farmers

are producing. The processing industry of this province, whether it's

carrots, cauliflower, turkeys or whatever, benefits, because as you

stimulate small business you put money in the pockets of people who can

then afford to buy all those things we are producing in this province.

Another benefit to this bill is that as it generates business and puts

money in the pockets of people, it allows those people, because they're

not poor, to pay the farmers of this province a decent price for their

products. They're getting a decent income and therefore they feel they

can pay a fair price for those products.

I could go on and

on to explain the benefits of this bill, and to show how ridiculous and

false are some of the statements made by the opposition party. The

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) says, "Another myth is that the

poor private sector is really having a terrible time." I could go on

talking about these things, but let me tell you, never will they be

able to convince the people of this province. They'll never believe the

words they are using, the excuses they're using, the information

they're spreading, because it's on the record what they can do.

The member for Prince Rupert stood up here yesterday and pleaded because some shoe store in his town was suffering.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where does he live? He lives in Victoria.

MR. RITCHIE: Why doesn't he go home and show that constituent of his that he could assist him? He could buy shoes there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does the member for Prince Rupert live?

MR. RITCHIE: He's living in Victoria, they tell me. Is that good for your economy?

Mr.

Speaker, I never miss an opportunity to get back to my constituency and

tell my people how they can help themselves. That's what this bill is

going to do, and I can't wait to get back home to tell them what it's

going to do. I'm not going to stand up here and say that the shoe store

in my town is suffering. Maybe it's suffering because he wasn't there

buying his shoes; maybe it's because he's buying his goods here.

Mr.

Speaker, another portion of this whole bill is the way part of the

money will be raised. I've said many times that the real challenge of

this government is to provide assistance, whether it be in small

business, big business or home-buying. It is to try to do it with the

investment money that is out there and not just sock it again to the

taxpayer. We don't want all of these programs developed that are going

to place a terrible burden on the taxpayer. Most likely if we followed

the recommendation of the NDP, it would place a terrible burden on our

next generation.

Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this program

as far as raising funds is concerned is innovative, healthy, exciting,

and something that we can all be very supportive of. It's going to use

money that's now being invested — money that may get into the hands of

those terrible banks that they talk about — but rather redirected into

an area where we can say: "now we're going to use it to help fellow

British Columbians." It's a tremendous program, and they benefit from

it too. How can you argue with that? Bill 82 is an innovative, healthy

and stimulating bill that will do great things, not only for the

manufacturing sector of this province....

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll vote for it anyway.

MR. RITCHIE:

They'll vote for it. They've voted for everything that we've put on the

floor for the past few days. Where are they? We have three members of

the opposition party in the House right now — a party who interrupted

the business of this House many times because they wanted an emergency

debate on the economy. We've got three in here now and one of them is

lying back yawning — almost falling asleep — because he just can't get

his thinking going. Where is your leader, who was such an

obstructionist?

Mr. Speaker, I'm really pleased and excited

about this bill. It's something I believe we can all take out into our

constituencies and say: "Here, this is what's going to help you, small

businessmen." We can safely stand up and say: "Don't listen to what

Swan Valley, Panco Poultry, Dehy and all of those losers that you got

into...."

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you just a little bit

about one of their business ventures. Some years ago, in 1973 or

thereabouts, they decided: "Now that we've got control of the land, we

want to get into the food business and we're going to build a new plant

that will have high technology as far as the production of food is

concerned." It's going to process food in a very special way. So they

give the green light. Someone said: "How many dollars is this going to

be?" "Well, don't worry about that; we'll find the money. Just go,

because we believe this is what we must do. We must get into the food

business." So they launched their Swan Valley program. The basis on

which they decided the size of plant that they should build was not

just the dollars, but how much they could process. They didn't go out

into the marketplace and say: "What will the market absorb?" They said:

"What can we build; how big can we make it?" So that's what they went

on. They took the land, went ahead and used tax dollars and built this

massive project. I believe it ran into $12 million or $13

[ Page 9351 ]

million

— taxpayers' dollars. It was only because they had this socialistic

dream of producing food so that they could say to those people out

there: "You do it our way, or we'll cut you off." Or they told the

farmer: "You'll get what we say you're going to get, and that's all

there is to it." But they got into the process, spent about $13

million, and never sold a thing.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Was it recoverable?

MR. RITCHIE:

Not recoverable at all. It's still out there, sitting empty — a $13

million small business venture, the creation of the B.C. NDP, which at

one time said: "If we go into auto insurance we'll guarantee you $25

insurance." It reminds me of the $2.50 shoes guaranteed by Tommy

Douglas under the same philosophy — "$2.50 shoes if you support us."

This bill doesn't work that way. The $2.50 shoes were just about

impossible to bring about, so what did they do? They got into the hide

business — they didn't build it; they took it. They're still in the

hide business — hiding.

I want to go on with my little

story. Then, as today, their business ideas were a tremendous joke. In

order to provide $2.50 shoes they decided they had to tan their own

leather. So what did they do? They went on to get into the hide

business. I don't recall all of the details exactly, but they didn't

really build this plant; they took it, through manipulations and so

forth, and then they were in the hide business. Here they were,

manufacturing shoes, producing their own leather, and what happened?

The people of the province were going around in terrible weather with

rubber boots on, unable to afford the shoes being produced by the then

CCF government.

Mr. Speaker, I bring up that little story

only because I want to draw a parallel between the policies then and

the policies of this opposition. That stupid, silly approach to

business was repeated from 1972 to 1975 when they took taxpayers'

dollars to get into the poultry business, the drying business, the

railcar business.

MR. LEGGATT: How are your BCRIC shares?

MR. RITCHIE:

Don't you worry about my BCRIC shares, my friend. I see they're up this

morning, and I'm very proud to be a holder of BCRIC shares. If you have

any faith at all in your province, and any wisdom and knowledge of it,

you will realize that the holdings of that company are such that as

soon as the economy turns around and we see the construction of homes

in the United States, then look out. We're in great shape. That's a

long-term investment. If you bought them and haven't doubled your money

by now, I would say you're a fool and you don't know what you're doing.

Those BCRIC shares, like any other shares, have moved on the

marketplace and have given an opportunity to the investor looking for a

quick return.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With the greatest

respect — and I understand there was another interchange going on —

withdraw the word that referred to the member, please.

MR. RITCHIE: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker. I didn't catch what you said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

You made an unparliamentary remark about another hon. member. I realize

it was perhaps done in a light-spirited vein; nevertheless, the Chair

cannot accept it. Will you withdraw any reference to another hon.

member.

MR. RITCHIE: I don't really recall....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A simple withdrawal will be fine.

MR. RITCHIE: I try to use remarks that are totally fitting, but if something was said in there I'll be pleased to withdraw it.

MR. KEMPF: Fitting, even if unparliamentary.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, unparliamentary, but certainly fitting. I must apologize....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: An unqualified withdrawal, please, for the record.

MR. RITCHIE: Oh, yes — sorry. I withdraw.

I said earlier, the reason I left my homeland over 30 years ago was the

opportunities this country offered. The reason I left that land was the

opportunities socialism took away. The opportunities in this country

have been tremendous. I, like thousands of others, have benefited from

them. I'm in politics today because I don't want the same thing

happening to my children when they follow me into business. We cannot

allow that party to spread the type of false political nonsense they

attempt to do. We could go on and on. The amount of stuff being spread

by those so-called business specialists is unbelievable. Those people

over there would say: "My goodness, it won't work."

I am

indeed delighted to support this bill to apportion small business

development assistance of $10 million. Low interest loan assistance is

a tremendous boost to the small business sector. We know that the

change that has taken place in business today in respect to money costs

— interest — has been devastating to many.

I can recall when

the gross profit of a business might run around 15, 16 or 17 percent.

You were maybe paying about maybe 5, 6 or 7 percent for your money.

That seems to have reversed itself now. The gross is away down close to

where the interest used to be. And the interest is away up now close to

where the gross used to be. Our member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem)

understands it, because he has had to balance the books. Yes, he knows

what it is to have to meet a payroll. He knows what it is to sit down

at the end of the month and say: "These are the bills that I must pay."

MRS. JORDAN: And support a family.

MR. RITCHIE:

And support a family, and all those employees. He doesn't go out there

negative, talking about the terrible things that this sort of a thing

would do. He understands. He's been through it. He's positive — that's

why.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia's small business

development fund is another, first-class approach. This is one that

gives, I believe, a fixed interest rate for a period of time.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Security.

MR. RITCHIE: Security, that's right. There is absolutely nothing worse than investing in equipment, investing in a

[ Page 9352 ]

plant

or investing in anything to do with a business and not knowing what the

cost of that investment will be tomorrow. That's essential. That's a

very important part of this whole bill, Bill 82. Those of us who have

experienced business know that whenever you enter into an agreement to

invest a large amount of money at a fixed interest cost.... If that

changes after just one year or less, you could be in very serious

trouble unless the change is down — even just I percent — because, as I

mentioned earlier, the gross returns on a business today are not what

they were when times were really good.

Mr. Speaker, this

bill is just a tremendous lift for those people who are out there

investing and gambling to create jobs for the people of this province.

I could go on and on about the great things that this is going to do.

The ripple effect of this is going to affect people throughout our

whole system. It's just tremendous — hard to measure.

I will

now fold my papers and take my seat. I am delighted, I am proud, and I

will get out there and I will make sure that the people of my

constituency pay absolutely no attention to the negative things that

have been said by the few, only a few members of the opposition who

have spoken so far. I will tell them that in spite of the fact that the

Leader of the Opposition disrupted the business of the House to get an

emergency debate going on the economy, he was not here. He didn't even

show up. He's running around the corridors all worried that there could

be an election called. That's all he's concerned about. In the meantime

we have people out there who are anxious about keeping their businesses

afloat, people who are anxious about their jobs. I thought that maybe

he would be paying some attention to his episodes in this House when he

was trying to get an emergency debate going on the economy, just to

find out.... Am I running out of time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes, Hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: Gosh, I'm just getting going.

They

must be really and truly confused, with that person holding the

business of this House, trying to get a special emergency debate going

— not just a debate, an emergency debate. And he's not here. The only

time that we get any of them into the House to debate Bill 82 is

whenever we say and put into the record that they aren't here. At one

point yesterday there wasn't one of them in the House. They were all

gone. We've got to shame them to get them — in here to get into the

act. I can only conclude from that that they have nothing to say.

Not too long ago there was an announcement made by one of our ministers in

respect to a big project for Prince Rupert — a tremendous thing. The member

for that area stood up in his place and he said: "Yes, it sounds good and all

the rest..." But! He is the butt. He is the socialist bottom line.

"But what about the acid rain!" I would love to have the opportunity

to be on a platform with any of those members and talk to those people employed

on northeast coal, the stadium, B.C. Place — all those projects — to publicly

debate with them in front of the people who only have those jobs because we

created them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your interest. I support this bill wholeheartedly. It's exciting.

MR. HOWARD:

On a Point of order, the member for Central Fraser Valley indicated

that he was just getting going a few moments ago and that he had many

more remarks to make. With leave of the House, I think we should give

the hon. member that additional time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

That leave cannot be asked for, hon. member. Standing orders are quite

explicit about speaking at length in debate. Standing orders would have

to be changed.

MR. LEGGATT: I think there are some

things that we can agree on today. One is that small businesses are in

very deep trouble. One thing we are unable to agree on is why they're

in great trouble. We are now introducing a bill that will reduce

interest to a very small part of the small business sector.

Nevertheless, whatever modest steps the minister wishes to take, it's

in his hands. We'll support those modest, tiny, little, timid steps

toward helping the most important segment in our economy, which is

small business.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) pointed out in some detail the

tremendous hole in the bill, which does not deal at all with the

service sector. I want to deal with that later in more detail. But

before getting to that, we have to ask ourselves why business

bankruptcies in British Columbia lead the nation, why we are in the

most disastrous unemployment situation we have seen — I don't think we

can even say, "since the Great Depression," because if you add up the

hidden unemployed, we're at about the same level of unemployment as in

the Depression, and that's hard to believe. The reason is that small

business is still the great employer. In spite of all the rhetoric

about the expansion of megaprojects and so on, the real victims of this

depression and of this government's policy have been small businesses.

Small business has suffered as much as anyone. Why have they suffered?

Why do we have a bill which reduces interest coming from a government

that encouraged high interest rate policies in this country in 1978,

that fought on the side of Reaganism from day one, that believed that

the only way to solve the inflation problem was with high interest

rates? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're in favour of

high interest rates, take your responsibility. With those high interest

rates you have put small business to the wall. You imported that high

interest rate policy from California, and day after day you continued

to promote it at the councils of the nation until, of course, the

federal government bought it and the Bank of Canada bought it. Now

you're running around saying: "But wc'll use taxpayer giveaways, and

we'll reduce interest to small business with tax subsidies." That's

what this bill is really all about.

It's great for all you

free-enterprisers to stand up and say, "We don't want government to

have anything to do with business," but you're interfering with free

enterprise with this bill. You don't want them to go to the market and

borrow at those rates that you have promoted through Reaganomics. You

don't want them to do that. You're going to give them a handout, which

we're going to support. But please don't hide behind that great cloak

of competition and free enterprise and say: "Oh, my gosh, you guys are

against small business." We were the people who fought against high

interest rates. We fought against them over and over. We said it was

the wrong solution to the inflationary problem. This government

supported high interest rates. Therefore there is no question that this

government has driven small business to the wall.

[ Page 9353 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

I want to deal with that. The reason there is not a Conservative

government today is a Social Credit vote in the House of Commons at

that time; that's what the record shows. There isn't a single Social

Crediter left in Ottawa. You couldn't support the Liberals because you

haven't got anybody; but you did support them while you were there, my

friend.

Let's deal with this whole question of the economy.

This particular bill affects only a small

section of the small business

community — a significant section, I agree, and an important one. The

people covered in this bill represent about 4.5 percent of the gross

national product of the province. On the employment side they represent

about 4 percent of the employment in British Columbia. I'm not saying

that they shouldn't be helped; of course they should be helped. They

should be helped from the impact of the right-wing fanatic ideology

that this government has promoted over and over again, a philosophy

which has resulted in high interest rates in an economy in the worst

state of depression we've ever seen.

There is some spin-off

factor on megaprojects; there is some benefit. But the key part of the

small business sector is the service industry: the guy who goes out and

tries to sell you a pair of pants, the restaurant that opens up,

somebody who has a new idea and takes and chance and invests capital.

There is no help for them in here if they're not manufacturing or high

technology. Why don't you accept the amendment? Make the bill apply to

the service sector. That would be another little step forward in terms

of encouraging those small businesses, which have never had it so bad

as under this government.

I hear all this rhetoric from my

friend from Fraser Valley about the terrible things the NDP government

did in the province of British Columbia to small business. I was around

and I remember. Small business flourished and was in good shape in

those years. They weren't facing bankruptcies and high interest rates,

which are driving them to the wall every day.

MR. KEMPF: I was in the business in those days. Sit down and I'll tell you about it.

MR. LEGGATT:

And so was I. I watched small businesses opening all over Vancouver and

the lower mainland — new businesses, new products, new goods.

MR. KEMPF: I remember what you did to the mining industry, and remember what that did to small business.

MR. LEGGATT:

Small business flourished in the province in that three-year period and

you can't change history. The figures are there. You can talk all the

rhetoric you like about the mining industry. How is the mining industry

faring today under the Social Credit government? How is Cominco getting

along?

MR. KEMPF: We didn't drive them out of the province. You drove them out by your policies.

MR. LEGGATT:

We didn't drive them out of the province either, my friend. You are

creating more problems in mining than we ever did. You're taxing them

out of business.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we're conducting a debate at this time. I would ask the member for Coquitlam Moody to move along.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, too often we try to debate history, because we always try

to recreate it, try to change it. There's a certain Stalinism about the

place, where you blank out all the things that happened before.

The record of the NDP wasn't perfect. They made a mistake on mining royalties.

MR. KEMPF: That's the understatement of the day.

MR. LEGGATT:

But it wasn't nearly as bad as what the people of British Columbia are

facing today. They had an unemployment rate half the present rate. They

had a bankruptcy rate which was insignificant; now look at the

bankruptcy rate for small businesses in this province. And don't say:

"Oh, it's somebody else. It has nothing to do with us — it's Reagan,

it's Trudeau." You're the government of this province and you have to

take responsibility for the conditions in this province, particularly

when those conditions are caused by your promotion of high interest

rates in 1978. You don't have any choice. It's there. The people of

British Columbia are going to quietly make a judgment, either in the

near future or in the distant future.

MR. KEMPF: You can't tell them that. They know we've been against high interest rates.

MR. LEGGATT: The record is clear.

The

part of small business that is actually covered in the bill represents

about 4.5 percent of the gross national product and about 4 percent of

the employment sector. The member for Fraser Valley says he's really

excited about the bill. It doesn't take much to get him excited. This

bill should have covered the service sector. I hope the minister will

accept the amendment to cover the service sector — a very important and

key sector. The restaurant business is big business everywhere in this

province, a very important business, and it's ignored here.

are facing all kinds of different problems in the small business world,

and as I listen to the debate from the 1930's.... Tommy Douglas' box

factory, of all things, being brought into this debate. One of the

problems with this government is that they haven't learned anything and

they haven't forgotten anything. It's a very big problem when you hit

that sort of cement-head attitude.

MR. KEMPF: If you want to learn, you have to remember.

MR. LEGGATT: History changes.

All

of those little businesses that we want to help really don't want

handouts. They don't want the government to subsidize their money.

They'd just as soon be able to get a rate of interest they could pay.

Do you know what they need? They need customers: they need customers

all over the province. And why haven't they got customers? They haven't

got customers because people are out of work. They don't have any

purchasing power, and they're out of work because of the

[ Page 9354 ]

economic

disaster foisted on this province by this government. That's the

trouble with small business — they don't have any customers. They don't

have customers because people don't have purchasing power. Purchasing

power for people at the bottom — a revolutionary concept? No, it's

old-fashioned Keynesian economics. That's new to these guys — the idea

that in order to have a successful free-enterprise economy there must

be high wages and a good income at the bottom level. If you don't put

money in the hands of people to spend, the economy goes to hell in a

handbasket.

What they represent is the crumbs-off-the-table

theory. If you give the biggest corporation the highest profit, enough

will fall off the table so small business will survive. That's what I

heard argued today. The same, of course, is true generally: if you

direct all of your wealth to the very top, that is supposed to make our

economy survive.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Stu, I'm sure glad you're not representing me in the courtroom. I'd end up in jail whether I was guilty or not.

MR. LEGGATT:

You probably should; I don't know. After all, we can't be perfect in

the courtroom, Mr. Minister. There are some people we can't defend.

terms of the problems of small business, if you decide to throw the

teachers out of work, which the former Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is threatening to do from time to time.... How

do they buy those products down in those little corner stores? If you

decide there shouldn't be any wage increases at all for people, and

you've forced them to live at levels that are just marginal, they don't

have enough money to go out and eat in that restaurant that's going

broke, that's bankrupt. I know it sounds simplistic, but it's the

absolute key to the difference between the two parties in this House.

We believe there must be a redistribution of income to the point where

the capitalist system is successful. The backbone of the capitalist

system continues to be things that these people have fought against all

of their careers: unemployment insurance, medicare, welfare, human

resources money. All of that is what lets the small businessman

survive. What kind of a situation would we be in now, Mr. Speaker, if

those weren't in place? What kind of an economy would there be if

people didn't even have a welfare cheque?

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT:

Do you want to talk about deficits? The member wants to talk about

deficits. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a billion-dollar deficit next year

and this government has squandered $900 million in special funds since

they came to office. Now they've got nothing in the sock, and do you

know what they have to do? They've got to sneak a bill in — and they've

got it in already — and they're going to borrow without coming to the

Legislature. From here on in, boys, it's a new ball game.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT: Do you think I'm off the bill, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: We do tend to stray a little bit, but I think at this point we must....

MR. LEGGATT:

They kept saying they wanted an economic debate, Mr. Speaker. As soon

as I get on to the economy they want me to stick strictly to the bill.

Remember

"not a dime without debate," Mr. Minister? That's the guy who made it

popular! "Not a dime without debate," and now we're looking at a bill

that allows these guys carte blanche on the money markets of the world

without being responsible to the public at all.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, we cannot discuss a bill that is on the

order paper, and we are now discussing another bill. There will be

ample opportunity for that discussion, but at this time we're on the

Small Business Development Act.

MR. LEGGATT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's get

back to the things that we must do for small business. We'll support

this modest little bill. We expect the minister might even go for the

service sector. We note, when we look at the minister's estimates, that

in 1981-82 there was allocated to grants for small business $7.112

million. Now what, do you think happened to that estimate for the next

year? It went down to $3 million. He wasn't even spending the money

that this Legislature made available to him for small business. Why was

he underspending his budget? Maybe the minister will explain that when

he winds up on the bill. I hope he will. This is the minister who is

supposed to be in favour of business. His record shows that he's the

minister who is against small business. He hasn't even spent the money

we gave him. The federal-provincial cost-sharing program was $29

million in 1981-82; it's down to $15 million in 1982-83.

The

economic predictions are these: "The faltering B.C. economy is showing

little sign of improvement. Conditions in forestry, mining,

construction, manufacturing and tourism continue to deteriorate." This

is a Social Credit depression. That quotation is from the ministry's

own B.C. Business Bulletin , August 1982.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

No, they didn't call it a Social Credit depression. But they confirm

what we all know. This crash, this depression, this mess that small

business is in has been inspired by an ideological fanaticism and a

failure to understand how the western capitalist economies really work.

They do not like to see anyone who isn't in the private labour market

supported by the state; that's the ideological fanaticism. But

government has created the purchasing power that has allowed our

western free enterprise system to survive. That is the lesson that the

minister doesn't understand. It is a kind of right-wing fanaticism that

says: if everything is in private hands, the world will be wonderful.

That philosophy is tried in South America all the time.

MS. BROWN: Chrysler doesn't believe that.

MR. LEGGATT:

That's right. Lately Massey-Ferguson has had its troubles with that

philosophy. If you take that kind of economic system to its logical

conclusion, you create a South American banana republic, where there

are a few people with fantastic wealth and everybody else is

poverty-stricken. That will happen unless government plays its role in

the economy. Its role is to see that capitalism has a sense of fairness

to the population. If you play no role whatsoever, or

[ Page

9355 ]

you step right out and say, "just let Adam Smith economics solve all

our problems," there are lots of world examples for you to look at.

That is what this government is in the process of creating in British

Columbia: a banana republic, equivalent to those we've all seen, where

there are a few wealthy people and the rest of us, if they had their

way, wouldn't even get welfare. That is a part of that right-wing

Reaganomics philosophy that is so key to this coalition economic

philosophy.

In this bill $10 million would come from general

revenue and, as I understand it, $20 million would come from B.C.

development bond money. I take it that the minister, must be estimating

an increase in....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

Oh, I have read the bill. The minister didn't read the bill. He must

have made an, error in

section 5, because he left out service

industries. When he gets up I'm sure he's going to tell us, "Oh, it was

just a mistake, my friends; we'll put in the service industries." You

had better check with your adviser as to why he left that out. That is

70 percent of small business in this province and they're not included.

How are you going to explain it when the minister is on the platform

waving this bill around saying what a wonderful piece of legislation it

is, when most of the people in that audience are not covered?

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

Oh, you'll have your chance to close debate, my friend. You're not

going to get up now and close debate. You wouldn't want to do that. I

hear you want to talk about the economy for days and days. I think the

minister probably wants to have this economic debate go on for a long

time. All the members on the opposite side got up and said they wanted

the debate to continue, so let's continue.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where's your leader?

MR. LEGGATT:

He's engaging in a very meaningful debate with the people of the

province of British Columbia, bringing them into the real world. This

isn't the real world, you know. This is a kind of an artificial device

that's created, where we all get out and pretend we are doing something

very important.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to say a word about a small business that has always fascinated me,

called McDonald's Hamburgers. It's a very successful business. It's

probably the world's largest food franchise, so I guess you could only call

it a small business in the sense of the local operation. If this government

was really interested in small business job protection, they would have provided

some help to Canadian small business to compete against these magnificently

efficient franchise enterprises which come here and dominate our market. For

example, McDonalds Hamburgers has decided that it will no longer buy McGavin's

buns. This has thrown another 44 people out of work. They are going to buy their

buns in Seattle. It sounds like a small thing, but McDonalds Hamburgers put

a little Canadian flag on their arch. If they continue to grow we might as well

get rid of the Peace Arch; we can come under the golden arches when we go across

the border.

That

is the kind of operation that we must compete against as Canadians, but

which this ministry has done nothing about in terms of training

Canadians to operate efficiently those kinds of franchises, those kinds

of efficient operations, to compete successfully with the dominant U.S.

small business franchises that are coming here; I don't want to be a

banana republic. I want to be a Canadian. I want to be a distinctive

Canadian, not a second-class one, and I don't want to be an American. A

part of that economic philosophy must be a sense of Canadian

independence.

I keep hearing from across here that this is

such a resource-based province. and it is; our income is intimately

based on our capacity to produce, raw materials and ship them abroad.

We are a very unsophisticated economy.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: I listened to it. I was in the House yesterday afternoon.

you want to to deal with the question of the B.C. economy, you've got

to look to the future. The future is not in northeast coal, in spite of

the minister's Pollyanna attitude to the sale of coal in British

Columbia. The future lies in a more sophisticated and developing

economy in terms of technology, in terms of internal consumption. In

the long run British Columbians must look to the problems of Asia as

well as to the benefits of Asia. One of the great problems of Asia has

been the change that's happening in communist China. The People's

Republic of China is moving in a very significant way toward the west,

and moving in the same way as Taiwan did some time ago. We now are

going to be faced in the future with sophisticated, low-cost technology

from China. If you think the Japanese are competing with us in

automobiles now, wait until you see what a sophisticated Chinese

economy will do with regard to the North American and the Canadian

economy.

Those are things that I don't think ever pass the

minister's mind. He's still talking about the pure free-trade

philosophy of dig it up, ship it out, don't process it. and sell it at

any cost. That'has resulted in our negative heritage fund. It's

interesting: Saskatchewan was able to develop $4 billion in a heritage

fund, Alberta has $11 billion in a heritage fund. Do you know why?

Because they got proper resource rents. British Columbia has not only

not got a heritage fund: it's facing a $1 billion deficit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: More than that.

MR. LEGGATT:

You think it's going to be more? Well, it's probably going to be $1

billion. And the heritage fund that was in place — a small one

admittedly — when they came to office was close to $1 billion. It was

S900 million set aside for special purposes. That has been squandered,

Mr. Speaker. That is no longer there. Talk about managers! Talk about

administration! They went around this province claiming the NDP

couldn't run a peanut stand. I'll buy my peanuts from this party any

day, I'll tell you. I'll put my faith in this party to administer the

affairs of this province, because the record is now very clear as to

who runs the ship better. The facts are overwhelming. Where's our

heritage fund? Where's our

[ Page 9356 ]

heritage? It's gone, Mr. Speaker, it's squandered — squandered on the altar of ideological fanaticism and megaprojects.

How

much is each one of those jobs in northeast coal going to cost us, Mr.

Minister? Have you costed it out? Each permanent job — I don't mean the

construction jobs. How much is each one of the jobs created in the

mines costing the taxpayers of British Columbia? How much is it costing

B.C. Coal, because of the shattering of its markets that's about to

come? How much is it costing the, poor, naive and innocent shareholders

of BCRIC, who bought that advice from this government and from their

Premier to buy something they already owned. That's one of the special

funds. That's a part of the heritage that used to be owned by all the

people of the province of British Columbia, and that has been

squandered along with the $900 million.

The ant and the

grasshopper. These guys don't save, Mr. Speaker. They don't administer,

and they don't understand the economy. This economy will not survive

unless, first of all, you keep purchasing power in the hands of

ordinary people to keep small business alive. And the next move must be

a four-year budget. The altar of balanced budgets in the crisis that we

have now is nonsense. I believe that you must cyclical-budget, as Lord

Keynes recommended. It's now appropriate for this province to take a

four-year budget and say: "We will balance that budget. Yes, we may

have to run a deficit next year. We might even have to run one the year

after. But we will balance that budget in four years and bring

prosperity back to the province of British Columbia."

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Before recognizing the next member, I would point out that the records

will show that during debate yesterday, the minister's debate and

debate today we did have a tendency to offer an awful lot of latitude

with respect to this bill. The bill is the Small Business Development

Act. All members have been asked to speak to the principle of this

particular bill, Bill 82.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I

fully intend to speak to the principle of Bill 82. Before doing so,

I've just got to make a couple of remarks about that which the member

who was just on his feet had to say. He spoke of the heritage funds in

Saskatchewan and Alberta. Yes, Alberta has a heritage fund, a very good

one, and for a very good reason, and from a very good source. In regard

to the Saskatchewan heritage fund, where were the dollars from that

fund when the new government took over recently?

MR. LEGGATT: They're still there.

MR. KEMPF:

Oh, no, Mr. Member, you find out the truth of that matter. You find out

where the dollars were. The figures were in the books, but where were

the dollars? Answer that question, Mr. Member, before you talk about

the heritage fund for Saskatchewan.

I remember the heritage

that those socialists over there left the province of British Columbia.

I was here in 1976. I remember what we found after three and a half

years of socialism in this province. I remember the $750 million

deficit that was left as a heritage to the people of British Columbia

by those people when they were government.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

Yes, during good times. They left us a $750 million deficit as a

heritage to the people of British Columbia, a heritage that this

government has had to pay off, and it is still paying it off, on behalf

of a socialist government, a socialist experiment.

I am

happy to hear the member who just spoke agree that this is a debate on

the economy. You bet it is. And I've watched your leader get up out of

order I don't know how many times in the last two weeks and ask for a

debate on the economy. Since the debate on Bill 82 has started, I have

never once seen that member in the House. Where is that Leader of the

Opposition who wants so badly to debate the economy of the province of

British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 82, in

case there is any doubt in any member's mind. Bill 82 is designed to

perpetuate British Columbia's journey on the road to economic recovery,

which is within the means of the taxpayers. I've listened to the debate

from the socialists opposite, such as that debate has been — an

opposition whose leader has stood up time after time wanting his motion

on the economy to be called, wanting a debate. Yet the debate on Bill

82 — and it was said by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) —

is the debate on the economy, and to date I have not seen him in this

House. Where has he been during this debate? There are a few more of

them in the House now. We smoked them out, so a few of them slinked

back from their offices to appear to be in this debate. Where have they

been? Where is that leader, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody?

Bill

82, because of its nature, touches many aspects of our economy, but not

if you listen to the socialists opposite. But if you read the bill....

I saw the member for Coquitlam Moody doing that while standing in

debate. I would suggest to him that he should have done it before, but

he read parts of it at least during this debate. I saw that member, as

others on that side of the House have indicated.... The NDP debate has

been around what isn't in Bill 82, and other members have said it. They

have attempted to say that the service industry will not be assisted by

this piece of legislation. Preposterous! That's exactly what those

members opposite understand about economics — the great economists, the

kitchen-table economists. If they don't understand that to encourage

and to assist the manufacturing industry will assist the service

industries in this province, they don't even deserve to be opposition,

let alone their wish — in fact, it's a disease with them — to be in

power, to be the government of British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Why don't you do some work — some homework?

MR. KEMPF: The Bigmouth from New Westminster has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That term is unparliamentary. Withdraw it.

MR. KEMPF: I withdraw that term. I'll let the people of British Columbia decide what he is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: The best minister we ever had; that's what they decided.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I remember that well. I remember when that member, as the Minister of Health in the province

[ Page

9357 ]

of British Columbia, came to my home town — that

dictatorial minister with his goon squad. I remember that, but I won't

go into that, Mr. Speaker. That's a question for another day.

Mr.

Speaker, if the members opposite don't believe that this bill will

assist the service industries of the province of British Columbia, just

let them go out into the business community. The member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talked about the service industry and

said that he was in it at one time. Well, so was I.

Interjections.

HON. WATERLAND: On a point

of order, Mr. Speaker, the poor, soft-spoken member from Omineca is

having a difficult time being heard, as the members opposite keep

heckling him. I'd like to be able to hear his speech.

MR. KEMPF:

I was just going to bring that to the Speaker's attention. It is very

difficult for a very soft-spoken individual like me to make himself

heard over that barrage of innuendo from the other side of the floor.

Mr.

Speaker, I was saying that if those members opposite would only go out

into the business community and see what an economic downturn in the

manufacturing industries has done to small retail outlets.... The

industry that I was in from 1972 to 1975, the accommodation and food

industry.... See what a downturn in the manufacturing industry does to

those service industries. Let them go out into the community and find

that out. Let them go out into the small communities in my

constituency, Mr. Speaker, where the main manufacturing industries are

hurting due to falling export markets, and due to a total downturn in

world economy. Those manufacturing industries are hurting. Nobody

doubts that. Everybody in this chamber knows it, and I've heard it from

both sides of the floor. Mr. Speaker, let them go out into those

communities where manufacturing plants have either slowed down or

closed. Then let them come back to this chamber and tell us with a

straight face, and without innuendo, that small business and the

service industry will prosper when there's a downturn in the

manufacturing industry.

Mr. Speaker, everybody prospers when

the manufacturing industry is healthy. You don't have to prop up small

business. I agree with the member for Coquitlam-Moody when he says

this. You don't have to prop up small business with taxpayers' money.

You have only to assist the manufacturing industry, as this bill does,

for the service industry to prosper. Small business doesn't need, or

want, government involvement in their businesses or in their lives.

They only want a climate and a manufacturing industry which prospers,

allowing a climate for them to make it on their own.

MR. LEGGATT: Give them some customers with money.

MR. KEMPF:

Yes, Mr. Member, that's right. And how are you going to do that? You're

going to assist the manufacturing industry so that jobs are created, so

that people have money to spend. You don't understand that, Mr. Member.

I'm going to take him out in the hall and explain it to him further.

That's clear; we've heard that right here this morning. He doesn't

understand that.

Mr. Speaker, the free enterprisers in this

province don't want government handouts. They want a climate in British

Columbia that encourages investments, not the PetroCans of this world.

They want development; they want a climate that encourages investment —

that's all they want — so that jobs are created, such as with northeast

coal. Six thousand new jobs in the province of British Columbia: that's

the kind of development they want. They want job creation. Yes, Mr.

Member for Coquitlam-Moody, it will provide them with customers with

money in their pockets, giving them the opportunity to make it on their

own.

I remember the situation back in the years 1972 to

1975. The members say: "Don't look back — look ahead." Well, in order

to look ahead — the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) smiles — at

times you also have to look back. I remember the situation from 1972 to

1975, when those socialists over there....

MR. LEA: You were just a kid.

MR. KEMPF:

Yes, I was just a kid when it came it came to politics, but it didn't

take many years of socialism for me to make up my mind as to what I was

going to do in this province. When the socialists over there were

government, from 1972 to 1975, they drove the mining industry into the

ground — Mr. Speaker, that's a pun. I well remember the Yukon

development act. They drove the mining industry out of this province

and drove the developers into the Yukon. They didn't want to spend

their money in B.C. and have the government take it all. I remember

those years.

This bill is designed to assist the

manufacturing industry in this province. The mining industry suffered

badly during those years of socialism. It wasn't until recently that

exploration for mineral deposits in this province has returned to

normal — returned to what it was in 1972. The mining industry was

devastated during those years.

That was only half of it.

This must be said when debating the bill before us today: the service

industry, of which I spoke previously, was also hurting in those years.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody said it wasn't. Well, I was in the

industry in those years.

MR. COCKE: You've never done a day's work in your life.

MR. KEMPF:

Oh, yes, I remember you and your goon squad, Mr. Member for New

Westminster, cramming socialist programs down the throats of the people

in my hometown.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member to order — Bill 82.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, during those years I was in the small business service

industry, which relied for its livelihood on the activity created by

our manufacturing and resource industries. I know what it was that that

industry had done to it during those years. I know what it is that

fuels the service industry of the province of British Columbia. It's

the very manufacturing plants that Bill 82 seeks to assist. I know what

the policies of that socialist group over there, aided and abetted by

the member for New Westminster, did to the manufacturing industry

during those years. I also know what a downturn in that industry did to

the small businesses, the service industries of this province. I say it

right here in this

[ Page 9358 ]

House:

to assist the manufacturing industry in the province of British

Columbia is to assist the service industry in the province of British

Columbia. That's what the socialists opposite fail to understand. I

realize why they don't understand it. They say that to assist the

manufacturing industry in the province has no effect on the service

industry. Well, that's absolute hogwash.

Those members

opposite whose debate on Bill 82 has been almost non-existent, have a

leader who has for many days stood in this House, out of order, wishing

to debate the economy. He isn't here. He doesn't show up. Here's an

opportunity in debating Bill 82 to debate the economy of the province

of British Columbia. Where is the leader? Maybe more properly, Mr.

Speaker, who is the leader over there? When they're given an

opportunity to debate the economy, to put forward what it is that they

would do to assist the economy of British Columbia, where are they?

This

bill, Bill 82, and its ripple effect on the total economy of this

province, gives us a golden opportunity to debate all aspects of the

economy of the province of British Columbia. It opens the floodgates,

Mr. Speaker. You shake your head, but it does. Where are the

socialists? They are almost non-existent, particularly....

MR. LEGGATT: No, we've got five of them.

MR. KEMPF: Well, there are only four over there, Mr. Speaker, and even four socialists are four too many.

colleague the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) mentioned

the old CCF getting into the hide business. Here we are in 1982,

debating Bill 82, and the socialists are still in the hide business, as

they were then. I remember 1977, I believe it was, when they were in

the hide business when debate was going on regarding the funding of

private schools. They were in the hide business then. They were in the

hide business in the thirties. They were in the hide business in 1977,

and they're still in the hide business. I wonder where they're hiding

today.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned interest

rates. Yes, interest rates are high in Canada; they are also high in

France and Italy. These are the three countries in the so-called free

world where interest rates are the highest. It just happens that they

are also the three countries in the free world that presently enjoy a

socialist government: Italy, France and Canada.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Canada, Mr. Member. It's very interesting, Don't tell me about socialism.

Bill

82 isn't perfect. Certainly nothing is perfect. We strive daily to be

perfect. Few of us are, and nothing ever is. But what we are saying

through Bill 82 is that we as a government, with the means at our

disposal, are attempting to assist the industries that will do the most

good — that will have the most ripple effect on the economy of B.C.

We're attempting to assist the manufacturing industries so that the

ripple effect will have a positive effect on the service industries

during a time of worldwide economic downturn. It. Is for that reason.

that I fully support Bill 82.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) doesn't like me.

MR. KEMPF: I do! I remember you.

MR. COCKE: What have I ever done to bring such ire to that man's speeches and his psyche?

MR. RITCHIE: Get your hands out of your pockets, Dennis.

MR. COCKE: My hands will remain wherever I want them to be.

Just

before the member for Omineca moves out, as usual he was wrong on

virtually everything he said. Italy has a Christian Democratic

government, in which that member would find himself very much at home.

It's a very conservative government and certainly has no relationship

whatsoever to social democratic policies. Holland, on the other hand,

with a social democratic government, is in the best shape of any

Western country in terms of employment, interest rates and every aspect

of their economic direction.

West Germany and Sweden are

also in good shape, compared to us. Japan, on the other hand, is also

in an excellent state. Japan is not a social democratic country at all,

but has a paternalistic government, quite different from either;

nonetheless, it is in excellent shape compared to the western world.

However, the Minister of Industry and Small Business in this province

deems it necessary for B.C. to subsidize the Japanese steel industry.

Well, so be it. Here we are struggling to beat the band. Why are we

dealing with this bill at this time? In the first place, this Social

Credit government went to Ottawa in 1978 with their plea that we go in

a monetarist direction with high interest rates. They said tight money

and high interest rates were the only way we could possibly cure the

disease of inflation that was going on. That policy has thrown hundreds

of thousands of people out of work in this country. So we turned around

and we're going to give grants or loans to small business to create

jobs that our economic policy destroyed in the first place. I can't

believe it! Every move we make is to throw people out of work in this

damn country. Now we're trying to put them back to work — or some of

them — with these little band-aids. Imagine! In this beautiful province

there are over 200,000 people walking around trying to find a job. I

never thought I'd see the day. That member from Omineca talked about

the dark days of the NDP, for crying out loud. We were saving jobs in

that little recession. Mr. Speaker, we would be doing exactly the same

thing now. The ridiculous, monetarist group over there are party to

Pierre Elliott Trudeau's policy that has wrecked this country.

When

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) opened debate for our side on

this particular bill, he talked about what we consider to be an

inequity. The inequity is that you don't provide care for one part of

the small business community and not for the other part. The member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says that all you have to do is help the

manufacturing and the service industry will flourish. He talks about

the ripple effect. I'm not at all sure that the service industry sees

it that way.

Over the years, some people in the service

industry have been helped by this government. I recall the Waddling Dog

hotel on the highway. During the years 1972-75 it had up signs that

changed on a weekly basis, criticizing the NDP government of the day.

When this group became government, their reward was a $3 million loan.

I read the order-in-council, but nowhere did I see where it gave their

payback,

[ Page 9359 ]

their

interest rate or anything else. I asked the Minister of Small Business

Development at the time: what's going on? It's good economics to make a

loan to a friend.

I believe we have to be fair. In my view,

this bill does not provide the fairness that I believe it should

provide. I believe the loans should be made available to those people

in business in this province where there's a need and where it can

actually provide assistance, to the extent that we keep people working

and businesses going. Yes, it's a tough time. There's no question that

we need to give whatever assistance we can to the economy. But I don't

think we are giving assistance to the economy when we do it on an

inequitable basis. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development is going to get up and say: "We just couldn't possibly

manage it." What are we doing here? The member for Omineca says: "The

people in business don't want anything from the government." He then

turns around and says he's going to support this bill. I suggest: let's

be equitable and provide access to those who are in the most need and

can provide what is considered to be the best results from a bill like

this.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I rather

suspect that the bill is not very much more than window-dressing,

preceding an election. In any event, if that's what it is, then maybe

the window-dressing would be a little better if it were seen to be more

equitable.

Mr. Speaker, I am so sorry that so many of the major countries in the western

world adopted those three principles that have taken us into a very bad depression.

Those three principles are: monetarism, high interest rates and tight money.

I want to tell you that the exact same principles were adopted in the 1930s.

If you go back and look at what they were saying at the time, the conservative

governments of the world in those days were saying precisely what we're

faced with now. The beginning of the end of that depression came when Franklin

D. Roosevelt stood up and said, "This is just a crock, and we're going

to move in the other direction," and brought in the New Deal. That's

precisely what happened, Mr. Speaker, and that was the beginning of the end

of the depression.

any event, we're in the shape we're in. The reason we're in that shape

is that these people, Pierre and Bill, got together and decided that

the way to go was to adopt the Reaganomics, high interest rates and

monetarism that were rejected by any progressive economy in the world.

They were totally rejected by your friends in Tokyo too, Mr. Minister.

You know it and I know it.

Isn't it a shame that we fell into the category of those who wanted to get lost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Trapped by the socialists in Ottawa. You're in bed with them.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that is more disconcerting to the Socreds

than for somebody to stand up and tell the truth, and the truth is that

the Socreds have been in bed with the federal Liberals for years.

There's one of them right there. There's a zillion of them over there.

There are only one or two true Socreds left — there's the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada