1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd 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)

FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8443 ]

CONTENTS

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

Introduction and first reading — 8443

Oral Questions

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

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lea

Mr. Williams

Coal industry layoffs. Mr. Williams — 8445

Gasoline and oil prices. Mr. Cocke — 8445

Private Members' Statements

Sewage treatment in greater Victoria. Mr. Blencoe — 8445

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

Cedar Lodge and Skeleem Village. Mrs. Wallace — 8447

Mr. Cocke

Free trade and agriculture. Ms. Sanford — 8449

Mr. Stupich

Teaching peace in our schools. Mrs. Dailly — 8451

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

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

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 44: minister's office — 8452

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Williams

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Blencoe

FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, last evening I met a most pleasant

couple in Victoria while I was having dinner. They are from the great

state of Massachusetts of the United States of America. They are here

visiting British Columbia and Expo, and I would ask the House to give a

cordial and warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Lima from Massachusetts.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in the session this morning is

Pastor A. Lennox who is the director of public affairs for the

Seventh-Day Adventist Church. I would hope the members would make him

welcome this morning.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, visiting the precincts today and

discussing the dilemma of log exports are four people in the industry

from the north, very concerned employers. One of the employers is

laying off another 50 employees as of this evening, so he is here

trying to get some....

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure that I introduce to

this chamber Mr. Bill Thompson, Mr. Kelly Williams, Mr. John Williams

and Mr. Norm Rae. Would we please make them welcome?

Introduction of Bills

DENTAL TECHNICIANS AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Dental Technicians Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, a couple of comments. The bill

just introduced is to modify the regulations with respect to dental

technicians and denturists. There will be an expansion of the board to

be called the Dental Technicians Denturists Board; the elimination of

the requirement of the certificate of oral health for qualified

denturists. The board will have the authority to issue certificates of

registration which will replace the present licences to students,

including apprentices, and to assistants as well as to dental

technicians and denturists.

The board will have the authority after receiving a court order to

inspect premises, seize records and equipment, in addition to existing

powers of reprimand and suspension or cancellation of registration. The

board will also be empowered to place conditions on a registrant's

entitlement to practise and to impose fines. The rule-making of the

board will also be expanded.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments introduced today are the result of a

very exhaustive period of time of consultation with the denturists,

dental technicians and others.

I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

U.S. SHAKE AND SHINGLE TARIFFS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations in the absence of the Premier at the

Western Premiers' Conference. One of the ways that a government can

express its displeasure with another government is to withdraw its

ambassador and to give further instructions to that ambassador. Since

Mr. Reisman has ambassadorial rank in the negotiations between Canada

and the United States on trade issues, will this government undertake

to communicate to the Prime Minister their concern about the imposition

of the 35 percent duties on shakes and shingles in British Columbia,

and ask the Prime Minister to withdraw their negotiator for further

instructions and to further define the mandate of that negotiator so

that negotiations will not continue until such time as the U.S. remove

their provocative protectionist measures?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I take it. Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member

is articulating in that rather vague question the policy of his party.

That being the case, it's probably the stupidest question that we've

ever heard come from that side of the House. The very last thing in the

world is to remove ourselves from the table with the United States.

What we wish to do is produce results so we don't have this kind of

protectionism happening.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one way to avoid jeopardizing the talks that may be

taking place as a result of the threats of retaliation and some of the

wild threats made by the other member for Point Grey, one of the ways

to avoid jeopardizing the talks, and to follow the instructions that

are coming out of the Western Premiers' Conference as to redefining the

mandate of our negotiators at the free trade talks, is to withdraw that

negotiator and give further instructions without jeopardizing the

continuation of the talks. It's one of the few things....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, when there is order. It's one way

that this country can demonstrate its concern for what's going on in

the United States without jeopardizing those talks.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Please be seated.

In view of recent comments, particularly by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). who has asked the Chair to rule on both the

time of questions and responses, I would ask members in both posing

their questions and responding to them to adhere in some broad general

way to the guidelines which bind us. Again, hon. members, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[ Page 8444 ]

MR. SKELLY: It does not seem appropriate in any legislature

for a minister of the Crown to respond that any question is stupid, or

to respond in the way that this minister responded, which further

undermines the reputation of this House and this government.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, could I please make one

very simple observation for the hon. member? It's question period. Does

he have anything interrogative in his mind?

MR. SKELLY: My question, Mr. Speaker, was whether this

minister was prepared to communicate to the Prime Minister a request

that our negotiator be withdrawn in order to redefine his mandate so

that the negotiations between Canada and the United States could be

carried out with the understanding on the American side that we're

willing to take strong action if their protectionist measures continue

against our industries here in British Columbia.

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

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, from time to time

in the course of debate members say things which are not as

parliamentary as they would otherwise be. I'm sure that the government

House Leader was not making any personal reference in that remark.

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

MR. ROSE: The feds are talking retaliation. To the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations — the kind, courteous Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations: the feds are talking retaliation; the

Premiers are talking standstill. Is it the British Columbia

government's position to roll over and play dead?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where has the hon. member been over the past

few weeks? Where have you been, sir? Talk about playing dead, we were

the first people in the country to stand up against them. Play dead! If

the hon. member calls that playing dead, boy, we're happy to be this

kind of dead, I'll tell you that.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the government was two months late in

advising anybody. It doesn't have to play dead; it is dead. The Premier

wrote for financial assistance.

MR. SKELLY: Welfare for the industry.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: What we're striving to have, Mr. Member —

and make no bones about it; it's been the position of this party, which

will be the economic survival and the economic salvation of our country

— is a one-on-one, across the-board free-trade agreement with the

United States. And we have run into a very....

AN HON. MEMBER: What have you got?

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

We've run into a very, very difficult situation in the United

States. Do we like it? No. Does anybody in British Columbia like it?

No. I would hope that you people wouldn't like it. But one thing I did

notice, hon. member, when the Leader of the Opposition was making his —

I can't use the word "dumb," so I won't — suggestion this morning:

boy, were there a lot of grey faces in half of his caucus over there.

You're even divided on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROSE: Has the British Columbia government received a

reply yet from their pal Brian Mulroney for assistance under the

Employment Support Act, and if so, what was the content of that reply?

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

Interjections.

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

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

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry, I was distracted by the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Brummet) who wanted to

know whether he was part of the pollution, and I agree with him.

Has the government received a reply to the proposal for financial

assistance under the Employment Support Act, and what was the nature of

the reply from their pal Brian Mulroney?

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

MR. LEA: Boys, boys!

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the government can't stop the opposition

from making a smart or a dumb decision. However, they can't stop the

President of the United States from making a dumb or a smart decision.

I'd like to ask the government this morning about their dumb decision

regarding the export of logs.

I'd like to go to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of

Forests. Has there been a decision by the government that would allow

the export of raw logs and put back to work people on Vancouver Island

and in the Prince Rupert constituency, or are you just going to let it

slide and let it slide and hope time takes care of it?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his

question, I will take it as notice and bring back an answer at the

earliest possible time.

MR. LEA: He's taking the question as notice, I take it, Mr.

Speaker, as to whether they've made a decision. Now I'd like to ask the

parliamentary secretary another question. Do you think the decision

already made was a dumb decision?

Interjections.

[ Page 8445 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations. Has the government established a position vis-à-vis the

federal government on the negotiations through Mr. Reisman that we

demand the U.S. drop the countervail with respect to free trade?

Because if we have the countervail, we don't have free trade. That's

our problem today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's correct. There's not a person who

differs with that. We all agree with that perspective, and this is one

of the reasons the premiers are meeting and will be meeting with the

Prime Minister next week. Surely you've been reading the papers.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister aware, Mr. Speaker, that never

in the history of the United States have they given up the countervail

or anti-dumping legislation, and that we still would remain vulnerable

with the countervail there? No matter what the free trade talks

produce, we will still be as vulnerable then as we are today, because

the U.S. has never ever forgone that privilege.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a little difficult for me to respond to

United States government policy, but I would tend to think that their

policy is not etched in stone, as yours is.

COAL INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

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

A question for the Minister of Mines: Byron Creek is laying of 139

people in July, Crows Nest 100, and Westar has threatened 700 layoffs

in the Crowsnest coalfields. Could the Minister of Mines advise the

House whether his department or other agencies of government have

decided to intervene to prevent the equally disastrous problems in our

coal industry and prevent the continuing whipsawing by the Japanese

steel industry that's going on?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, of course we're concerned

about that, but we have a fairly difficult time to drag people here by

the throat and say: "You must buy coal." So some of the people have had

work stoppages. and there have been coal sales lost because of that.

Certainly we are intervening to the extent possible, but we cannot drag

people by the throat and insist that they buy coal.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the small

companies of British Columbia cannot deal with the Japanese steel

monopoly. The question is: is the minister prepared to jointly bargain

with those companies in dealing with the Japanese, and indeed is he

kind of skill and that kind of clout to prevent the disaster that is on

the horizon in our coal industry.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are discussions going on at all

levels to try to retain our coal markets. I suppose one of the

disasters.... The only disaster we face is the constant criticism from

that member about our coal industry.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

GASOLINE AND OIL PRICES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like — if I get a chance — to

direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources as well. Has this minister or this government interceded with

the gouging, rip-off oil companies in terms of what they are doing in

their reduction of refined gas vis-Ã -vis diesel and fuel oil? Fuel oil,

which has a much simpler refining mechanism — and the same thing with

diesel oil — is now more expensive than ordinary gas. As a matter of

fact, it was four cents more this morning. Has the minister done

anything with this band of cowboy bandits?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, we have had discussions with the

industry. Part of it is the federal taxation regime that keeps the

prices up. The other part, of course, is that some of the diesel and

fuel oil was refined from the more expensive oil. I am sure that in

time gasoline prices will moderate.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Quickly, as I see my guest is just

leaving.... We still have in our gallery today one of our local

aldermen, Vicki Kuhl, who, I understand, heard about the show in the

House and came to get a few lessons for council.

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

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I take pleasure in

introducing to the House two very gracious people from Delta, Howard

and Helen Underwood. With them today are two Expo attenders from

Houston, Texas. They've come all this way to attend Expo, and they

wanted to see the other part of the activities going on in the

province. It's certainly a tribute for them to be here this morning and

watch it being carried on. Would the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

SEWAGE TREATMENT IN GREATER VICTORIA

MR. BLENCOE: I wish to address an important issue this

morning for the greater Victoria area, one that both members for

Victoria have brought to this House before but one we feel is so

important that it should be treated in a serious statement this

morning. That is the question of sewage treatment and the whole

question of composting in the greater Victoria area. It's our position

that the current

[ Page 8446 ]

method utilized for removing sewage in greater

Victoria is a scandal and is one that is a great embarrassment to this

beautiful part of British Columbia.

There have never been, as far as I know, any cost-benefit studies

done to look at alternatives for removing sewage in greater Victoria.

It's been too easy to continue to dump raw sewage into the ocean not

far from this Legislature. In our estimation we need to look at

potential economic gain that can be derived from treatment and

composting. The theme is "waste as a resource; waste for economic

gain." Since 1968 all engineering studies on sewage have dealt with

disposal, and that's all they have dealt with. We believe that has been

extremely short-sighted, when we consider what other countries have

done and the economic benefit they have derived from treating,

composting and selling the wastes. The state of Washington no longer

dumps raw sewage into the ocean. The last Law of the Sea conference

condemned ocean dumping of any kind. Canada participated and supported

the recommendations of no more dumping of raw sewage into oceans. We

are the only sizeable community in the Pacific Northwest that continues

to dump raw sewage into the ocean. That is a serious indictment of all

levels of government, and one that we believe has to be rectified in

the very near future.

[10:30]

Some local experts continue to support the dumping. But it should be

noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prohibits raw

sewage dumping into the ocean, with a few exceptions — one, notably,

being New York State. In Europe there is minimal dumping of raw sewage

today. They have gone into extensive treatment and composting. There

has been a dramatic decline in the dumping of raw sewage into the ocean.

We have been introducing visitors in this chamber over the last few

weeks who are visiting our province. I wonder how many of them realize

how the greater Victoria area continues to dump raw sewage into the

ocean. It is, indeed, an embarrassment.

Important reports in the United States have cited various pollution

problems from dumping into the Atlantic from municipal wastes: toxic

effluents, sedimentation and the pollutants have created the growth of

algae and have depleted oxygen supply. These kinds of studies on

long-term impact have not been done in our waters off greater Victoria.

We need to look very seriously at this dumping problem. We do not know

the long-term results, now that the interceptor will be built. And, of

course, we are going to dramatically increase the volume of raw sewage

being dumped off Victoria. We don't know the results. Indeed, the

reports of 1973 by Dr. Ellis have quite clearly stated that we don't

really know the ultimate fate of the large amounts of wastes presently

being disposed of in the ocean, and we really are playing with the

future of our water environment.

It is a resource. Nitrogen and phosphorus are key elements in

commercial fertilizers, and manufacturing them is very expensive. It's

estimated that we have dumped thousands and thousands of dollars worth

of nitrogen and phosphates right off the coast here in greater

Victoria, and there have been estimates that between 1973 and 1986 we

have dumped in excess of $700,000 worth of phosphates and nitrogen off

greater Victoria. We are spending millions of dollars to dump raw

sewage into our oceans. We need to look at composting and treatment

plants in the greater Victoria area. And we believe there has to be a

political will to do that.

In that regard, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), who

unfortunately is not here today, agreed to a meeting with myself and

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and we had a very useful

meeting. We talked about how we could bring this about, what would be

the costs and what would be the possible sites, and we encouraged the

Capital Regional District to fast-track their liquid wastes management

plan.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We believe that there should be a waste management plan for sewage

in the Victoria area as fast as possible, and we believe that the

studies should end with a sewage treatment plant for the greater

Victoria area. There should be public meetings as quickly as possible

on this project. We have suggested to the CRD that there be a hastening

of the process of bringing sewage treatment to greater Victoria. It has

to be a top priority, and we believe that local government and

provincial government support can bring this about effectively and

quickly. It needs leadership, and it needs the political will.

It is an embarrassment. Greater Victoria residents don't support the

current methodology. In the last few weeks, when we have talked about

this, both members for Victoria have received letters and calls of

support. Victorians once and for all wish to deal with this issue in a

very efficient and, I believe, productive manner. With the political

will, with the leadership, we can establish formulas, and we can bring

sewage treatment to greater Victoria. We hope the other side of the

House will be a partner in developing that.

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

I'm surprised when he says that there have been no studies. This

thing has been studied back and forth for some time. I'm sorry that

that member for Victoria is the only one who seems to be publicizing

all of this, and yet he says it's an embarrassment. Other people are

trying to work towards a solution. He keeps publicizing the evil of the

beaches, that sort of thing, and he has medical tests to support that,

I presume. I also know that he was a member of council here at one

time. I don't know what happened at that time.

Certainly there needs to be a political will, and I would imagine he

was addressing his comments as much to the Capital Regional District as

he was to the government here.

Everybody supports a cleaner environment; it's not new. I think the

House might benefit from some background on sewage collection and

disposal. Some 20 years ago work began in accordance with planning at

the time to collect all of the many local outfalls in greater Victoria

to four main locations, at Macaulay, Clover and McMicking Points and

Finnerty Cove. Subsequent engineering studies indicated that it makes

better sense to divert Finnerty Cove and McMicking discharges to Clover

Point through a new northeast trunk sewer, which the member referred

to. This project should see all of the remaining beach areas cleaned up

and removal of the cautionary signs at those beaches. In their planning

activities, the core municipalities and the ministry have recognized

the trend toward treatment of all waste before disposal. It is for that

reason that land at Macaulay Point was set aside for a possible

treatment plant.

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

[ Page 8447 ]

Capital Regional District, and that the Capital

Regional District stated that it was their intention in due course to

produce a liquid waste management plan. The minister agreed that that

would be the proper time to consider the need for and the timing of the

remaining Macaulay Point treatment plant and the disposal project.

I hope that that member will support all the efforts that are being

done towards a solution, instead of just this constant carping and

criticism.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to point out that before the

member for Victoria was an alderman and certainly long before the

member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) was the Minister of

Energy, there was a study done jointly by the provincial Ministry of

Energy and the city of Victoria on the possible building of a plant to

produce energy from the sewage waste. That study....

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

MRS. WALLACE: Garbage, sewage, everything. The study

indicated that in ten years the investment would be recouped from that

plant. What happened? They recommended further study.

These are the kinds of issues that many of us have been raising in

this House and around this province and on any platform we can find, to

try to point out to people that you don't necessarily put your garbage

into landfills or your sewage into the sea — that there are other

methods that are much more economical and certainly much safer, much

healthier.

As my colleague from Victoria has mentioned, sewage is being

reutilized in many areas around the world. One of the first places was

Dusseldorf, in Europe, where they make money from their sewage. They

make fertilizer.

Methane gas is another good source. There was a university in the

United States which found that it could use the waste from its

university dairy farm to produce 90 percent of all the heat and energy

requirements of that particular operation. The technology is there. All

that is required is the will to do it.

It's the economic answer, the safe answer and it's the most

environmentally sound answer, because it means that we're not going to

destroy those waters that surround this island. It relates not just to

Victoria; it relates all up the inland coast where those inland waters

of Georgia strait and Stuart Channel are fast becoming so polluted that

we may have reached the point of no return.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this has been a useful discussion

and I appreciate the remarks of the minister. I certainly must indicate

that I appreciate the support of the Minister of Environment in terms

of holding a meeting and discussing this issue in a frank and open way.

The studies I referred to the former Minister of Environment — 100

percent of the studies — have really concentrated on how to get rid of

it. There have been no serious studies, as far as I know, on a

cost-benefit analysis of utilizing those waste products as a resource.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the irony of this thing is that

phosphate rock, for example, thousands of dollars of which goes out the

pipe, has to be imported into Canada for fertilizer manufacturing.

Composted sewage in the form of fertilizer has been imported into the Greater

Victoria area — tons of it annually — for years at $750 a ton. Yet we are putting

out, it is estimated in a study that was done by an alderman in Saanich, between

1973 and 1986 a minimum of $700,000 worth of value of phosphate into the salt

chuck.

Those are the cost-benefit analyses and studies that I think we need

to be doing. There is great potential here. That's what we're

suggesting here — not only clean up the ocean, clean up the beaches and

deal with the long-term effect, but also look at the economic viability

of this kind of treatment composting solution. But what it takes is

leadership, and it also takes senior government, provincial government,

to be on board in terms of a very favourable costsharing formula.

This is the capital of British Columbia. It is a tourist mecca, and

if many tourists knew that we put out raw sewage just off these

beautiful beaches, I think they would be very embarrassed. Citizens of

Victoria want a long-term solution. We are going to continue to

advocate that, and hopefully meet with the Minister of Environment and

CRD officials to get on track with a long-term solution and a liquid

waste management study that can be put to this community with the

options, with the sites and with the dollar value of what this will

cost us. With the province as a partner, we will solve this problem in

the long term.

CEDAR LODGE AND SKELEEM VILLAGE

MRS. WALLACE: I'm only sorry that neither the Minister of

Health nor the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who

happens to be the same person, is in the House today. It seems like I'm

talking to a vacuum. I want to speak about an issue that I have raised

with that minister before, and it's still a very crucial issue in my

constituency.

We have in Cowichan-Malahat a place called Skeleem Village. It's

situated about ten miles south of Duncan between the highway and the

Cobble Hill road. Skeleem Village is a series of group homes for

mentally handicapped young people. They are beautiful log homes that

were built in part by the young people who live there. They have a

resident in each home, someone who guides these young people, and in

conjunction with this there is a series of workshops.

The young people are taught to do things like carpentry and

woodwork; weaving; there is a very good bakery. They sell a lot of

their products locally. In addition to that, many of them are able to

acquire sufficient skills to take a job outside of Skeleem Village and

still live in that situation.

The village is operated by a society known as Cedar Lodge Society,

and at one time they also operated a boarding school for seriously

disturbed young children. That school did receive funding from Human

Resources and later from the Minister of Education, but it has been

closed under rather unfortunate circumstances.

[10:45]

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

They own approximately 150 acres of beautiful, valuable property

between those two roads, and the society has been forced, as a result

of their financial position, to offer it for sale. They thought at

first that they would sell just the school, and they had an offer from

a religious organization known as Wycliffe Bible Translators, who were

going to buy half of the property and use that school for translation

of religious works.

[ Page 8448 ]

However, the department of health science at the University of B.C.

heard about the property and are most anxious to use it as a treatment

centre and outpatient area for the patients they treat. They have all

the skills, all the qualifications, and they certainly have the need.

They are a local concern. They are a taxpayers' responsibility, if you

will, and I believe that it is the responsibility of governments to

provide adequate care for these young people. I understand that the

people involved with the Health Sciences Centre — the man in charge of

it is a Dr. Robert McDermit, the president — have made a lot of

overtures to both the Ministry of Health and Human Resources to try to

obtain some startup funding just to get the program in place. That has

not been forthcoming. At the present time they seem to have decided not

to put in a bid. However, as a result of their wanting to take over the

whole operation, the Wycliffe Bible Translators joined forces with

something known as Christian Horizons, from Ontario, who operate homes

for the mentally retarded, and they have made an offer. I understand

that they're going to come and live there this summer. However, the

board of the society is still hanging tough. I think they would like to

see the Health Sciences Centre in there.

We still have until the fall before a final decision is made, and to

me it's most critical that the funding is available so the Health

Sciences Centre can have the opportunity to take over that property and

use it for a very worthwhile purpose.

There are many things that go on there. The local riding club, for

example, has a riding ring on the property, and the young people who

live at Skeleem Village join the young riders. So that's another

recreational thing that happens there. The whole community is involved.

At one time we had the society that deals with ex-prisoners — the John

Howard Society — doing wood-cutting and selling firewood there, getting

those ex-prisoners rehabilitated.

It's been a very valuable social and community asset, and it can

continue to be that if the health science people have the opportunity

to come in there and give it its full potential.

I certainly have nothing against religious groups, but I do not

believe it is the job of a charitable organization to deal with young

people who have the great misfortune to be mentally handicapped, I

think that is a responsibility of society as a whole. We have a very

modern and extensive service available to us at the Health Sciences

Centre at UBC. We should be making the best possible use of it. We can

do that in the form of an outpatient service, if the government can see

its way to providing sufficient funding to have that health science

centre set up a program and establish it at Skeleem Village. It's in

the best interests of the province as a whole, and certainly in the

best interests of those residents at Skeleem, who are extremely happy

there at the present time and would like to see a similar situation

continue. And it would be in the best interests of my community.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Day

came out yesterday and again today indicating precisely what topics

were going to be discussed in the House this morning. Four of the

members of the opposition have been chosen for....

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking to the issue, and I will

get to it. I am preambling my remarks by saying that under the

circumstances there is no reason, with a very important issue like

Skeleem before us, that the minister responsible is not here. This

leadership thing that's going on in the Socreds is driving us crazy.

Mr. Speaker, Skeleem Village is important, for the reason that for

the last number of years this province — that minister and his

predecessors — have been sending young adults out of this province....

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two

points. One is that there is nothing in the rules that requires a

response from the minister. The member has the right to make the

statement. Secondly, I would ask the Speaker to encourage the member

from New Westminster to speak to the issue of Cedar Lodge and Skeleem

Village, and not the leadership race in the Social Credit Party.

MR. COCKE: Oh, too bad.

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

Would the member continue in reply.

MR. COCKE: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we in this province have

been sending young adults — adolescents — out of British Columbia

because we don't have the care facilities here. We have an opportunity

now of looking after a number of our own responsibilities at Skeleem

and Cedar Lodge. When the program.... Incidentally, I was quite in

favour of them taking the young retarded people out of there and

placing them in the community with care, which then gave us an

opportunity to utilize that facility for a need that is out there.

The university's Health Sciences Centre has, along with the rest of

their facilities, an amazingly appropriate psychiatric facility. With

that, of course, go staff who understand the problems in our province.

They have offered in the interim, until such a time as the proper

program can be developed — that takes a little while — to operate Cedar

Lodge and Skeleem, and it will only cost $100,000. Do you know what

this government has said? That they cannot allocate that $100,000 out

of their millions of dollars of budget in order to facilitate that

move. This government should hang their heads with shame, for heaven's

sake. That resource out there — our children, our young people — needs

to be protected against this government, it would appear.

There is absolutely no reason on earth why this practical

utilization of that property would not be adopted. I agree totally with

the member for Cowichan that that facility should not be left fallow.

Fair enough; if a religious order wants a facility to do whatever they

want to do, let them build their facility. This is a facility that has

been operated by a non-profit society for a number of years for another

purpose. Now that purpose has indeed been reduced to the extent that

they could close that facility. Therefore let's use it in the way that

the Health Sciences Centre has suggested. Not only suggested; there is

total backing for this particular program at that Health Sciences

Centre. The Health Sciences Centre is affiliated not only with UBC but

with Simon Fraser and UVic. The kind of talent that we could get to run

this program is absolutely without peer. I suggest that they could run

a program there to take care of this problem that we hang our heads

about.

[ Page 8449 ]

Every time a child is sent to Edmonton or down to the United States

for care, I feel ashamed in a rich province like this, absolutely

ashamed at the way we're handling it. Mr. Speaker, let's get that

minister back on the job. Let him forget about this leadership race

just long enough to sign the warrant for the Health Sciences Centre to

look after his responsibility.

MRS. WALLACE: That property is valued at something like $2

million. If the government doesn't come through with the $100,000, I

understand those religious groups are going to pick it up for something

like $150,000. I think that's disgraceful. We need to retain that

facility in the hands of Canadians and British Columbians for Canadians

and British Columbians. It's a grave need in this province to have that

kind of treatment centre. Yet the minister doesn't even have the

courtesy to be here to respond — and he's in the House; he was here for

question period.

When I raised the question during his estimates, he said they were

considering it. Well, they've been considering and considering. We

thought the axe was going to fall in the middle of May. The society

managed to put it off until the fall. The minister has a second chance

to redeem himself in the eyes of all those British Columbians who are

concerned about the unfortunate young people who suffer the kinds of

afflictions that could be treated there.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: It speaks for itself.

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

I had hoped to be able to raise it once more, to bring it to the

attention of the minister, but that is apparently not possible. The

minister is not sufficiently interested to be in the House and respond.

I believe that that not only indicates to me that he is not interested

in this particular subject, but it is also disrespectful to the very

purpose of this Legislature. Of course, no one is obliged to speak; but

a minister of the Crown does have a responsibility to let his position

be known as far as the responsibilities of his ministry go. And that

minister has reneged on that responsibility today.

[11:00]

FREE TRADE AND AGRICULTURE

MS. SANFORD: Free trade is an issue that dominates the news

these days. We have the start of the free-trade talks, we've had the

tariff applied to shakes and shingles by the U.S., and we've had

on-again-off-again compensation representations made by the federal

government. There seems to be a lot of confusion right now surrounding

this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I'm particularly concerned that very little has been

said about the impact of free trade on the agriculture industry, at

either the federal or the provincial level. I would like to state right

at the outset that I'm very disappointed that the Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is also not in his place as

this discussion is taking place this morning. The agriculture industry

in this province is very concerned about what is happening and what

will happen to them as these free-trade talks proceed. The front page

of the edition of Country Life

which has just arrived today quotes the president of the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture as saying that it's the issue that dominates

every conversation they have now in the agricultural community. Yet the

minister is not there. Agriculture is in enough difficulty without

having to face the concern and the worry that these free-trade talks

might bring them. But we've had no assurances from either the

provincial or the federal government that agriculture need not worry as

these free-trade talks proceed.

"Everything is on the table," says the Premier of this province,

"and we want everything on the table." Yet it's very clear in

the eyes of the agricultural community that if they are included in these free-trade

negotiations, they stand to lose. There is no doubt that agriculture is the

biggest industry in this province that will be negatively affected by the move

towards free trade. It's a concern for them.

What they would like and what I would like, as debate leader for

Agriculture and Food, is some statement from this provincial government

that the interests of agriculture will indeed be considered and will be

protected during these free trade talks. We don't have that assurance.

We haven't had that assurance from either federal or provincial

governments. Agriculture very often takes a secondary place whenever

there is a push and pull among the various resources. The farmers are

worried in this province that they again will take a second place when

the issues are raised at the negotiating table regarding free trade.

The committee which advises our negotiator, Mr. Reisman, is made up

of people who have only one person with an agricultural background on

it. That person happens to represent the Wheat Board of Canada and

knows very little about all of the various commodities in this province

that stand to go down the drain if, in fact, they are negotiated away

at the table. There is no guarantee whatsoever at this point, and it's

no wonder that the front page of Country Life talks about the concerns, and that it's the predominant issue among the farmers today.

I would like to know — and I don't know if any of the people who are

sitting here now would be able to respond on behalf of the government —

what specific studies the Minister of Agriculture or the government

have undertaken with respect to the impact that free trade may have on,

for instance, the dairy industry. Right now in this province we have in

the dairy industry some 2,800 people who are directly employed. We also

understand that the surplus that is produced in the United States each

day would virtually take care of all of the fluid milk needs in this

province, each day.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

That's the surplus that's produced down there. Is it any wonder that

the dairy industry is concerned about what might happen at that

free-trade table? What studies have been done by this government on

that issue? What studies have been done by the government on the impact

that the free-trade discussions might have on the chicken producers in

this province, or the turkey producers? What about the egg producers?

What studies have they undertaken? I do not think that the government

paid the kind of attention that is absolutely necessary to this

industry before they went back to Ottawa in order to push for

free-trade talks.

If they have done the studies, then let's see them. Let's see what

kind of impact this government has learned the freetrade talks will

have on one of our most important industries in this province, the

industry of agriculture.

MR. STUPICH: For a moment, I thought it was a toss-up as to

whether we'd get one of the cabinet ministers to respond. I share the

concern of the hon. member for Comox, a

[ Page 8450 ]

concern that B.C. agriculturists, farmers, food

producers, are not represented at the free-trade talks. I don't mean

that one of their numbers should be there, but I'm talking about the

concerns that they have about what might happen to the farming industry

and the agricultural industry in the province of British Columbia with

these free-trade discussions.

I think everyone would agree that it is important that we move

towards free trade. I would hope everyone would agree that we should

also move carefully and that we can't all of a sudden one day wake up

and find out that we're in a completely free-trade situation without

very carefully defining how free trade is to work with respect to every

commodity. In this instance, the hon. member for Comox raised the

concern....

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

MR. STUPICH: Madam Speaker, there is an opportunity for a

member of the cabinet to speak, and that particular cabinet member

never seems to be able to speak standing on his feet. Now perhaps

arrangements can be made for him, as has been done for another member

in the House. If he can't speak standing, he could have arrangements

made so that he can speak sitting down. Perhaps he thinks best then, if

he thinks at all.

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

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

MR. STUPICH: There are many, and how can we move into a

system of total free trade from the position we are now in without

protecting the rights of groups like that? When I think of the fruit

growers, I recall, for example, that the fruit growers on the American

side of the border, at least the Pacific northwest part of the United

States, are competing very directly with our fruit growers from the

Okanagan. Yet they are using the same water supply that we are using.

It is water that originates in the province of British Columbia. The

dams are in British Columbia. The Columbia River Treaty provides that

we let the water go down the Columbia River through those dams just as

fast or as slowly as the Americans want us to let it go down. They

control the flow of the water. They sell that water to their fruit

growers at a price of roughly one-quarter of what our fruit growers are

paying, and yet their produce moves relatively freely northward

into our markets here in Canada. Because they happen to be to the

south, their product matures earlier, so of course they come onto the

market at a time when they can command a premium price for being first

in the market. Then when our fruit is ready, theirs is past its peak.

They drop their price because the prices are dropping down there

anyway, and they come up here and undercut the prices that our own food

producers have to have for the first part of the season.

Now it can be accommodated, Madam Speaker, but it means, as I say,

carefully discussing the effect and the provisions of how free trade

will work. And that's just one example. I have talked about fruit

growers, but the same kind of example could be used with respect to

almost every product that we grow in the province.

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

People living in British Columbia should be able to live in a

community where they can see food being produced, where they can see

fruit trees in bloom, where they can see cattle grazing, where they can

see dairy cows being milked, where they can see broilers being raised

and hens even in batteries, where they can experience where food comes

from, where school children can be taken out on field trips and see

these operations. This applies not only to people who are working

directly in the processing plants, but field trips should be organized

so that the rest of our citizens can have a first-hand view of what it

means to produce food and what it means to process it.

Now if we lose our production — which we are very liable to do, the

way free trade talks have been talked about in this House where the

government appears to have little concern for anything other than our

very large industry.... It is certainly something about which they

should be concerned, but I am afraid their concern has not been very

evident to date. Nevertheless, there are other important sectors of our

community whose interests must be looked after, not simply for the

people involved directly in those particular groups, but also for the

total community. Remember we would all lose something if we lose any

contribution to our economy from any such group. Free trade yes, but it

must be properly negotiated, sector by sector.

MS. SANFORD: Again, we have had no information from the

government at all with respect to the position they have adopted, the

kinds of studies they might have undertaken or the representations they

may have made to Simon Reisman, our negotiator on the free trade issue.

The chief economist for the B.C. Central Credit Union, Richard

Allen, has indicated that if we move towards full free trade without

some special recognition of the status that agriculture occupies, it

will be an absolute disaster for agriculture — an absolute disaster. We

just have not had the assurance from government. We have not had any

indication that they have studied or even looked at the impact these

great free trade talks may have on that industry. The dairy, egg,

chicken, turkey, vegetable, grape, wheat, oyster, tree fruit producers

— they are all concerned about the possible impact hat these talks may

have on them. They have had no assurances from government, and this is

what worries me.

The other thing that happens is that if we move towards free trade

and the prediction of Richard Allen does in fact happen and it becomes

an absolute disaster, then we will find hat the land, the agricultural

land on which we produce our food, will disappear because it will be

eventually paved over, and as a province it seems to me it is

absolutely essential that we retain that land and that we retain the

production.

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

"Growers cannot see how either the federal or the provincial

governments could contemplate any move which would endanger the Canadian or

the B.C. food supply and place the people of Canada or British Columbia at risk

of being held for ransom for the very food they eat."

Now that expresses, I think, the depth of the concern of he

agricultural community in this province. I hope that even bough the

government has not spoken at this time, that they will later today,

tomorrow, or next week indicate what they think, what kind of studies

they have undertaken and what kind of assurance they can give to the

farmers of this province

[ Page 8451 ]

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

[11:15]

TEACHING PEACE IN OUR SCHOOLS

MRS. DAILLY: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to see that the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is here. It's unfortunate that

the other speakers didn't have the same opportunity I have to be able

to relate directly to the minister who is responsible in reference to

my statement.

Interjection.

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

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

I think that in laying the groundwork for this statement and to

point out to the minister why I feel it is very important — vitally

important — for any Minister of Education today to take a strong

leadership role in promoting and encouraging a curriculum for the

teaching of peace in our schools.... I think we would all agree that

there is a whole new breed of child in the world today, and they are

going to grow up into a new breed of adult, primarily and mainly

because they have been brought up with the threat of nuclear warfare. I

was not brought up under that threat, and I look back now and think how

relatively peaceful my existence was, even though I was — to tell my

age — brought up at the time of the Second World War. But that was

remote, even though I had friends and relatives who were involved. But

today every child and person living in the world is affected by the

horrible possibility of nuclear war. So the children of today in our

schools are being brought up under this threat, and so do we not have a

responsibility as politicians — particularly the Minister of Education — to deal with this problem?

You may say: "Well, isn't this something to be handled in the home?"

Well, of course it is, but children are every day exposed when they go

to school to the problems in the newscasts — nuclear disasters, more

peace talks breaking down — and they have to deal with those fears

every day. If we continue a wall of silence about these fears in our

schools, we are not doing our job. Lack of ability to talk about

nuclear fears which most children have today is doing a disservice; the

schools are an ideal place to give them this opportunity.

A psychiatrist at Yale University doing a report on this whole

matter stated that children today are growing up without the ability to

form stable ideals. This is because of this fear of the world coming to

an end because of nuclear warfare. In North Vancouver, to bring it

closer to home and to leave the United States, in a high school last

spring students were asked in an essay to describe what they thought

the world would look like and be like in the year 1999. Sadly to say,

out of 78 students who wrote, 45 percent foresaw a world devastated by

nuclear war. Those are the facts that we as parents, teachers,

politicians or whatever we are have to deal with today, and to keep

this quiet, to not give children an opportunity to discuss it, is doing

a great disservice, as I said earlier.

Now I want to pay tribute to the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who have

developed an excellent curriculum on the teaching of peace, and I'm

sure the minister is aware of it.

Some people may say: "Well, how far are you going to go?" And, you

know, it's really interesting: as I was doing some research on this

little statement today on what I consider of major import, I found the

same concerns being expressed about the teaching of peace — and this

may sound rather foolish — as you find when you try to bring up the

teaching of sex education. People say: "Oh, but it's controversial.

Who's going to handle it? Who's going to teach it?" And then they're

afraid of some small minority who would come out, particularly in the

matter of teaching of peace, and perhaps say: "Oh, you're all

communists. You're supporting the communists by talking peace." Of

course, I find that absolutely ludicrous. The communists themselves

know that they too are going to be destroyed by nuclear warfare, as do

the people in this part of the world. I do hope that that kind of

irrational fear about the teaching of peace can be put aside and that

we can deal with it rationally.

I watched a program recently from the United States, and actually it

was about a Catholic school. It was fascinating, because they have a

curriculum in some of the Catholic schools in the United States — a

very strong, good curriculum — to teach about peace. They were bringing

in advocates of the need for nuclear deterrence, and then they were

bringing in speakers who were against it. This is the point.

The point is not to advocate in the school system one way to solve

peace. The point is to bring forward different opinions so that those

students can think for themselves. When they grow up, they will take an

active

part in working for peace. My personal bias, of course, and I

have to say it here and now, is that I am absolutely against using

nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I know that many people agree with me.

I don't want to get off my main theme, which is to say to the

Minister of Education that I think it would be doing a tremendous

positive service to the children of this province if you and your

ministry gave leadership in this. May I suggest one small way you could

start, and it is something that I did when I was minister so many years

ago: ask that the schools, when they celebrate Remembrance Day, not

talk war anymore, but talk peace. I'm sure if the Minister of Education

brought this up in a declaration at the time of Remembrance Day, it

would be well received.

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

One final statement. May I say to the minister that I do know that

above all, the only way that we can teach children and teach the world

peace is to change attitudes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of

the member opposite. I don't think there's a member in this assembly

who does not concur with her concern about peace and the need to "teach

peace," whether it be in our schools or our homes. I'm not sure that I

can identify with her that there's a need for a structured curriculum.

I guess the question has to be asked: "What is peace?" It's love for

our fellow man. That's really what is the key to achieving peace. I'm

not sure a structured curriculum would achieve that goal. I think that

setting an example may well do it, whether it be in our place of work,

in our competitions, in our homes or in this hall. We can recognize the

apparent animosity from time to time within debate. We parry and thrust

with words as opposed to weapons, but sometimes, Madam Speaker, the

concern is attitudes, as the member says.

[ Page 8452 ]

I agree with her that we have to change attitudes in all walks of

life, not just in the classroom. She's quite correct in saying that

there will be a new breed of adults, the adults of the twenty-first

century. But interestingly enough, what she's really saying, or the

message I'm getting from her — because she did finally get to it — was

nuclear warfare, nuclear power. Madam Member, all people are against

nuclear war. You made that comment. All people are against war of any

kind, aggression of any kind. You, as do many others, take the approach

that nuclear war is the enemy, when it's really conflict, aggression,

war of any kind that is the enemy.

I've been supported and I've been reprimanded as Minister of

Education for saying that I see no problem with prayers in the schools.

Yet others say: "You should not have prayers in the schools because not

all our students are Christian. They are of other religions." In the

global sense, I look at that quiet time where prayers are

read.... Because they are words of wisdom that give some guidance

to our young children, regardless of their religion. All religions come

back to pretty well the same basic philosophy: Love thy neighbour. The

ten commandments: whether they're from one religion or another, all the

concepts are the same. Whether it's an Indian religion or a western

religion, they all come back to the same thing. So I don't have too

much difficulty in having that quiet time in a classroom for people to

reflect and to think what the words really mean — not quote whether

it's Christian or Jewish or whatever, but what the words really mean

because that's where the message is.

The structured course, Madam Member: I'm not sure we need that. I

think there should be a message in the school. You mentioned bringing

in advocates that are pro and con nuclear war. I don't think that's the

answer because that gets into two mindsets, one for — if there is

anybody for — and one against nucular power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nuclear.

HON. MR. HEWITT: N-u-c-l-e-a-r. My teacher from the North

correcting the member from North Okanagan, which we have to do from

time to time. I'm not sure the pro and con advocates with regard to

nuclear warfare should be the answer, but you certainly have agreement

from me as Minister of Education, Madam Member, and I'm sure from all

British Columbians, Canadians and people around the world, that we

should be talking peace, but peace of all kinds, not just the question

of atomic or nuclear warfare.

I see my time is up. I appreciate the comments of the member. It is

the responsibility of us all, parent, politician and educator, to

ensure that we achieve peace in this world.

MRS. DAILLY: Once again, it doesn't matter if we're talking

economics or whatever; now we're talking peace. The minister and I both

agree that we all want peace, but we certainly don't seem to agree on

how to go about it.

The minister seemed to miss my point entirely. I'm trying to make

the point to the minister that we have an absolute responsibility today

to deal with the threat of nuclear war. He has said it's a matter of

changing attitudes, which I have said too. But the only way you're

going to do that is by education. It's up to the Minister of Education

to see that that education takes place in our schools, yet the minister

has said: "I don't see much point in doing this." Therefore he is

actually saying to us that it doesn't have quite that importance; we

can just leave it to happen. That's not good enough.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The minister says bringing in opposite sides to talk isn't good

because you'll have polarization. That's the way you learn to think —

by presenting the different sides of a question. That's the thing we

need in our school system above all: to have students think for

themselves. When you have an opportunity for only one side, you are not

giving that opportunity. By not taking a stand, by not allowing a set

curriculum to take place in our school system, you are therefore not

giving that opportunity for the necessary debate.

[11:30]

I regret that the minister does not see it as his responsibility to

provide the students of this province with a peace curriculum. To sit

back and let it go is not the answer. It needs to be done. Many parents

are now asking for it. I'd like to quote from a parent who said at a

recent meeting: "I believe that in the matter of peace — stopping wars

— you should start talking in your own home." I would still like to see

parents press for a peace curriculum in the schools with age

appropriate materials. We have to learn how to negotiate, to find just

compromises when faced with opposing viewpoints, without resorting to

violence and threat of violence on a personal basis, before we can

really expect that to happen on an international level. We can only

have lasting peace in the world if we change our attitudes.

I feel that the Minister of Education has a direct responsibility to

see that we bring about that change of attitude; to bring up children

in British Columbia — and hopefully all across the world — who realize

that there is no hope for anyone in this world today unless we work

together for peace. That means the destruction and the removal of all

nuclear weapons.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY

AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

MR. MacWILLIAM: Over the past few years this province has

been suffering from what I think we can best sum up as being the mega

project blues. The problem is that we've continued to hold all our eggs

in one economic basket for too long. We've talked about this before:

about the need for diversification in British Columbia, the need for

expansion of our small business sector, the need to diversify, the need

to took at regional economies and pump money that has been tunnelled

into mega projects into regional job creation projects throughout the

province.

You know, in projects such as northeast coal and other large

capital-intensive projects, it has been estimated that it takes $1

million of capital investment to create one long-term job. If you took

that $1 million and put it into job creation programs in the small

business sector throughout the

[ Page 8453 ]

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

I have to ask that minister where this government's priorities are,

because that's not happening. We're dumping money — we're firing it out

of cannons — into megaproject developments, and not enough energy and

resources have been going into our small business economy, particularly

in the service and retail sectors, where most of the job creation is

taking place now and will be taking place within the immediate future.

There has been very little help for small business in British Columbia.

Small businesses are the major front for job creation. It is

estimated that 71 percent of all the new employment not only in British

Columbia but also throughout Canada has been in firms that employ less

than 50 people. By 1990, it's estimated that 800,000 new jobs should be

developed from that small business sector.

The problem is that in British Columbia the government is ignoring

those realities, and it continues to dump more and more funds into the

capital-intensive investments such as northeast coal and other mega

projects and has been ignoring the need that small business has been

demonstrating, has been crying for, in this province.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We've got about $39 billion in personal savings locked up in bank

accounts in this province — pension funds and whatnot. That's $36

billion locked in savings accounts throughout B.C. Now what could we

do? It's amazing what we could do with that kind of spending power if

we could release it into the economy to get the cash flow there that is

needed by stimulating sales, by stimulating investment. What has

happened in the past is that sales have gone down, investment has gone

down; there has been no confidence in the business sector in this

province largely because of the programs and the lack of initiative of

this present government. There has been no confidence in investment.

Investment has been on the decline, and I think it's a clear indication

that the programs of this present government have failed.

I want to give you an example. With great fanfare prior to the 1983

election, the government brought in the LIFT program. I think it was

$190 million put into bonds that were supposed to stimulate the small

business economy. The problem was, when small businesses went to get

hold of some of that money, they found that 85 percent of the small

business sector couldn't qualify because the money was used for

secondary manufacturing, and service and retail sector industries

didn't have access to those funds. The program was collapsed after this

government was elected, and if memory serves me, about $135 million was

left in the LIFT program, sitting in BCDC bank accounts and not used.

So they brought in a program with great fanfare, got elected, and then

proceeded to dismantle it right after that.

Mr. Chairman, last year I brought to the minister for his

consideration — and I want to do it again — the concept of the

development of small business enterprise bonds. This is a concept that

is not new. It is a concept that has been discussed at length in the

federal House. It is a concept that has been used successfully in other

countries. The idea is that interest bearing bonds with equivalent tax

credits to make an attractive investment for the investment community

would release a pool of money at low interest for small business

development. As a matter of fact, we could focus that on the small

business sector that is presently being ignored, and that is the

service and retail sector. I suggest to the minister that that is an

area that we could be looking at. I know I have made that suggestion

before, and he has turned it aside. I would like, in the spirit of

cooperation, to make it again, because I think it is a valuable concept

and should be explored.

Well, what has happened in the past little while? Restraint and

increased taxes imposed during the last few years have in fact led to a

collapse, to a decrease in consumer spending. As a result of that

decrease in consumer spending, the small business community has been

the hardest hit. Retail sales in British Columbia decreased steadily

between 1980 and 1984. Although it is turning around, the increases we

witnessed in British Columbia in 1985 were the lowest in Canada.

Business bankruptcies in this province increased 166 percent in the

last five years. Business bankruptcies in Canada as a whole have

decreased by 9 percent. Now I ask you, why the discrepancy? Why do they

go up 166 percent in British Columbia while they are going down 9

percent in the rest of Canada? Clearly something is wrong. What is

wrong is the policies and the programs and the direction that this

government has taken, particularly with respect to initiatives in the

small business sector. Consumer bankruptcies increased from 979 in 1981

to 2, 666 in 1985. That is a 172 percent increase. What about business

bankruptcies? Is it any sunnier in that area? Let's have a look. The

latest big business bankruptcy statistics for this year show that 480

businesses have gone under in 1986 so far — five months into it. We're

already showing a 2.6 percent increase in business bankruptcies from

last year, and last year alone was bad enough.

Mr. Speaker, these figures show the real story behind what is going

on in this province, despite all the good-news advertising and

partnerships in enterprise blitzed throughout the news media, the radio

and television. Despite all the good news, it is not happening!

I have got some information for the minister. This is a poll

recently conducted in the Greater Vancouver Regional District by a

professional survey firm. The poll asks whether the individual would

agree or disagree with the statement. First of all, it says the

provincial government's restraint program has failed to improve the

economy in British Columbia — 37 percent of the respondents strongly

agreed with the statement; 27 percent somewhat agreed. Over 60 percent

of the respondents agreed with the statement that this government's

program of restraint and recovery has been a failure. The next question

asked whether the provincial government's Partners in Enterprise

program would likely lead to many new jobs in British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker, it's a washout. It doesn't sell. People don't believe it — 42

percent agree and 42 percent disagree, despite all of the media blitz

and money that has been wasted in trying to sell this idea that the

province is on a new upswing, despite all the good-news advertising and

the money that has been spent on advertising the Partners in Enterprise

program. It doesn't wash; people don't believe it. They don't believe

you anymore. If you'd take that money that you're spending on ads and

put it into the small business community where it damn well belongs,

maybe we'd get somewhere.

[11:45]

It's a wash. That's why the leader of that motley crew over there is

now ducking out. He knows it's a wash and he knows that he can't

restore it.

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

[ Page 8454 ]

number of bankruptcies in this province climbed, as

I mentioned before, over 127 percent. Business bankruptcies increased

124 percent. But particularly I want to reflect upon what's happened in

the north Okanagan, because this government has spent so much time and

so much energy and so much money on projects in the Vancouver area that

it has neglected and turned its back on the economies of the interior

of this province. It is selling the economies of the interior regions

of this province far short. In the north Okanagan, business

bankruptcies showed a 216 percent increase between 1981 and 1984 — a

216 percent increase. Consumer bankruptcies climbed 213 percent over

the same period of time. I'll give you the figures for the city of

Vernon: a 260 percent increase in consumer bankruptcies and a 189

percent increase in business bankruptcies over the same period of time.

Mr. Chairman, if that's progress, I'd hate like hell to see what

failure is. I really honestly would, because if that's progress, we've

got some real troubles.

The figures speak for themselves. This government's program has

failed. This government has failed. This minister has failed. It's very

clear that there needs to be a change in direction in this province.

It's very clear that there needs to be a clear long-range plan for

economic recovery and renewal in this province, a plan that's workable.

I don't see any evidence of any planning whatsoever, nothing beyond the

next six months. It's time that this government and this province set

out some long-range priorities for economic planning to diversify this

economy, to pump some vibrancy into the small business sector, where

most of the job creation is going to be taking place, and to remain

committed to that principle of diversification and expansion of our

small business sector so that we can create the jobs instead of just

talking about it.

Moving on to another area, I want to talk specifically with respect

to a document that was presented to the minister and his cabinet

committee on economic development last December. That document was

produced by....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might make an observation with

respect to the use of parliamentary language in the precincts or this

chamber. It would be appreciated, to add to the decorum.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's important that we continue to hear

the member for North Okanagan and the regional problems that we have in

the province that are getting overlooked because of the concentration

on the Vancouver area. The hinterland has suffered during this period.

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

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

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, I withdraw any language that was

unparliamentary. But, you know, when you've got a fire in your guts and

you're angry about the lack of direction that's been taken, sometimes

those strong words have to be used.

I want to refer to a report that was submitted to the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development and his economic development

committee from the North Okanagan Development Corp. This corporation

has the mandate of long-term business and employment development in the

north Okanagan region. The organization, with a local board of

directors, administers a federally-funded LEAD corporation program

which allows the North Okanagan Development Corp. to provide higher

risk financing to small businesses which have been unable to secure

to expand a little bit more about the operations of this corporation,

apparently the maximum amount allowable under the LEAD program that the

development corporation can loan is about $25,000. Despite the

limitations, the director of the program says that the program is

showing a marked increase in its level of activity, and he says that

counselling sessions are up dramatically, and if initial inquiries are

any indication of future financial investments or loans, next year's

funds will very quickly be oversubscribed.

Mr. Chairman, provincial cabinet ministers were told last December

that North Okanagan Development Corp. officials fully expect that the

high level of demand for risk capital will continue well into the

future. The additional demands on the development corporation will be

fuelled by such things as the continuing conservativeness in the

banking system, which will make debt-financing increasingly scarce for

small business start-ups and expansions. They've recognized the fact

that there is an absence of provincial support for this program, and

what they're asking for is to see the province participate in the

funding of the program in order that they can expand their programs to

accommodate the demand that is obviously there. They would like

specifically to see the province assess the feasibility of

participating with the North Okanagan Development Corp. and the federal

government in the LEAD corporations program, and they suggested a

financial piggybacking of the provincial government onto the existing

structure of this organization. That was a request submitted to the

cabinet committee when it came through the Vernon area last December.

The minister has had ample opportunity — six months — to peruse these

suggestions, and I think that the comments of Mr. Treller, the general

manager of the corporation, are well within reason. I would suggest

that it is a reasonable request and that the government do become

involved.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that about an hour and a

half ago I talked with the manager of the main branch of the Royal Bank

in Vernon, who's presently in the process of foreclosing on a mortgage

that one of the local tourism businesses — one of the local campsite

operators — holds with that bank. As a result of that foreclosure this

business is most likely to close down. It will definitely go into

receivership. It's been suggested that what this firm really needs is

some equity investment, but the bank, in its conservative nature, is

not willing to stick its neck out. It's pulling the rug out from under

this firm. I would suggest that this is exactly the kind of situation

that the government, through the regional development corporations,

should be looking at, to give higher-risk investment capital to

organizations so that we can continue to have these operations remain

viable. What's going to happen? Most likely this business is going to

close down, and there's a domino effect, Mr. Minister. The businesses

around that campground are going to be

[ Page 8455 ]

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

I would like to suggest to the minister that the request made by the

North Okanagan Development Corp. for the government to get directly

involved in higher-risk equity investment capital in the small business

sector is just the kind of medicine we need to help some of these

firms. I would like to have the minister's response on that at this

time.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member for Okanagan

North might want to have a quiet chat with the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who yesterday argued against the

government's getting involved in loans, particularly to tourism

operators. Perhaps when you've resolved that among yourselves, you

might want to come back to me.

We are heavily involved in small business enterprises. We have a

number of incentive programs. We do not get involved in equity in those

programs, and we do not get involved in grants, but we do make many

loans to small businesses through a number of significant programs,

some of them on our own through B.C. Development Corporation, some in

joint programs with the federal government through the various

subsidiary agreements under the ERDA program. In the short time that

the small business incentive subsidiary agreement has been in place, we

have already approved about 75 loans, with over 900 jobs created as a

result of them. We have another 56 applications before us in progress,

with another 700 to 750 jobs involved.

I could go on with other programs as well that we're involved in.

Those are parallel to programs like the LEAD program of the federal

government. While we will always be able to offer parallel programs, we

do not offer programs which stack on top of other programs. That's in

agreements with our federal counterparts as well. But there are many

parallel programs, and they apply equally well to all parts of the

province.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wonder if the minister can advise whether

he has related this decision.... If I'm reading the minister right,

he's saying that the decision for becoming involved with these regional

development corporations in helping to fund small business

activity...that the minister has decided not to become involved

directly through a loan program scheme. Is that what the minister is

saying? The minister has decided not to get directly involved with the

loaning activity of these development corporations?

The request from the North Okanagan Development Corp. was that the

government get directly involved with providing higher-risk loans to

the small businesses so that they can expand their program. Is the

minister in agreement with that concept or has he effectively said no,

the decision is that we will not get involved?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've explained how our government

programs work. I have answered all of the briefs that were given to me

in Vernon and I'd be happy to make copies available to the member.

MR. MacWILLIAM: If you have in fact answered that particular

brief, I would like to have the response from the minister to clarify

just what his position is on that. With respect to the tourism sector,

I've made previous comments about suggestions I've put forward, and I'd

like to go over them again briefly for the minister's attention.

The concept of tourism enterprise bonds is, again, to provide low

interest investment capital, particularly for businesses in the tourism

sector, As the minister well knows, tourism relies very heavily on our

small business community; it's largely small business based. I think

these small business bonds, particularly in the tourism sector, could

be most beneficial.

Student employment bursaries: the idea of providing student

employment bursaries to create job opportunities for young people,

again in the tourism sector. Has the minister considered any program

such as this? I've covered the idea of assistance to small business

through low-interest loans. That's on record. Reduction in the overhead

costs of small businesses. Some examples: initiatives to reduce the

burden of property tax and the broadening of the corporate small

business sector by liberalizing the conditions related to

proprietorships and unincorporated partnerships. Changing some of the

regulations there could go a long way in reducing some of the overhead

costs experienced by these businesses which actually have a higher tax

level.

I'll leave it at that.

[12:00]

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm intrigued by one of the points the member

for Okanagan North makes, and that's the whole business of capital cost

per job. Our recent history in British Columbia is very high capital

cost per job. I would think we have come to the point where that should

be a major issue of concern.

Have we heard what the numbers game is for the Attorney-General, for

the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, for the

minister of welfare? How is it all going, chaps, in terms of lining up

those votes? The runner is checking right now.

The capital cost question per job, however, which is much more

serious than the careers of those gentlemen, is a neat question that

should be addressed, it seems to me, by the department. I would think

we should move into a new phase throughout North America. We've had, at

least in the U.S. In recent modern history, pretty sophisticated

environmental impact analysis of different projects. The Americans have

maybe gone too far in that area. It's a very costly process but it's

also a very sophisticated process, like the Americans want to be.

It seems to me that the time has really come for an employment

impact analysis of every proposal so that we look at the medium- and

long-term....

AN HON. MEMBER: We do that.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you did that, you wouldn't be doing what

you're doing, when you take on a northeast coal project at a million

dollars a job. Why would you justify that project against one that

costs $25,000 a job?

If you are doing it, then you should be responding. I suggest that

it is probably a more sophisticated process than you are doing, or that

somebody at cabinet level isn't making the right judgments when you get

that data, because it doesn't make sense. You will literally break the

bank if you go for projects that cost $1 million a job. That is

breaking the bank. With respect to the Louisiana-Pacific project,

you're throwing in a subsidy of $50,000 a job. That's just throwaway

[ Page 8456 ]

money. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that there

are countless potential full-time jobs in B.C. with a capital cost of

$50,000 a job, not a subsidy of $50,000 a job. Then you are talking

about a lot of work and a lot of opportunities. As the member for

Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) and others have said, you tend to go

for the big project that is incredibly costly, and has a long-term debt

that we all must bear the burden of for another generation or more —

longer in some cases. It's amazing that there should be that kind of

debt burden for these few current jobs. But that is the situation.

There are American economists arguing for employment impact analysis

on a sophisticated basis so that every time a new project comes up, the

numbers are there, the analysis is there. Once you start thinking in

those terms, it conditions what you do. I don't think there is any

doubt about it. It would condition the whole decision-making process.

I am involved in much more modest-scale proposals in a financial

institution I help direct. We have moved into a seed capital program

just in the last year. That seed capital program is geared to very

small-scale entrepreneurs — people out of college, people with a sound

business plan, as the minister has said, but people in retailing and

anything imaginable. They are all okay by us. So we are not saying it

has to be manufacturing, which is essentially the limitation of most of

your programs, which also tend to be geared to higher numbers than need

be the case. All of our projects so far are around $25,000 a job. We

have just begun that process. It is a learning exercise that involves

us and the community and the colleges. We are involved with all the

community colleges in the Vancouver area — Capilano, Langara, Douglas

and so on — and the enterprise programs in those colleges, which are

excellent.

We are prepared to fund and we are prepared to take risks where the

banks will not take the risk. We analyze them and come to the

conclusion that there really isn't much risk there if we think the

business plan is solid. I would like to give you a couple of examples

of the sorts of things that have been funded in this last little while.

One is a chap who in his back garage in the city was turning out

lead weights for divers. It doesn't sound very exciting, but they are

simple divers' weights for people who enjoy diving, scuba and the rest.

He has developed a process for plasticzing the lead and creating a fine

finish on the diving weights so that they can be used as a belt and not

be a problem. It is quite a sophisticated process that he has

developed. We are satisfied and he is satisfied that he has probably

got the best product in weights for divers currently available on the

market. The cost of setting that chap up in a solid business exercise

is only $25,000. It is extraordinary, and I think that one is going to

be a solid — pardon the pun — success story.

I can think of others. One is a flight touring arrangement out of

the city and harbour to Pacific Rim Park on a daily basis. In Expo

year, it looks like that's certainly going to be a significant success,

and it doesn't involve a very high capital cost initially, either —

surprisingly. Beyond that, there are kiosks — simple kiosks near the

SkyTrain stations, for example. That's another item of low capital

cost, but with a decent return. It's an opportunity that can be picked

up on the urban street scene, and it makes a lot of sense. We have also

been working with small retailers — people in the fashion field and

that sort of thing. It is very significant, but it's low capital cost

per job.

I think that measure has to be there in your operations all the

time, and it just doesn't seem to be. I think you are too narrowly

focused. The limitations of mainly centering on manufacturing I think

are too limited. There is a whole range of opportunities beyond that in

terms of the service sector and the retailing sector, and so on. I

don't think that's being covered and it should be.

Now if a market institution can take on projects like the ones I've

mentioned, then a non-market institution like the ones you're

responsible for could take on much, much more. It could carry on in

terms of more creative exercises which we want to get into but haven't

yet got into in terms of the institution I work with, and that's in the

whole field of community enterprises, where people in the community

jointly want to form an enterprise to create new products and provide

new services in their neighbourhoods.

I think that makes a lot of sense in my community where I live. I

think it makes a lot of sense even in the downtown east side. We have a

community centre in the downtown east side called the Carnegie Centre,

which is the old city library. It is probably one of the most creative

community centres in the province.

You may not be aware of it, Mr. Minister, but Simon Fraser

University has been carrying out a degree program out of that skid road

community centre. They are going to be shortly graduating arts

graduates in literature from Carnegie Centre. People from Simon Fraser

have actually been down there for three and four years, and they're

going to be graduating people who live in that area. Now these are

obviously capable people with significant skills that have never really

been tapped. It's a wonderful success story.

The question now for those people from Simon Fraser who have done

this worthwhile work, and for the middle-aged and older citizens who

are graduating out of that program, is what do we do now? These people

have proven themselves. They've proven to be exceptional scholars.

They've proven to be better scholars than the people at the university.

The results are better. I think it's an extraordinary story. Now the

question is: what about employing these people? They're

non-traditional; you know, they're not young graduates out of college,

shiny, squeaky clean. They're older folks who have been living in that

tough neighbourhood and at least have had an opportunity for an

education that they wouldn't have otherwise had.

They're obviously skilled, and the community would like to do more

in terms of developing community enterprises in the downtown east side.

They've kicked around a range of things. There is one such enterprise

now in existence, and it sounds pretty modest, but I think that's the

way all these things have to begin — low capital cost, light products.

I'd like to remind us both about that one. It's a muffin operation.

They produce muffins and sell them, and it's proving to be viable. That

group calls itself DEEDS; it's not DERA, it's DEEDS. It's a right-wing

group politically, so you might really give them a hand. I shouldn't

really give you those clues, but I think we're fairly solid in the

downtown east side.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. At ten bucks, you just might. Clearly,

these are interesting groups I suggest you should have field operations

working with. I think you need an extension program working with groups

like that and helping foster them and move them along. What are these

guys going

[ Page 8457 ]

to do who are going to graduate with a fine

literature degree, who understand Chaucer and all the rest of those

folks — Blake and so on — once they've graduated? They're talented

people who have something to offer. Now it's a challenge in terms of

helping them create enterprises on their own which will give them

employment.

It's not an unreasonable idea, and I think we're talking about very

modest dollars. I think it requires staffing skills that aren't easy to

get, because we're talking about unconventional financing for

unconventional people. But that really is the challenge for a ministry

such as yours, I would suggest. Community enterprises are probably the

way to get people like this going. If the Carnegie Centre were funded

on some modest scale to work in terms of community enterprises out of

the Carnegie Centre, then I think we'd be well on our way to doing

something very significant and worthwhile, and establishing these

people as productive people in economic terms in our society.

I think they'd like the challenge, and I think it's a tremendous

opportunity. I ask the minister: is he prepared to consider programs

such as this and extension staff being made available to groups like

the Simon Fraser group? They have an enterprise program at Simon Fraser

University; they have this training program out of Simon Fraser in

terms of graduating people from Carnegie. Would the ministry be

prepared to provide some modest seed capital funds if they wanted to

establish a community enterprise on a somewhat larger scale than just

producing muffins at the moment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't understand quite why you can

make better muffins if you understand Chaucer, but other than that....

We'd be prepared to consider something like that. You mentioned the

enterprise program at Simon Fraser. We've got enterprise or business

development centres in the three major universities now. They are very

busy, and while they don't provide capital, they are providing very

valuable help for people who want to go into small business.

[12:15]

The member used the term "too narrowly focused" about our programs.

Perhaps we are. We do tend to focus either on the production or the

processing or manufacturing of goods, as does the federal government in

our joint programs as well. I guess governments have been kicking

around the idea of broadening that focus into the service sector for a

long time. The problem is that whenever we have seemed to have moved

into that other area — and I think of the tourist-related problems

particularly — we've taken a bath, frankly, so governments get kind of

nervous about that.

However, having said that, I had talks previously with Sinclair

Stevens, when he was in his portfolio of Regional Industrial Expansion,

about broadening the focus on a trial basis in some sector. As a matter

of fact, we're meeting with Don Mazankowski next week, and I intend to

continue those talks to see if there's a way we might be able to branch

out into the service sector, and share the risk with the federal

government. I don't want the province to take all the risk, and we can

talk about that.

We are also moving in a small way into broadening the scope of the

venture capital corporation program to allow it to get into the service

sector in terms of engineering skills and being able to market those

engineering and knowledge products as an export base for the province.

We're taking some.... I'm sure the member would think they were

hesitant steps, but we're taking them. We're prepared to consider

further steps in that regard.

I would like to congratulate the financial institution that that

member serves for doing what it should be doing, and I wish that he

would use whatever influence he might have on other financial

institutes to get them to do it too.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The financial institutions show

practically no confidence in the economy anywhere in Canada, but

particularly in western Canada. I would like to name Vancouver City

Savings Credit Union and thank them for moving out in that direction,

because it's where they should be in the first place.

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

I'd like to just give notice to the member, Mr. Chairman, that when

the committee rises I intend to ask the House to permit me to file a

document that I referred to yesterday in our debate regarding British

Columbia's coal development business opportunities. I'd like the member

to be able to have that if he doesn't already have it in his files.

The other thing I didn't want to miss today, Mr. Chairman.... I

wanted to ask the member a question. In the Blues from yesterday

afternoon the member said that one of the outstanding analysts in the

province was never asked: "The southeast mayors asked him and he called

the shots. He laid it out and told you like it is." I assume the member

was referring to a Mr. Halvorson.

MR. WILLIAMS: Doctor Halvorson.

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, but it was Dr. Halvorson. Yes. I

just wanted the member to know that Dr. Halvorson, in fact, has done

some work for the province in 1975 — 1975?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure it was.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: January 1975. The document was done by

Wright Engineers Ltd. and H.N. Halvorson Consultants Ltd., and it's

quite interesting, because it was the same subject that the member

brought up: "Forecast of Developments in the Mineral Sector of the

Northeast Region of British Columbia."

He told the government at that time that: "The major developments in

the northeast in the mineral sector will be in coal. It appears that

the high-quality coking coals of the region will find ready markets in

Ontario, Japan, and perhaps the EEC."

He also says:

"It would appear that in the view of the very large reserves

of good-quality coking coal in the area and the rising demand for this product

in two firm long- term markets, most probably until the end of the

[ Page 8458 ]

century, and considering the apparently viable economics involved,

every effort should be made to encourage and accelerate the putting into production

of these deposits on a large, multimillion-tons-per-year scale. This would contribute

significantly to the development in this sector of the province, which at present

has by far the lowest mineral revenue contribution."

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

summary.

"It would appear that in view of the very large

reserves of good-quality coking coal...and the rising demand for this

product...and considering the apparently viable economics

involved...every effort should be made to encourage and accelerate the

putting into production of these deposits on a large

multimillion-tonnes-per-year scale.

"One of the principal conditions of encouragement and

incentive will be the establishing of clear and well-defined conditions

of regulation and taxation for industry in this field, involving the

commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars for development. Other

areas of government assistance will be the planning and implementation

of adequate port and rail facilities and services, power distribution

and community developments."

Is that the same guy who did the report for the southeast and dumped

on northeast coal? I guess it just depends, if you're a good

consultant, who's paying you.

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

What happened half a dozen years later? Looking at real markets half

a dozen years later — not looking at Sukunka a decade ago — that

gentleman perceived the problems in terms of marketing today.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, come on! That's just too cheap a shot about

a prominent professional outside this chamber. We've become accustomed

to that kind of stuff from you folks over there. It's just a cheap shot

about a report that's a dozen years old. I really think the minister is

capable of better.

I'll just leave it at that, but I would like to try to carry on a

constructive dialogue in terms of what can be achieved with modest help

from government. He's into his cheap shots and he's helping the other

candidates for the leadership, so I think we can all take the pause

that refreshes and talk about something totally irrelevant, like the

leadership campaign for the Social Credit Party, which is about as

irrelevant to the provincial economy as anything I can think of.

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

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

So there's a political problem — let's face up to it — in terms of

providing seed capital for untried people. I recognize, and I think the

minister and the department recognize, that it's a political problem.

You're making loans to individuals who could go belly up, and do we

really want that? It's sort of on one's own record. It would seem to me

that what is really needed is some program that's available to lending

institutions in the province to provide some supplementary backup for

the lending institutions willing to take on these risks. Then it's not

on your political copybook if there is some trouble down the line.

Some decent lending analysts for financial institutions have sort of

reviewed these things and come to some conclusions, but with the

understanding that they should be taking greater risks than they

normally take in normal market circumstances. So the province might be

prepared to take up some of the losses that might be incurred in a seed

capital program. It seems to me that would be a reasonable thing to do.

If we're really serious about low-capital-cost jobs and want

individuals, in a pluralistic way of evolving them, rather than sort of

government-created make-work exercises or government mega projects and

the rest, the productive thing would be to look at...okay, we've got

the political problem, we are not happy with having that on our backs.

What about a program then that helps the lending institutions that are

willing to do the job and carry it further? Once they've got some

experience under their belts in this area of seed capital....

The Nanaimo Credit Union probably is the first in the province to

have moved into this area, with very modest seed capital programs for

students in the summer and so on. Some of the credit unions in the

province are prepared to forgo dividends to their member shareholders.

In most cases that's pretty modest money. A $25 share is probably the

average in most credit unions and the interest is generally around 7

percent on that $25. But a lot of the credit unions are looking at

forgoing the interest on that modest share capital in the credit union,

putting it into job creation projects and seed capital programs. In

some institutions that's fairly significant. That means, in effect,

they're willing to take bigger risks, non-market risks in terms of seed

capital and job creation programs. But that's only sort of the second

step after the first steps that are taking place right now in terms of

the little jobs that I mentioned with respect to VanCity.

I wonder if the minister and the department might look at that kind

of question in terms of having financial institutions carry out seed

capital programs with the various enterprise operations in the colleges

and campuses of the province, so that that's really the obvious next

step. It isn't good enough to help them on a resume. It's a start; it's

a decent start to help them in preparing a business plan. That's a

necessary part of the exercise, I guess we can all agree. But then they

need some money to get going. So then it's a question of how you handle

that, and I suggest that some kind of program jointly with the feds, I

guess, is one way to go. But it's hard to believe that even within

existing funding we couldn't do something in B.C. so that we'd have a

bit of a model to show the feds and say: "Look, let's get on with it."

But either way it strikes me that maybe that's the best way to move

into this area, rather than using the provincial bureaucracy other than

as a monitoring agency and a provider of some backup lending security

for various financial institutions. That might really be the better way

to go, and then you don't have the problem you've had in tourism of

taking a bath, and you've had sort of in effect outside independent

people monitor and analyze and come to some conclusions. I suspect that

your losses aren't going to be as high then; they're probably going to

be a little bit more professionally

[ Page 8459 ]

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

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, at the risk of being out

of order, that member is having the terrible effect of convincing me. I

like your idea, I really do, and I think we've moved into it in some

ways with the Discovery Foundation, for instance. We do it in

agriculture to a large degree, and the student venture capital program

is exactly what you're suggesting. It's making seed money available to

students in the summertime to create their own jobs.

Maybe we should move into it a little further, and I'm willing to

give it fairly strong consideration, Madam Chairman. I would like to

issue you an invitation right now, and that is if you want to have the

chief executive officer of your credit union come over and see us with

some propositions, we'll talk to him, and we'll see if there might be a

way we can go.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, I'd like to commend the

minister for his positive response. I think it is important. I think we

might generally both agree in this area, and I think it can be

productive for all the citizens of British Columbia. The minister has

some experience with the chief executive officer, who has been a

long-time civil servant under both administrations, so I think that is

encouraging, and I took forward to that dialogue.

[12:30]

MS. SANFORD: I want to raise an issue with the minister. He

is in a very favourable mood at the moment, so I think I will raise an

issue with him while the going is good.

This is an issue which came to my attention only last night. I

haven't had an opportunity to talk to anybody in his ministry about it

or to bring it to the minister's attention. But I thought it was

important enough that I would raise it on the floor of the House. It

means jobs in my constituency, and jobs in the constituency of Comox

are of extreme importance these days because there are so few of them

available. I had a phone call last night from Island Pole and Piling,

which operates a firm up there producing poles and pilings. They have

been in operation for some time and have had some success in marketing

and everything else. The problem which was brought to my attention last

night relates to the fact that they are unable to get rail cars to ship

the poles out of the area. The situation has become so critical that

they are talking about moving their operation off Vancouver Island in

order to ensure that they can get their product moved. They have met

with CPR officials on a number of occasions. They need five cars a week

in order to move the poles and pilings from their particular little

operation — there are two or three other operations in the area

affected in a similar way — and, of course, they are special cars. The

CPR keeps saying, "Yes, you certainly have a problem, and we'll see if

we can fix it," but they never do. As a result, they are getting only

one car a week, and they are now at the stage that they can no longer

stockpile.

The other part of this is that B.C. Rail apparently has a surplus of

this type of car. I am wondering if I could appeal to the minister

today to see whether or not there is something that could happen

through his office here in terms of providing the kind of

transportation necessary to ensure that that small business remains in

business and does not have to move to the lower mainland. If they move

to the lower mainland, they will simply have to barge the product from

the northern part of Vancouver Island to the lower mainland and do the

work there. Since there are 20 jobs in this little operation alone, it

seems to me important enough that I bring it to the attention of the

minister on the floor of the House today and ask that he look into this

on behalf of that little company.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I just wonder if the minister has given any thought — and it's a little early, I know — to

the areas that are most impacted by the cedar and shake tariff. It

looks like we're going to be stuck with that for five years. If we are,

then there's a real need for some programs in areas that are impacted

heavily. Certainly the eastern Fraser Valley is one of them, and the

town of Mission is clearly heavily impacted.

I think of other small communities like Nakusp. Poor old Nakusp is

where I worked in the Forest Service as a student, and it is just one

of those spots that seems to get hit and hit again. The only

significant industry they have had in Nakusp in recent years is a

shingle and shake operation, as I understand. That town is going to be

desperately hurt by this American decision.

It does seem to me that what we need is something in terms of new

focus programs in these areas that have been impacted. I wonder if the

minister is giving some thought to that possibility?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, as was explained during

question period today, the first thrust, of course — and I think all of

us have to agree — is that we must put all the pressure possible on the

President of the United States to have that tariff reversed before June

6. That's what we're doing. I don't think we should deviate from that

as our first course of action.

Secondly, there is a need — and I guess this bad news just further

reinforces the need — of this province to diversify and to have other

areas on which to fall when we do get hurt by either recessionary times

in our resource industries or in other unexpected circumstances like

this one. I mentioned yesterday our thrust into the electronics

industry and other areas of diversified industrial activity. In

Mission, for instance — not to downgrade the seriousness of the problem

— I met with the shake and shingle people the other day as well, and we

agreed that our first course of action should be the one that attempts

to get the tariff reversed. But we are moving into.... There's a new

fibreglass industry in Mission; we're moving into the Moli Energy

plant, which I understand has now broken ground. We've got to do more

of that, and more and more and more. But again, I don't want to get our

eye off the first responsibility that we have.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I just want to briefly take a

few minutes talking a little bit about the greater Victoria area and

some of the concerns, and perhaps the minister may want to take some

initiative. We've had some good news of late with some of the potential

plant closures. The VMD was a particularly good decision, one that we

are sure will be a success. Under the worker cooperative kind of style

there have been unfortunately in this area some

[ Page 8460 ]

rather.... That particular style has not been

particularly successful and there's been some heavy confrontation; but

in the VMD one we're optimistic that that's going to be a useful

exercise.

In our estimation the whole area of worker or employee enterprise

and cooperative is one that should be expanded. This House knows that I

have had for some time private member's bills before this House to

encourage the government to encourage this kind of enterprise. We are

fine-tuning those private member's bills that we've had before this

House, and we are consulting with many organizations about how we can

move into that particular area.

So I am pleased to say that we are encouraged by the government's

response in the greater Victoria area. We think there is room for

greater expansion of that concept, and the VMD one is a good one.

There is one area that the minister may wish to respond to; it

hasn't had much attention in the last year or so. Very close to this

chamber there is a fish plant, the Oakland fish plant. I'm not sure

whether this minister was the minister responsible when the government

did a study of the future potential for that plant, but the study was

encouraging. It said that if the players could get together, it too

could be an employee enterprise — a cooperative — and it had great

potential. Unfortunately, for various reason that plant has sat idle.

As we all know, it's owned by a Japanese organization that would appear

not to be prepared to negotiate sale of that plant. I'm wondering if

the minister has of late had any contact or any discussions or plans

for that plant. It's very sad to see it sitting idle. The potential for

300 to 400 workers.... Victoria still is and could even be a greater

manufacturer of fish products. Our fishermen don't have the best

services in this area, and it's an area that we need to take a look at.

I wonder if the minister can respond this morning. Has he had any

further discussions about that Oaklands fish plant? Is he prepared to

take it up again with the owner to see if we can follow through on the

government report that it has a future as a worker cooperative?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, I have not had

discussions with the people from that fish-processing plant in recent

times. I was not the minister when that report was done. I have some

vague knowledge of it though, because I recall it coming across my desk

some time ago. It was my understanding that the report basically said

that if all parties got together it could be a viable operation, and

for one reason or another that didn't happen. I'd be happy if a group

of people, employees.... You know, with the Vic plywood plant and with

VMD the employees came forward. You've got to give them an awful lot of

credit, because they just didn't give up. They had the bone in their

mouth and they didn't give up.

I'd be happy to initiate discussions again with a group of people

who might be interested in doing the same kind of thing. If I could

help in any way with the owners, I would. We do have some different

mechanisms in place now that make it a little easier for employee

shareholders to be put in place. As your constituency responsibility,

if you want to get something together, I'll be glad to enter into the

discussions with you.

[Mr. Ree in the chair]

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

I think what happened with that situation with Oaklands was that it

sort of faded away. The study was good but the initial contact with the

various organizations was somewhat difficult. I don't think anybody

really gained a hand on it. The Victoria MLAs made some attempts, but I

think what happened was that the Japanese firm, Marubeni, really did

not want to sell, and they would like to see that plant developed as a

condominium site.

It seems that there may be a role for the provincial government to

play here. Marubeni has a number of licences on this coast, and I think

that through some serious negotiations, and perhaps a little hardball

by the provincial government, there could be reflection on their

current licences elsewhere. For a favourable response on future or

existing licences, maybe they could be persuaded that it would be in

the interests of their company, Victoria and British Columbians that

they sell that plant to a cooperative venture of the fishermen's union,

former employees and management. I think that is where the major role

for the provincial government could come in — to say to Marubeni:

"Look, you've got some licences elsewhere. We'd like this plant as a

cooperative." Maybe that's a role. Maybe the minister wants to respond

to that idea.

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

I would like to say that I enjoy a political fight with the best of

them. As a matter of fact, I love them. I have done it for a long time.

But there are times when I hope all members in this House will

understand that if there is a really serious problem in a community,

there is a way of having that problem solved, and not for political

gain or anything like that. My office is open to everybody. For God's

sake, if you've got some ideas about it, come on along. We'll talk

about getting a business back in place if there is a way we can do it.

I give you that commitment, the same as I do my own colleagues; and

some of your members on that side will know that that's the truth,

because I have worked closely with some of your members. If there is a

real opportunity to get some people back to work, please come and see

my staff, and let's see if the opportunity really does exist.

MR. BLENCOE: That's very encouraging, and I will take up that

suggestion by the minister. I might like to add that that kind of

dialogue between the two sides is most useful, and I think it bodes

well for the future. I thank the minister.

MR. STUPICH: The Duke Point development in Nanaimo was

conceived at a time when the economy was booming. It took several years

to put it together and constructed. Unfortunately, by the time the

project was ready for occupancy, the economy had turned down to the

extent that only one tenant has been able to locate there since the

project opened.

There have been all kinds of rumours. Nanaimo is one of the

communities in the province hit hardest in the depression of recent

years. There are all kinds of rumours from time to time that get

everybody in the community excited — everybody that hears about them —

but nothing ever happens. I'm satisfied that BCDC is doing everything

possible to attract people to that site, but there just isn't anybody

moving to B.C. right now.

[ Page 8461 ]

There is one plant that's been much in the news lately. They've

tried two locations other than Duke Point. I suppose it's the cost; I

don't know. That's Budget Steel. They've been turned down at the two

alternative locations. As I say, I expect they just didn't feel that

they were able to afford whatever the cost was at Duke Point. Now that

Budget Steel has been turned down for the second time, I wonder whether

there is any possibility of reopening negotiations with them, or is the

amount involved too small to really make any worthwhile impact on Duke

Point? Is there anything at all that the minister can tell me — even a

rumour — that would make me feel better about Duke Point and Nanaimo's

economy?

[12:45]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like nothing better than to