1983 Legislative Session: 1st 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 )

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2825 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 23). Second reading.

Mr. Lea –– 2825

Mr. Cocke –– 2826

Hon. A. Fraser –– 2827

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

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 52 2828

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Lea

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1983

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, some of these clauses really call for

some examination more in committee than in second reading, but there is

one major principle in this bill that we have great concern with, and

that is the elimination of motor vehicle testing in the populated areas

of the province. I think the government has gone wrong. They are

saying: "We are going to shut these motor vehicle testing stations down

in the lower mainland and in Victoria where there is a high

population." I've got news for them — that doesn't mean a great deal to

those of us who come from rural areas of the province, because we have

never had that kind of program. We have had people come in

periodically. I know people who have tried to test their cars in Prince

Rupert and have had to wait months in order to get it done. There is a

travelling road show that comes through to do that sort of thing. So

the program that has been in effect — the government is right — hasn't

worked that effectively in some areas of the province.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right — we thought it was Great American

Shows coming to town. But I think they are throwing the baby out with

the bathwater in this case. I think there is a need to continue the

program of motor vehicle testing as it has been done in the populated

areas, and this act that is being changed could apply to the rural

areas of the province. In other words, why not keep that part that is

working in the lower mainland and in populated areas and change the act

to allow what this act is going to allow only in the rural areas? That

would make sense. This bill does not make common sense. Surely that's

what we are trying to achieve when we talk about legislation. We're

trying to get some common sense into the statutes and the

administration of the province. This bill is not going to do it.

Let's take a place like Chetwynd....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Or maybe we shouldn't. You can have Chetwynd.

Let's use Chetwynd as an example. There is no service there at the present

time for motor vehicle testing. It makes sense to change the act to allow the

private operator to do the job for government and for the public. Change the

act so you can go into the local garage and have your car checked out, get your

certificate and your sticker for the window, and that sort of thing. That makes

a lot of sense for rural areas, where they don't have access to the kind

of service previously offered in the motor vehicle testing stations. But it

makes absolutely no sense to do it in the highly populated urban areas of the

province. In fact, this act could have exactly the opposite effect to what I

think the minister wants. If people do not have those motor vehicle testing

stations I'm convinced a great many of them will not go through any sort

of motor vehicle testing; therefore, even the small operators in the private

sector who have been getting work out of the motor vehicle testing branch won't

get as much business.

I don't know whether the minister follows me, but what happens now

is that when you go to the motor vehicle testing branch they test your

vehicle and say, "Okay, something has to be done with your brakes," or:

" Your steering apparatus is loose; get that into the garage. Come back

with a certificate that it's been fixed, we'll put you through again

and then you'll get your sticker." In other words, the motor vehicle

testing station is forcing people — or at least using friendly coercion

— to take their vehicles in, have them repaired and come back to the

motor vehicle testing station again. That creates business for the

small service stations. I prophesy that the small business operators

aren't going to get as much business out of fixing vehicles with those

kinds of small defects as they have in the past. So this doesn't really

make any sense at all. We're talking about testing and keeping safe

vehicles on the road, and about who is going to get the business of

fixing them up when there are some defects. That's one part of the

bill. As the bill is going through, I don't think it makes any sense

between rural and highly urban areas, and that is one reason I can't

vote for this legislation.

I would like the minister to answer this question when he gets up to

close debate, and I'll be asking him again when we get to the committee

stage. It's my information that different agencies of government have

run computer projections as to what the possible fatality and accident

rate in B.C. will be without the motor vehicle testing stations. It is

my information that ICBC has done such a projection, and that their

findings are not good for this legislation. ICBC has done some

projections and has come back with some figures that are astounding in

terms of the increase in fatalities and accidents because of this

section of the motor vehicle testing act that we're looking at. It is

also my understanding that the report is on the desk of deputy

ministers in Consumer and Corporate Affairs and in the

Attorney-General's office. I don't know whether it's on the desk of the

Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways, but I would be

surprised if it were not. I also understand that it isn't only the ICBC

section of the government that has done this kind of projection. I

understand there have been other projections done, and each and every

one of them spells out disaster for us if this legislation goes through.

We can't always rely on projections from computers, because they do

make mistakes. Look at the last election. They had us winning for the

first five minutes.

MR. REID: They can be wrong.

MR. LEA: They can be wrong, Mr. Member, but I think we have

to pay a great deal of attention to these kinds of projections. I think

it would be absolutely irresponsible for government not to share those

computer projections with the members of this House and with the public

before this act goes through this Legislature. The Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) are both in the House, and

I'm sure the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

[ Page 2826 ]

will be in later. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be

immoral if we in this Legislature were to vote on this legislation in

second reading, or on any part of it, before the government brings

forward those computer projections that I know have been done. I know

for sure that ICBC staff have done one and that the projection has been

forwarded to government.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, the assumption, as far as I understand it, is

what would happen if this act goes through and private testing goes

into effect. They're projecting how many people would get their cars

tested and what loopholes are in it. I could be absolutely wrong on

that, because I haven't seen the report, but I have had a report on the

report. I feel hamstrung in having to debate this bill without having

had that information in front of the Legislature. I wonder whether the

minister, before we go any further — because there are other members

who are going to be debating this bill — couldn't get all of the

studies that have been done, so that we can make an educated assessment

of what this act is all about. Unless we have those figures and

projections in front of us, we're really debating in the dark. We're

going to be voting in the dark not only on this side of the House, but

I would suspect that many of the ministers and probably all of the

back-benchers on the other side of the House are going to have to vote

on this legislation without having prepared information in front of

them. We have the right, I would think, to see that kind of government

work — all of us private members in the House, whether we're

back-benchers or in opposition have that right. To ask us to vote on

this piece of legislation without having the work that taxpayers have

paid for within ICBC and other areas of government is absolutely wrong

to me.

I don't think we can debate much further without having that

information. I wonder whether the government wouldn't be prepared to

hold this bill back a little to bring in those studies — or at least

have the minister look to see whether those studies are there. I can

give him a hint: deputy minister's desk, Consumer and Corporate

Affairs; deputy minister's desk, Attorney-General. Bring them back in

today. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move adjournment of

this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[10:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 16

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

NAYS –– 24

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, as this bill really affects a number of

different ministries, I wonder whether it would be in order at this

point to see whether the minister could answer my point of order.

What I would like to do is have some latitude in committee stage to

question other ministers about different areas of this bill that fall

under their purview.

MR. SPEAKER ; Hon. members, it would appear to the Chair that permission

is being asked to instruct committee to allow latitude in third reading. If

that is the wish of the House, the House may express its wish by saying "aye."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, on occasion it is

not unusual for a bill which has several principles to be allowed some

additional latitude in committee. If that is the wish of the House, the

House may express its wish by saying "aye".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: I heard some noes, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the opposition were asking that the

bill be given additional opportunity in terms of its perusal in

committee stage. Under those circumstances we were quite prepared to

reduce the amount of time taken in second reading.

It is most unfortunate that the government have taken this position

— or at least one of the government members who obviously said no to

the request for leave. It is a wonder to me that a government that is

always asking that there be a cooperative effort put forward by the

opposition.... We did exactly that on Bill 35, and Bill 35 was given

that kind of dispatch with one or two of the areas that were relatively

contentious.

But in any event we have before us a bill that is changing the

entire direction with respect to testing of automobiles. There have

been reports respecting automobiles around the province that indicate

very clearly that there are a number of dangerous automobiles on the

road. That's not to suggest that the opposition would necessarily

countenance setting up one of those very involved and highly

sophisticated testing facilities in small communities. What the

opposition is saying is that, in the lower mainland and Vancouver

Island and some other areas, we do have this form of testing. We now

have the order to close them down, and then going beyond that we have a

further committee established to discuss the whole question of private

enterprise doing the whole thing. We've argued that private enterprise

doing it all is going to be a very costly proposition to the people who

are driving those cars. They will probably avoid at all costs, or

probably avoid as much as they possibly can, going to the testing

station. In the urban areas, the testing of an automobile has been $5 a

shot. Very rarely do you get through with $5, because they always find

something wrong and you have to go back for a further test and a

further sum of money has to be expended.

In any event, it strikes me that what the government should have

done was to expand the kind of facilities that we have in full

recognition that we have carnage on our highways. In those areas where

it is impossible to put forward or to establish a facility which would

have the numbers going

[ Page 2827 ]

there that the large ones do, then certainly go to

the private enterprise people in those particular areas. But at the

present time, rather than try to put something together in a

coordinated way the government has decided to close down what they now

have and then proceed in another direction in due course, whatever that

might be. I heard the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) make that

remark yesterday about tabling a document. I don't want to hold my

breath, knowing that "in due course" when it comes from that side of

the House means maybe never. That's the situation. We've established a

committee, and I'm not even sure that the committee can meet, because

it is called during the times that the House is sitting, and since this

House is sitting relatively irregular hours it's very difficult for any

of the House committees to meet. I suggest that we made a number of

arguments when the committee was in the process of being set up, and it

is most unfortunate that there hasn't been the kind of agreement, with

respect to the government, that we would like to see.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt),

who is leaving the House at the moment, has a major stake in this

particular bill, as does the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser), and any of the cabinet who are directly involved in

the whole question of safety on the roads. The Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Smith), along with a number of other ministers, does have the kind

of responsibility that we could have had an opportunity to draw out

some kind of discussion that would have been far more rewarding, I

think, than droning on in a debate of this nature in second reading. I

don't know how those particular ministers feet. Whether or not they

will answer questions is going to be up to them.

I only heard one "no" from that side of the House, and on that basis

I would conjecture that there might be some cooperation, with or

without the approval of the House, in terms of a request by the

opposition for that leave to be given. In this matter I'm going to use

a little more faith than I usually do and suggest that those ministers

who are involved in the whole question of auto safety at least give us

the time that would be required — and I don't think that would be

terribly much. There are going to be other discussions in different

areas, particularly since there's going to be a standing committee

discussing the whole question. There are some areas of discussion where

I believe the ministers responsible should at least take part.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I cannot support the

bill in its present form. I don't agree with what it's doing. I wish

that there were a more cooperative effort with respect to this bill,

and hopefully when the bill is called in Committee of the Whole House

the ministers involved, such as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, will be in their place, in order that we might engage them in

some kind of productive communication.

Having said that, I just want to say that there are a lot of people

right now who are driving vehicles which are not safe as a result of

the fact that there is no compulsion for them to have those vehicles

tested. I do wish that the whole question be proceeded with very

quickly so that we can get it ironed out as quickly as possible. I

cannot support the bill as it stands.

[10:30]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, we've had a little more than

three hours of fairly good discussion on this important bill. I've

listened to it all and it has been much appreciated. The purpose of the

bill is to privatize the function of motor vehicle inspection, and of

course, coupled with that, the downsizing of government.

A lot of debate has gone on regarding cost, and now that the

excellent superintendent of motor vehicles has retired, I want to say

on his behalf that he advises me he was misquoted when he told the

press an increase of 50 cents would look after the actual cost. I don't

think we should get into a lot of that discussion, but that increase is

a long, long way from recovering the cost. It would take about three

times that amount to recover the actual costs of inspecting vehicles in

the stations that we operated for a long time.

Referring to the opposition, there are requirements here that aren't

in many bills. A standing committee of the Legislature has been set up,

and certainly a lot of the things they are asking should come out then.

The committee has already met; as a matter of fact, there is a notice

on my desk that they meet again shortly. It's a good place to air

further things.

Another item came up in the debate: what was the status of the motor vehicle

inspection stations related to the real estate side? I would just say that we

are leaving those. Our landlord is B.C. Buildings Corporation, and I imagine

they will be looking for tenants, or a sale, or whatever. But the situation

regarding where the stations were is the responsibility of the landlord of the

provincial government, B.C. Buildings Corporation.

In talking about these testing stations, a lot of our province

didn't have any testing at all. I want to refer to a remark made by the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). Again, he's talking about reports

that exist. I don't know whether or not the report exists that he's

asking for, Mr. Speaker, but it probably does. We get scads and scads

of reports. Maybe our ministry has got this, but I think he's really

referring to an ICBC report. They've got a staff there writing reports

five-a-minute. We can't keep up with all those. They've apparently got

all kinds of time and money to do these things. I can assure you that I

haven't seen the report.

I would make the observation that I have, seen reports regarding

mechanical failures and accidents. Apparently about 7 percent of

accidents occur through mechanical failure. When I say that, I would

remind this Legislature that it is the individual car owner's and

operator's responsibility, regardless of the inspection stations, that

their vehicle be kept in proper mechanical order at all times. That is

part of the Motor Vehicle Act and always has been. So don't think for a

minute that the individual motorists are on their own because we

haven't got testing stations. They still have the responsibility to

look after their vehicles; if they don't they will be caught by the

authorities while out on the streets and highways of the province.

In view of the fact that it is going to committee, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

[ Page 2828 ]

NAYS — 13

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 23, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY

AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

On vote 52: minister's office, $158,426.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman and colleagues in this great

Legislature, I'm very happy to be able to present my estimates to this

Legislature for approval.

Before we get into the nitty-gritty of dollars and cents and where

they will be spent, I would like to spend a few moments talking about

the economy of British Columbia, how it fits into the Canadian scene;

indeed, how it fits into the worldwide scene. In order to do that, Mr.

Chairman, first of all I want to talk for a short time about

international trade from a British Columbia perspective. I think that

it is very appropriate that my estimates should be before the House

this week, because this week — from October 16 to 22 — has been set

aside in Canada as International Trade Week. So I think it's very

appropriate that I have the opportunity to discuss international trade

in this particular forum.

As you know, I and other provincial ministers responsible for

international trade quickly endorsed the month of October as Export

Month. The British Columbia government, through my ministry, has

mounted a full range of export promotional activities during this

month, which include seminars, trade missions and an export award

program. Export awards in recognition of exceptional performance were

presented to five British Columbia companies by Lieutenant-Governor

Rogers and myself in a special ceremony at Government House on October

The five recipients of the British Columbia export awards were

selected first of all from the resource industries, manufacturing

industries and the high-technology industries in our province and from

those who export industrial services and those in the engineering

sectors, which we sometimes refer to as invisible exports.

Conair Aviation Ltd. received the award for the industrial service

export; Conair Aviation, Mr. Chairman, is an Abbotsford-based service

and manufacturing company involved in aerial forest fire control,

reconditioning aircraft and manufacturing specialized equipment in

conjunction with these aircraft. Their equipment has been exported

extensively to the United States, France, the Middle East, Mexico and

Europe. I would suggest that there are other very worthy companies in

the industrial service export business, but Conair happened to be the

one that received the reward this year.

We hope that this will be an ongoing service so that other industries will be fighting for this coveted award.

[10:45]

International Submarine Engineering Ltd. received the

high-technology export award. International Submarine Engineering, Mr.

Chairman, manufacture remote-control operated vehicles used primarily

in offshore petroleum activity. This Port Moody company employs 120

people and has captured half of the international market for underwater

remote-control operated vehicles. Sales by International Submarine

Engineering are expected to reach $12 million this y ear, of which $11

million are exports.

Seaboard Lumber Sales Co. Ltd. received the award for the resource

industry exports. Seaboard Lumber Sales is one of the world's largest

waterbome exporters of wood products in international markets.

Seaboard, Mr. Chairman, is owned by 20 British Columbia forest

companies and was recognized with an export award as a representative

in the resource industry for substantial involvement in overseas

activity; in particular, for developing new markets in China, Japan and

Algeria. Shipments to these markets have grown from virtually nothing

to more than $100 million per year during the past three years.

Swan Wooster Engineering Co. Ltd. received the engineering export

award. Swan Wooster was established in 1925 and has grown to be one of

British Columbia's largest consulting engineering companies. Swan

Wooster have developed more than 50 percent of all worldwide bulk coal

terminals. Recent projects have included contracts in South Africa, the

United States, Indonesia, Taiwan, Holland, Pakistan and Thailand, and

certainly they have done justice to the good name of British Columbia

in the export to those international markets. As I mentioned a moment

ago, some of the engineering, architectural and high-technology

services we export are referred to as invisible exports, but I want you

to know that export earnings for this year from Swan Wooster alone are

expected to be $10 million for their export of engineering services.

Western Packaging Systems Ltd. won the manufacturing award. Western

Packaging Systems Ltd. was formed six years ago in Richmond by a group

of principals with extensive background in the corrugated packaging

industry. They have penetrated markets in the United States, the United

Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia, Asia, South Africa and Latin

America. Western Packaging machines are used today in 21 countries, and

sales in 1983 are expected to increase by 40 percent over 1982. It's

another typical example, Mr. Chairman, of the type of firms and

commercial enterprises which we have here in British Columbia that are

going into the international marketplace and being competitive.

Perhaps now would be an appropriate time to review with you what we

believe all Canadians should be keenly interested in; that is, our

export performance.

The vitality of British Columbia's economy, the vitality of the

employment levels and the high standard of living enjoyed by our people

are directly and inextricably linked to the ability of our business and

industrial community to export goods and services. Mr. Chairman, I

don't want any member of this Legislature or any person in British

Columbia to forget that.

MS. SANFORD: Who wrote all that?

[ Page

2829 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wrote it. Okay?

Canada, together with other developed nations, is becoming

increasingly dependent on international trade to maintain its economic

well-being. One-quarter of world production is now exported. That is

double the proportion of a decade ago. Since the early sixties — 1963

to be specific — exports have grown in real terms about one and a half

times more quickly than world production. Between 1960 and 1980 exports

increased from less than a one-fifth of Canada's output to almost

one-third.

Today, two million Canadians, about 20 percent of the nation's

workforce, are directly employed in producing goods for export. British

Columbia, as one of the premier trading provinces, has a growing

portion of its workforce engaged in producing for the export market. In

addition to resource exports which rely heavily on foreign markets, the

export orientation of our manufacturing sector has consistently been

double that of the rest of Canada. In order to keep these and other

British Columbians gainfully employed on the road to economic recovery,

we must enhance our costcompetitiveness and ensure that the major

driving force, our ability to increase export sales, is encouraged to

the greatest extent possible. This government recognized that a year

and six months ago, when we brought in the first restraint program to

be introduced by any government in any province in Canada. We are proud

that we were able to do that, because other provinces, and indeed the

federal government, shortly followed on our heels.

As we recognized that the recession was going to cut much more

deeply than we had anticipated, we also recognized that further cutback

in government is required. It's required in order that the companies I

have been talking about, in order that the economy of this province,

can be competitive in the international marketplace, because if we are

not competitive in the international marketplace, if our government

does not allow and create a climate whereby industry can be competitive

in the international marketplace, nobody will be enjoying any services

a decade from now. That is a fact of life, and I wish the opposition

would recognize what is happening in the world.

An analysis of British Columbia's export performance over the period

1972 to 1982 shows not only a strong growth from $2.76 billion in 1972

to $8.76 billion in 1982, but important changes in the market shares

and the export mix have occurred. In terms of market, British

Columbia's reliance on the United States market has declined

dramatically: down from 58.5 percent of exports in 1972 to 44.2 percent

in 1982. This shift of market strength is taken up to a large extent in

the growth of Japan's market share from 16.9 percent in 1972 to 24.4

percent in 1982, and a diversification into markets other than the

United States — the EEC and Japan. These nontraditional markets have

grown from 6.8 percent to 13.3 percent of British Columbia's exports.

The shift away from dependence on the U.S. market clearly diverges

from the rest of Canada and underlines the importance to British

Columbia of activity to develop its economic ties with the Pacific Rim.

Certainly this government has set Vancouver, the focus on the Pacific

Rim, into truly taking its place in that marketplace by some of the

encouragement we have given to the federal government to put in a trade

and convention centre, which is being built there right now. I do not

wish to take away from the fact that the federal government is building

that trade and convention centre, as their showplace during Expo 86,

but it was a vision of this government and of the Hon. Grace McCarthy

that set that in motion. Make no mistake about it. That is the type of

vision that we have for British Columbia in the future, growing and

taking an even greater place in the international marketplace.

On a sectoral basis, British Columbia trade interests have also been

changing. For instance, in 1972 lumber accounted for 33 percent of

British Columbia's exports. In 1982, lumber remained the leading export

but accounted for just 21 percent of the total exports. The most

dramatic....

MS. SANFORD: Did you write all that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I wrote it all. If you're unhappy

with me for giving you the facts, I know it's typical of you over there

in the opposition. So would you just be quiet and listen for once? The

information may do you some good and may help to change your thinking,

although I doubt it.

The most dramatic changes have been in the reversal of the

importance of copper concentrates and coal, with copper moving from the

third largest export to the eighth, and the opposite occurring for coal

exports.

If we accept the thesis that trade is fundamental to the economic

prosperity of Canada and British Columbia, what are the major tenets of

the domestic and international environment that must be addressed? I

would suggest to you that they are three: (1) we must have a trade

policy that looks to the future; (2) we must maintain our

competitiveness; and (3) we must be aggressive in the marketplace.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the

opposition are just a little bit perturbed by my talking about

international marketing, because if there is any threat to the security

of investment of our manufacturers here, it is the threat that

socialism will return to British Columbia. As Minister of Industry, and

partly responsible for the international marketplace, the first job I

had in 1976 was to travel abroad and to tell the world that British

Columbia was once again interested in selling its products, again

interested in having companies here, again interested in having them

bring their money and establish businesses here and use British

Columbia as a stepping-stone into that great and growing Pacific Rim. I

had to tell them that British Columbia was no longer the Chile of the

north, that our policies had changed, that we welcomed investment, that

we wanted to sell abroad. I have done that, and that is why we have

been so successful in the last eight years in helping our businesses

sell abroad.

I want to talk for just a moment about trade policy. The federal

government document "Canadian Trade Policy for the 1980s" represents an

important step in defining Canada's policies and attitudes towards the

role of trade in Canada's economic development. Prior to the release of

this discussion paper, British Columbia had tabled its views on the

development of a Canadian trade policy at the federal-provincial trade

ministers' conference in Ottawa in September 1982. The federal paper is

important in that it sets out a framework against which future trade

policy actions can be measured. The paper is outward-looking,

reflecting Canada's role as a major trading nation. In this it meets

British Columbia's interests of placing a priority on trade development

as a

[ Page 2830 ]

significant factor affecting both our international

relationships and domestic policies related to investment and

industrial development. By stressing the importance of Canada's

commitment to multilateral trade organizations, such as the general

agreement on tariffs and trade, the paper reinforces the need, on a

global basis, for agreed trade rules.

[11:00]

Importantly, this international approach reflects Canadian export

interests but also ensures that domestic pressures cannot overly affect

Canadian actions and regulations relative to imports. The first clear

test of Canada's new trade policy will be evident in Ottawa's handling

of the recommendations of the automotive task force. If ever there was

a case of self-serving self-interest, it must surely be the report

produced by the automotive executives and the trade union leaders who

represent the auto workers. Recently, Mr. Chairman, the Employers'

Council of British Columbia made the following comment on the matter:

"For a country that depends so heavily on international trade, Canada

has an unenviable international reputation." We are known abroad as a

high-tariff country. Foreigners are convinced that as soon as they

threaten our domestic producers, we will clamp down with quotas,

tariffs and nontariff barriers, even though it means Canadian consumers

will have to pay higher prices at home. This attitude has been

demonstrated recently in the recommendations of the Federal Task Force

on the Canadian Motor Vehicle and Automotive Parts Industry. Adoption

of these recommendations would clearly be perceived internationally as

further confirmation of Canada's protectionist tendencies.

I want to say again that I don't think that the workers in the

lumber industry in British Columbia are interested in trading off jobs

in our lumber manufacturing industries for jobs in Ontario. I have said

time and time again and will continue to say it: had the government

kept their fingers out Of the North American automobile industry, it

would have been able to be competitive. But when you spend 50 percent

of your time as a manager of an automotive company running around and

trying to satisfy bureaucrats' requests, how can you run a competitive

automotive business? I have told Hon. Ed Lumley this many times. I

said: "If you want to help the automotive industry in North America to

be competitive, do away with your regulations and let them be

competitive and don't tell them how to run their business."

I want to say again that British Columbia is not interested in

trading off jobs which will be lost anyway. That is not the way to

protect Canadian industry. I will tell you that we Canadians can be

competitive if you keep government regulations away from us. We have

proven that in the past in many industries, and we will prove it again.

MR. LEA: Name one!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just named one. What do you think about

our lumber industry? It's the most competitive, highly sophisticated

lumber industry that you will find anywhere in the world, second to

none because the lumber industry in British Columbia was given a free

hand and a climate within which to operate.

MR. LEA: When?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the member for Prince Rupert saying: "When was the government this and when was the government that?"

I want to continue, because the second tenet of an external trade policy has to be competitiveness.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now we hear the yacking from the

opposition. You will have lots of time to have your say, because I'm

quite prepared to be here for the next month or two, and I'll be happy

to debate international trading with you at any time if you'll just be

quiet and sit back and listen.

I want to talk for a moment about competitiveness. The decade of the

eighties will be characterized by slower worldwide economic growth and

intense competition on the international scene. British Columbia can,

in our view, continue to perform relatively well in this environment.

We do not face the need to restructure our basic industries to avoid

economic stagnation. British Columbia has internationally competitive

industries that can grow in the eighties and has the opportunity to

develop new, strong industries. The challenge facing the province is to

ensure that its opportunities for economic growth are fully realized.

British Columbia is a highly competitive supplier of many resource and

resource-based products to the world economy, despite increasing

international competition. There are emerging opportunities for further

market expansion and diversification, as witnessed recently by my trip

to Yugoslavia. There are new areas that we must enter into, and there

are new opportunities as long as we become aggressive and competitive.

If we are competitive and if our industries can be competitive, we do

not need to look back. Opportunities in secondary and non-resource

manufacturing will arise from the characteristics of British Columbia's

labour force, the presence of a large resource sector in western Canada

and access to growing Pacific Rim markets and competitive energy

supplies.

But all of this will be for nought unless Canadians — government,

business and labour — recognize that the world does not owe us a

living. I want to tell you that we think we're big players in the

international game, but British Columbia accounts for only 8.5 percent

of the world's lumber production. Anybody in British Columbia, be he a

worker in a mill, labour union man or a executive in the lumber

industry, who thinks the world is beating a path to our doorstep to buy

our products is misguided. We must be out there merchandising. We as

government must maintain an atmosphere and climate in which those

industries can indeed be competitive, and we must assist those

industries to find new markets, as we have done in the last eight years.

You would think, to hear the opposition and others who have biased

interests in our society, that the world was beating a path to our door

to buy our coal. British Columbia's portion of world coal production is

4 percent. As I have said in this Legislature before, by bringing in

northeast coal we now become a larger player, mainly in the Pacific

Rim. The larger a player we are, the more control we have over our

destiny. But some people can't seem to understand that. We thought we

were pretty big players in copper production. British Columbia's share

of world copper production is 3.5 percent. Our portion of world pulp

production is 9 percent. So I want to tell you once again, Mr.

Chairman, and I want to tell all British Columbians, that anybody who

is so misguided as to think that the world is beating a path to our

[ Page

2831 ]

doorstep to buy our resources is indeed misguided.

As I said before, international trade is growing by leaps and bounds.

We must keep our industries competitive, and we must be aggressive in

the marketplace. All of this will be for nought, as I said before,

unless government, business and labour organizations recognize that the

world is not beating a path to our door and that the world, indeed,

does not owe us a living. We must strive to maintain our

competitiveness in world markets. This requires continued restraint in

government spending. It requires responsibility in labour-management

discussions and a commitment in our people to commercial and industrial

efficiency.

I want to talk for just a moment about marketing. The government of

British Columbia recognizes the pre-eminent position of the private

sector in the marketing of our goods and services abroad. But we also

recognize that government can play a key role in creating a favourable

climate in the international marketplace for the province's industry.

Increasingly, governments around the world are heavily involved in

promoting the sale of their goods and services in the international

arena. We must recognize that the actions of the government are

compatible with and complementary to the efforts of the private sector

and those of the federal government. I want to tell you that in the

travels that we do in the international marketplace we work very

closely with our Canadian embassies and their trade commissioners and

their staff. We have had excellent cooperation with those people in

those embassies. As a matter of fact, they welcome us and want us to

assist them in the job they are trying to do for Canada and for British

Columbia.

While the United States, Japan and western Europe will continue to

be our major markets, industrial restructuring in the world will

increase the importance of the non-traditional markets to British

Columbia. This means that we must become more active in the markets of

the Pacific Rim, in Latin America and indeed in eastern Europe. It also

means that competitive export financing must be available to Canadian

industry and that our whole approach to trade must be expanded to

encompass and deal with counter trade and barter.

I hope that I have, in some small way, put the economy of British

Columbia into perspective. We can get down to discussing the

nitty-gritty details of my estimates, but I did want to put the economy

of British Columbia into perspective.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, money will flow to a secure environment:

it will flow to an area where it is welcomed by the government of the

day and where there is an opportunity for a return on that investment.

That is the responsibility of the government.

Having said that, I will take my place and be quite happy to listen

to the lectures which I know I am going to get from the opposition. I

will be most happy to try to answer any questions they may have with

regard to my detailed estimates. I want to say that it has been a

pleasure and an opportunity to be able to take my place in the

Legislature here this morning, and I look forward to further debate.

MR. LEA: Well, things are changing. It is the first time in

11 years that I have witnessed the minister read his speech, which is

quite a change. It must mean that the minister intends to be a bit more

thoughtful than he has been in the past. There were little excursions

of huff and puff, but mainly he was reading from a prepared text about

the economy of British Columbia.

I'd like to say first that these estimates are a sham. We are in the

seventh month of the current fiscal year before we even get around to

discussing the estimates. The normal procedure in the British

parliamentary system is that before the government starts spending the

money, the members of the legislature or parliament have an opportunity

to discuss the spending estimates — before they go into effect, not

seven months later. So when the minister talks about discussing the

details of his estimates in terms of spending there is not much point.

Sevemwelfths of the money is already spent, and we know for a fact that

the estimates are incorrect anyway, because every ministry's estimates

are incorrect. We know that the revenue applied to the budget is

underestimated and we know that the expenditures are overestimated.

That isn't the opinion just of the official opposition; that isn't

the opinion just of the New Democratic Party or of British Columbians

or other Canadians. It's a recognized fact internationally, and more

especially in the money markets of the world. This minister and his

ministry stand condemned, not by the opposition or by political

parties, but by the very people that this minister tries to kowtow to

all the time. Our credit rating in this province has been downgraded

from a triple-A to a double-A. Standard and Poor of New York, one of

the biggest bonding agencies in the world, says it is downgrading our

credit rating in this province mainly because there has been a lack of

diversification in our economy, not brought around by the Social Credit

government. This minister and his government have been condemned by the

bond-marketing agencies of New York, both Moody's and Standard and

Poor. We have been condemned as a province that has not diversified its

economy, to the point where lending agencies are looking at our

province with a bit more of a wary eye, asking whether it is a good or

bad place to invest. They're saying: "It's not as safe to invest here

any more. That's why we're going to charge a little more interest on

the money we lend to British Columbia. They have not diversified their

economy, and the future doesn't look good."

It's only possible in response to do what the minister has done: to

talk in a general way about what this government has or has not done in

terms of economic development. In terms of discussing the estimates

specifically, they are a sham, and any debate of a specific nature on

these estimates would also, by necessity, have to be a sham. The

estimates are not correct, and have been proven so, and it would make a

sham of us, on this side of the House, to debate the estimates in

detail. It would make a sham of these proceedings, this Legislature and

of British Columbia. We all know that these estimates we are debating

are incorrect, and even at that they're old shams, because we're seven

months into the year when we start discussing the spending priorities

of the government for the coming year. If that isn't sham I don't know

what is.

[11:15]

I'd now like to deal with some of the points that the minister has

raised. First of all, he talks about us being an exporting province,

and that's true. But he speaks of it as being a desirable end.

According to the minister it would be good if we exported everything we

produce. One of the problems with our economy is that it is an almost

completely exporting province. Almost everything we produce in this

province we export. Almost everything we consume we import. If there is

one single factor that makes a geographical jurisdiction vulnerable to

the international marketplace in its downturn it is the fact that we

are an almost completely open

[ Page 2832 ]

economy. That is a point of vulnerability in the

international marketplace, not a point of strength. We are always the

first to feel a downturn and the last to feel an upturn, because of the

open economy that has been fostered by this government.

Diversification of the economy. The minister talked about us being

able to compete in the international marketplace for those things that

we have traditionally produced, and about our ability to be able to

compete in the world marketplace with those things that we see on the

horizon, as means of production. He talked about high tech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. LEA: He mentioned it in passing.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would take too much research to find

out that we have allowed our natural resources to be exploited, and the

profits from those resources to be invested in other parts of the

world, to come on stream in competition against us. We have allowed

major resource companies to take their profits out of this jurisdiction

into others and set up plants competing with ourselves. There has been

no effort by this government to redirect the profits from resource

industries back into the resource economy of British Columbia, and for

that they have to stand condemned, along with their Liberal partners in

Ottawa, who've allowed the same thing to happen. We have more economic

slippage out of this province from our resource industries than is

healthy, by any stretch of the imagination. In coal, lumber and fishing

— in fact, in all of the major resource areas in this province — we

have allowed economic slippage to completely devastate investment back

into our own economy. This minister and his government have not done

one thing to stop that economic slippage out of our province. In fact,

they haven't even raised the topic. The minister didn't even raise the

topic in his opening address when talking about the economy of this

province.

The minister talked about education. We agree that we do have an

invisible commodity to export. That invisible commodity, though, is the

product of a well-educated society. Without a well-educated society, we

will have no invisible products to export. Yes, we have an opportunity

to be an exporter of technology and an exporter of knowledge around the

world. It looks good. But in order to have that invisible commodity to

export, we have to have an educational system to match it. How can the

minister stand up and say that we're heading in the right direction in

that area when even the research money going to the pulp and paper

industry in this province for this year is not going to happen? We're

pulling money out of research, not putting it in. UBC president George

Pedersen has condemned this government for its lack of money into the

post-secondary educational system. Out of that system will come the

invisible exports that the minister talks about so proudly. At one end

he and his government talk about exporting; at the other end they are

taking away the means of producing the invisible commodities. He stands

condemned by his own government's educational policies.

Mr. Chairman, there are models for good, healthy, resource

economies. Let's take a look at the front an backward linkages in an

economy. Those are the linkages where, on the one hand, you add wealth

to your raw resources before exporting to the world economy or into the

international marketplace, and on the other hand, the economy produces

for the needs of your own industry. We are sadly lacking in both the

front and backward linkages. We do precious little to add wealth to our

commodities before we ship them out to the international marketplace.

We do even less in supplying the needs of our own industry. For

example, how much machinery, goods and services that the forest

industry uses do we produce right here in British Columbia? Not much.

It's the same in the fishing industry, mining industry and farming

industry. We are sadly lacking in producing the needs of our own

industry. We are sadly lacking in adding wealth to our resources before

we ship them out. If this minister was really serious about

diversifying our economy, he would have looked long and hard at the

need for research in this province. If we are going to compete in the

international marketplace, we have to find new products as well as new

markets.

How can we compete with new pulp mills coming on stream from

countries where they pay the workers $1.50 a month and all they can

eat? How can we compete with new high-tech industries when the people

who are producing the same product in other countries are paying ten

cents an hour? Do we want to compete based on those wage schedules? Or

do we want to compete with a highly educated workforce bringing out new

products, where we can compete in the world marketplace through our

high technology? We cannot compete with labour rates of ten cents an

hour, nor do we want to. No one in this Legislature and no one in this

province wants the people who work in our industries to live at the

same standard of living that Jamaicans who work in the bauxite mines in

Jamaica have to live at, or the high-tech industries in Manila and

Singapore. Who wants our people to live at the standard of living that

the workers in those industries have to live at? But those are the

industries that, by necessity, we are having to compete with if we

stick to the old....

I'd like to use the forest industry as an example. For years we have

assumed — incorrectly, but I guess that's in retrospect — that we could

manage our forest base in such a way that we could meet any insatiable

demand that was put upon it; in other words, that through reforestation

and all of the modern forestry techniques we could somehow have new

growth coming on stream that would meet the demands of a raw resource

economy. We're finding out now that that is not true. If people in this

province were to know the state of our forest industry, I don't think

they would sleep for a week or possibly a month. We are in real

trouble. When you take a look at the projections from this minister's

own government, you see that we have a falldown rate such that only

half the annual allowable cut that we're cutting now will be available

in a short 20 to 30 years from now. That is a frightening prospect.

We're also finding out that we're having other problems. We're finding out that the reforestation program itself.... There

are indications that this new wood — the second growth — is going to

have approximately 20 percent less cellulose content, which means that

the wood we're going to be producing in the future will not be the same

high quality, and therefore cannot be put to the same use as the wood

that was there that we've already cut. That's a problem we have to deal

with.

If we are going to survive in the international marketplace, if

we're going to survive at all in the style that we've become accustomed

to, we in this province have to do the kinds of things that other

countries have done before. I point specifically to Japan and West

Germany, where before they

[ Page 2833 ]

went out building up new production, they found out

exactly what it was they had to produce. What is it that we can produce

in this province, taking into account the natural resources that we

have — the energy availability, the educational system, our economic

resources for capital? What can we produce in this province with which

we can go out into the world and compete in the international

marketplace? Add wealth to our resources before we ship them out; take

the pressure off our finite and non-renewable resources by adding

wealth before we ship them out. Our future depends on adding wealth to

those resources before we put them in the international marketplace.

Our future is not shipping more and more of the raw resources out. That

is a mug's game in the final analysis.

Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about the international marketplace and its

view of us. I had the opportunity to talk with an American senator. He said:

"What are you people doing in your province — in your country? Why are

you shipping out all your resources raw? Why are you not doing the kind of research

that's needed to make yourself a closed economy? Why do you insist on being

an open economy that's completely vulnerable to the international marketplace?"

He said: "We in the rest of the world are going to take it and laugh at

you. But why do you people put yourself in that position?" I think it's

a good question. Why do we insist in this province that the only way to go is

an open economy?

I'd like to deal briefly with a bit of our history. Whenever in this

province we needed new economy, either to raise our standard of living

or because of an increasing population, what have we done? Mr.

Chairman, all we have done is ever widen the extraction process in this

province: one more valley to take the trees out of, more fishing, allow

the quotas to go up. That's our history. Whenever we needed new economy

we did nothing more than expand the extraction process. Since the

Second World War this hasn't served us badly in terms of being able to

keep our economy up with the times, to supply jobs for new population

or to extend our standard of living, but it's over. It wasn't the

correct way to go in the beginning, but it is now compounding and we're

really in trouble.

[11:30]

The minister stands up and says everything is rosy if we'll just practise

restraint; if we just practise restraint, we're going to export more of

our raw resources. I ask the minister: where is the end of that? Is there an

end to that? Will we end up like other jurisdictions that finally take their

renewable resources and make them finite? We aren't the first jurisdiction

blessed with good forests. Look at Cyprus! Years and years ago Cyprus was

blessed with some of the best wood in the world, but because they went in there

and practised the same kind of resource management as we have practised in British

Columbia, today Cyprus is bankrupt in terms of forestry. We can look to history

and see where other resource economies have gone the wrong way, but we also

have the opportunity to look at some other jurisdictions who have made at least

some attempt to go the other way.

When it comes right down to it, our real resource will be an

educated, concerned, sensitive population, and this government is

taking measures to make sure that we do not have that sensitive,

concerned, educated population. On the one hand they are talking about

the need for invisible exports, which only come about through a highly

technical, highly educated people, and on the other hand they are

cutting back the funding that would allow our educational system to

supply the very people who could give us those invisible exports. They

can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.

Northeast coal is another example of what I consider to be stupidity

— not the project itself, but the fact that the private sector is going

to be investing approximately $1.6 billion into northeast coal, and the

public sector — that's us, the taxpayers — is going to be investing

approximately $1.3 billion. I would assume that a dollar is a dollar,

and if the private sector is expecting a certain rate of return on its

investment, is it too much to ask that the taxpayers of this province

get the same kind of return on their invested dollar? There is no doubt

in my mind that if we as taxpayers are putting up that kind of

investment, then as taxpayers we should get, and should demand, an

equity position in northeast coal that is in relationship to the amount

of money we've invested in it. Nothing else makes sense.

The government stands up and says: "Oh, we do get a return. We get a

return out of all the spinoff benefits. There are going to be people

working in northeast coal and they'll make a paycheque; they'll pay tax

out of their paycheque; they'll purchase in the rest of the economy.

And the coal companies will make a profit, and the province and its

provincial coffers will have money coming in by taxing the profits from

the coal companies." I've got news for the government. If all the

investment in northeast coal had been from the private sector, we would

still have had those returns. They would still have been available to

us. If the private sector had invested the full $3 billion themselves,

the returns that the government is talking about would still have been

returns coming into the coffers through jobs and spinoff economies. We

would have had those.

The government got itself into a bit of a bind by taking the policy

that they did. They built a rail line, and on that rail line, to pay

themselves back for the investment — because they had to borrow the

money to build the line — they're going to charge a surtax of $3 on

each tonne of coal that comes out of there on that line. The minister

himself admits that the original contracts are not enough to pay it

off; he says there'll be future development, and as that future

development happens, because of the spur line, there are going to be

some spinoffs coming from future contracts. We'll concede that, but

look at the bind the government has got itself in because they did not

take an equity position in northeast coal. We now have a conflict of

interest between the taxpayer dollar investment and the private dollar

investment, because the Japanese steel industry is negotiating the

downward price of coal and the downward tonnage of coal all over the

world. Northeast coal is not going to escape that.

I would also like to say that we on this side of the House — and I'm

sure everybody in the province — wishes northeast coal every success,

because if it fails we are going to have to pick it up. It is going to

be the taxpayers of this province who have to pick up northeast coal if

it fails.

The conflict of interest is this: if the price of coal is lowered

and the tonnage remains the same, then the coal companies are going to

be hit. But if the tonnage comes down and the price remains the same,

it is the public sector that is going to be hit. If the tonnage goes

down it means there aren't as many tonnes that we can charge the $3

surtax on, but we do owe the money and the money has to be paid. If the

tonnage comes down, then the people of this province are going to have

to pick up the difference between the tonnages. But if we had taken an

equity position in northeast coal for our

[ Page 2834 ]

invested dollar, then it would't have mattered

whether it was the tonnage or the price. What we lost on one end we

could have picked up on the other, because we would have been coowners

with the private sector. Now we have a conflict of interest in

northeast coal, and the conflict of interest boils down to this: if

there is a reduction in tonnage or price it means that one side has to

lose and the other side has to win. We had an opportunity to make sure

we could share the losses and the winnings and take the conflict of

interest out of the financial arrangements of northeast coal.

But finally on northeast coal, Mr. Chairman, to me the worst thing

is that we taxpayers have put a lot of money into northeast coal. We

have invested a lot of money. It seems to me that as one of the largest

investors into northeast coal the government should at least have the

decency to put the details on the table so we know whether our money

has been invested wisely. The government is so fond of saying that they

have no money of their own; that the only money they have is taxpayers'

money. That's right. And don't you think the taxpayers have an absolute

right to know how the government invested their money? But the

government says: "The taxpayers will know in due course." You can bet

your last dollar that the private sector investors know everything

about that agreement. The only ones who are left out are the taxpayers

who invested, and they have very scanty detail.

Mr. Chairman, in the conclusion of my time I would just like to

re-emphasize that this minister not only stands condemned by the

opposition, he not only stands condemned by the performance of the

economy — higher unemployment than the rest of Canada, higher

bankruptcies than the rest of Canada, not only personally but in the

small business sector.... The facts stand for themselves. This minister

is a failure. And don't take our word for it. Take the words of the

biggest investment houses in New York City. They have lowered our

rating in the credit system because this minister has failed. They say

that the main reason that they lowered our credit rating is that this

economy has not been diversified by this government. Can there be a

bigger indictment of failure? The official opposition, the facts and

the biggest financial institutions in the world have all condemned this

minister.

For that reason I intend to move a motion of non-confidence in this

minister. I move that vote 52 be amended by reducing the amount from

$158,426 to $158,425. This is the traditional method — moving the

minister's salary down by $1 — to show that we have no confidence in

this minister, no confidence in his record and no confidence in his

view of the future.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it would seem that I stand

before you a condemned minister. But I would like to take just a few

moments to talk about some of the things that were said by my official

critic. I was sometimes wondering whether we were in the estimates of

the Minister of Education or the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

I was in London ten days ago where we sold $100 million worth of

bonds in the Euromarket. They went faster than they had ever done

before, because the bankers of the world know what this government is

doing to help keep this province lean. Don't stand there and tell me

that because some New York bankers have downrated our credit rating,

we're not going to be able to sell our bonds in the international

marketplace, because it's just not true. The international banks know

what we are doing in British Columbia, and because we didn't go out and

raise taxes like the NDP wanted us to, they've downrated our credit a

little. But they're out there gobbling up the bonds every time we put

them on the market. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's

what is out there in the real world. We're not being condemned; we're

being blessed, because we're a government of courage and vision to do

the things we're doing.

I want to answer the member's question about keeping everybody in

the dark on northeast coal. He asked me a question in the House a

number of days ago, and I told him to go to the library. Evidently he

couldn't find the door. Well, it's just out there opposite the entrance

to the Legislative Assembly. You go into the library, take a long

corridor and go up and ask the ladies, who are there to serve the

members of the Legislature, for the comprehensive agreement. It's one

of the most comprehensive agreements ever put together in any resource

development anywhere in North America. It lays down every detail of the

investment to the last spike — who will pay for what and what

guarantees there are. I would recommend to the member that he go to the

library and take a took, and if he doesn't want to go to this library,

I would suggest that he go to the library in Prince Rupert or the

University of Victoria or UBC. We have that comprehensive agreement,

which, as I say, is a very thick document, outlining every detail of

the comprehensive agreement which was worked out between the coal

companies, the railroad, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways,

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and every department in government.

It is the most comprehensive agreement of resource development that has

ever been put together in the history of Canada. And the member has the

audacity to stand in this Legislature and imply that we are trying to

keep the citizens of this province in the dark. It's all laid out

there. The trouble is, Mr. Member, you don't want to read it, because

you realize that we have put together the best deal ever in any

resource development.

[11:45]

I didn't hear him say too much about the British Columbia Railway — the

success story of this decade as far as Crown corporations go. When this government

took over the British Columbia Railway and became responsible for its operations,

it had lost $22 million the previous year. Why? Because of political interference.

I don't know where the expresident of that railway is, but I know he is

somewhere hanging his head in shame. But from a loss of $22 million in 1975

to a profit of $18.6 million last year in one of the roughest years in our economy

since the Dirty Thirties.... Why? Because we kept the political sticky fingers

of politicians out of it and let it be run by an independent board of directors.

I want to tell you the people working for that railroad today are proud of working

for the British Columbia Railway owned by the people of British Columbia. It

is looked on as being one of the most efficiently run railways anywhere in the

world. I want to tell you that because of decisions made by a previous government

it has the best communications system anywhere in the world, and because of

a decision of this little government it will bring in 50KV technology which

will be the first in North America. And we will sell that technology to the

rest of the world and to the Canadian National and to the Canadian Pacific,

because we should electrify all our railroads in North America.

I didn't hear the member say too much about the British Columbia

Railway — a great railway. I didn't hear the member say that a month

ahead of

schedule we will be moving coal out of that great project over

to his constituency where

[ Page 2835 ]

one of the greatest ports in the world under

development anywhere in the world has just been built in the last year

and a half. No, he didn't say anything about that. Not only that, but

because of the vision and the help of this government, the wheat boards

of western Canada are putting the greatest grain development there in

the world to help the grain farmers of western Canada move their grain

into the international marketplace. Had it not been for a decision made

by this little government to provide access long before the deal was

ever put together and to encourage the government of Alberta to put

those grain elevators on Ridley Island, the western farmer would not

have the opportunity and those new service facilities to keep him

competitive in the international marketplace. I don't wish to say

anything more about northeast coal except to say: thank heaven this

government and the Premier of this province had some vision and some

courage. Northeast coal is not put together for 1982 or 1983 or 1984;

it is put together to serve the decades ahead. History will prove it to

be the best investment the people of British Columbia ever made. And

talking about dollars invested, how much of that $1.3 billion being

invested by the taxpayers is coming from Ottawa? You didn't give the

breakdown. This little government invested one dollar and got three

more dollars invested by the federal government and the private sector,

and to me that's a pretty damned good business deal. No, they didn't

talk about that — a port that will serve not only British Columbia but

all of western Canada, and will help to keep us competitive in that

international marketplace.

I want to talk for just a moment about high technology. The member

opposite conveniently forgot that on March 29, 1983, our Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) set up the

discovery enterprise program, a fund established to promote

high-technology industries in British Columbia. Listening to the NDP

opposite, you would think all you had to do was go out there and wave a

little magic wand. No, you put in programs and create a climate, which

indeed is happening in British Columbia, as I will point out to you

with specific hard facts in a few moments, Mr. Chairman. But as of June

30, 1983, 19 firms engaged in high technology were assisted under the

small manufacturers' assistance program, which is a portion of the

LIFI' development program brought in by this government two years ago,

when $389,297 was committed and 153 permanent jobs were created. You

might say that's not much, but it is a start. The program is there and

applications are coming in today. Small high-technology manufacturers

are indeed establishing and providing jobs in British Columbia.

Recently we announced some changes to our SMA program. On June 12,

once the 300 applications under that program were processed — certainly

many of them from the riding of the member opposite — the program would

be converted to focus assistance towards high-technology firms. A

funding of $75,000 is being provided to WFAIT — the Western Foundation

for Advanced Industrial Technology — to coordinate a feasibility

assessment of a CADCAM centre for British Columbia. A $50,000 study of

the software industry is underway to determine the greatest business

opportunities for British Columbia's software firms. The factors

pertaining to the growth of the B.C. software industry and the roles of

the federal and provincial governments to ensure a strong B.C. software

section.

It wasn't long ago that a little firm up in Prince George came to me

and said: "We are manufacturing new wiring systems for helicopters."

Imagine that! In that new wiring process, they were developing a

computer that would speak to the pilot and say, "Lower engine heat,"

instead of waiting until the heat was too high and the engine failed.

It has just received an award to rewire helicopters from all over the

world. That's a high-technology industry and the type of thing that

makes the world go round, not necessarily your big, glossy firms. Maybe

I didn't explain it very well, but it's fantastic. You should go and

see it some day.

Mr. Chairman, there is a number of other items that I want to

discuss. I want to talk for just a moment about our lumber industry.

The member seemed to insinuate that all the machinery that we use in

our lumber manufacturing industry in British Columbia is imported.

MR. LEA: Most of it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On the contrary. The lumber industry in

British Columbia is not only the most sophisticated lumber

manufacturing industry anywhere in the world, but we manufacture the

equipment used in lumber mills here in British Columbia. Not only that,

we export that machinery to practically every country in the world,

because through our industry.... When I made an announcement that the

cooperative overseas market development project was going to be

refunded, I said to all those assembled, including Jack Munro, that it

wasn't only the lumber industry per se that was benefiting, but indeed,

our manufacturing machinery industry was also benefiting. Through my

ministry, we helped those firms to go out and merchandise their product

everywhere in the world. So we are building the machinery that can be

used anywhere in the world, and we are successful at it. I cannot

understand why the member opposite would stand up and say we're buying

over.... There are some boilers in our pulp mills that certainly are

brought into the country, but by and large.... Take logging trucks. We

have developed and know how to build logging trucks better than anyone

else in the world. We export that technology.

I want to talk for just a few moments about the lumber industry,

because I realize that the member opposite is partly right. About three

weeks ago I was at a strategy session at Whistler put on by the Council

of Forest Industries. I told them: "You can no longer manufacture a

product and go out and try to flog it in the world. You've got to

determine what your market is, and then you must manufacture and sell

into that market." I have pleaded with the industry to add more value

to the lumber products. In that, I accept what the member is saying,

and certainly I will work with COFI.

I think I've answered most of the member's questions, but if I

haven't, if I've missed anything, I d be quite happy to, if the member

would just stand up and tell me.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

NAYS — 24

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

[ Page 2836 ]

YEAS — 17

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[12:00]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the lists were

read in order indicating that the 24 votes were in favour of the

amendment. That's the way the lists were read, and I think it should be

recorded that the minister's salary is reduced; he's lost confidence,

and he should resign forthwith.

Vote 52 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada