1985 Legislative Session: 3rd 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 31, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6361 ]

CONTENTS

Medical Practitioners Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No –– 2) (Bill M21 1). Mr. Reynolds

Introduction and first reading –– 6361

Industrial Development Incentive Act (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 6361

Limitation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill M212). Mr. Cocke

Introduction and first reading –– 6361

Oral Questions

Expo 86. Mr. Lauk –– 6361

Freil Lake development. Mr. Lockstead –– 6362

Income tax increases. Mr. Stupich –– 6362

Okanagan College board. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6363

Victoria Mortgage Corp. Mr. Blencoe –– 6363

Members' Statements

Interchange on Canadian studies. Mr. Rose –– 6363

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Barnes

Journey for Lives. Mr. R. Fraser –– 6365

Mr. Barnes

Chemainus revitalization. Mr. Reynolds –– 6367

Mrs. Wallace

B.C. — first employment policy. Mr. Gabelmann –– 6368

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Cocke

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 40). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6370

Mr. Cocke –– 6371

Ms. Brown –– 6371

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6371

Small Business Venture Capital Act (Bill 19). Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6371

Mr. Stupich –– 6372

Ms. Brown –– 6373

Mr. Cocke –– 6373

Mrs. Wallace –– 6373

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6373

Industrial Development Incentive Act (Bill 46). Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6374

Mr. Stupich –– 6375

Mrs. Wallace –– 6376

Ms. Brown –– 6377

Mr. Cocke –– 6377

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6377

Low Interest Loan Assistance Revolving Fund Act (Bill 27). Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6378

Mr. Stupich –– 6378

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6378

An Act To Amend The Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR406). Second reading

Mrs. Johnston –– 6379

Mr. Cocke –– 6379

FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. A. FRASER: This morning in the galleries there are going

to be some constituents of mine from the Cariboo and from my home town,

Quesnel. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Harold Turner and

Mr. and Mrs. John Clayton.

Introduction of Bills

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 (NO. 2)

Mr. Reynolds presented a bill intituled Medical Practitioners Act Amendment

Act, 1985 (No. 2).

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to add

a couple of lay people to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. If

this were done in this province, I think it would certainly be better

for all British Columbians. I know it's supported by most doctors in

this province and certainly by lay groups. It's done for lawyers and

other groups. I think it's a positive step.

Bill M211 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.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE ACT

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

a bill intituled Industrial Development Incentive Act.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just by way of explanation,

Bill 46 takes the place of a bill which is already on the order paper,

Bill 23, and I will be asking a bit later to have that discharged.

The new Industrial Development Incentive Act is broader than the

previous Bill 23 in that it provides authority for initiatives which

form part of the new $50 million small business incentive package that

we've just reached agreement on with the federal government.

Specifically, the bill makes provision for the aquaculture incentive

program and the industrial development assistance program. Along with

the small manufacturers' incentive program, these will all be in a

subagreement with the federal government which is currently being

finalized. Funding will be cost-shared fifty-fifty by the province and

the federal government.

Bill 46 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.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave for

the proceedings relating to Bill 23 to be discharged and that the bill

be withdrawn from the order paper.

Motion approved.

LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Mr. Cocke presented a bill intituled Limitation Amendment Act, 1985.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this bill puts the members of the

dental profession in exactly the same position as the medical

profession. The medical profession have a six-year limitation of

liability; the dental profession have a 30-year liability limitation.

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness they are in equivalent kinds of

occupations. We recognize that it happened for the doctors in the first

place because the provincial hospitals didn't like that load of records

that they had to keep. Of course, it goes both ways as far as I'm

concerned. If it's good for the doctors it's good for the dentists, and

therefore I say it's good for the community.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of this bill.

Bill M212 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

EXPO 86

MR. LAUK: Will the Premier advise whether his office has

approved conflict-of-interest guidelines for Expo or whether his office

is aware whether the Ministry of Tourism has approved such guidelines

for the corporation and the directors of that corporation to conduct

business with the corporation to the exclusion of other qualified

applicants?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The responsibility for developing those regulations or standards of conduct has been charged to the board of directors of Expo.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. The same Crown

corporation is a corporation of the Crown, the government. Is it the

Premier's view that the awarding of a contract to Beautiful British Columbia magazine is consistent with the government's policy with such conflict-of-interest guidelines?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I do know that the board of

directors of Expo have developed bidding procedures that are tenders. I

don't have the type of information available to me to answer a question

of that nature.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a Socred bagman by the name of Peter

Brown has alleged publicly that other bidders for the production of

copies of the official guide-book for the world's fair were not

prepared to accept the risk, which he says is associated with the

contract. Is the Premier aware that the other applicants vehemently

deny this allegation, casting a pall of suspicion over the

circumstances of the awarding of this contract?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, I'm sure the member was being

frivolous when he used the adjective describing a very respected

citizen of the province, Mr. Peter Brown. The Leader of the Opposition

giggles, but that's not unusual.

[ Page 6362 ]

But I would say that the Expo board is made up of appointees from

the general community. The city of Vancouver has appointees on the

board and the federal government has appointees on the board. I trust

that the board of directors are doing a good job in trying to put on a

fair within their capability of providing guidelines and direction to

management and in conducting all of the bidding procedures. At this

time, I don't think it would be fair to cast aspersions on any member

or all members of the directorate of Expo.

[10:15]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier may regard as fair or

unfair, in terms of awarding a contract to a company owned and operated

by one of the key figures in the Expo corporation, may not be regarded

as fair either. The allegation by Mr. Peter Brown, who I understand

collects and donates funds to the Social Credit Party.... I think the

euphemism for that is "bagman" — take it or leave it. The point is, his

allegation is denied by the other two short-listed bidders. They are

respected citizens of the community as well. Has the Premier decided to

investigate this problem and determine once and for all whether the

awarding of that contract was indeed fair, so that the public of

British Columbia can regard it as such?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to

politically interfere with the workings of Expo at all. We have a fine

board of directors who I'm sure would be prepared to answer that

question should the member wish to request attendance at one of the

directors' meetings of Expo in order to pursue it, if he's truly

concerned for the two unsuccessful applicants.

MR. LAUK: It's my understanding that part of the contract is

for the sale of advertising in the Expo souvenir guide. I'm sure the

government is aware that Beautiful British Columbia

magazine, which was awarded the contract, accepts no advertising and

has had no advertising department. Can the Premier provide this

information to the House: why does Beautiful British Columbia

magazine have superior qualifications therefore to solicit advertising

when it accepts no ads and has no advertising department, and the other

short-listed candidates do?

HON. MR. BENNETT . Once again, I'm not on the board of directors

of Expo and I can't advise him, in this chamber, on either the awarding

of the contract or the successful or unsuccessful applicants. The member might

appreciate that fact before he asked the question if he is sincere in trying,

to represent the unsuccessful applicants. I would suggest that it's an appropriate

question to take to the board of directors of Expo. I will, take your line

of questioning on notice for the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), the

member from the government who sits on the board of Expo, and perhaps he could

bring answers where questions that have been asked are appropriate to the House.

Somewhere in your line of questioning there may be answers that could be given.

FREIL LAKE DEVELOPMENT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing. Now that the minister has had the opportunity to

familiarize himself with the granting of a licence to ship fresh water

from B.C. to offshore ports from the Jervis Inlet area — a site known

as Freil Lake — will the minister assure this House that public

meetings will be held prior to any development taking place on that

site?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I assured the member yesterday, any

development would be preceded by the process of making sure that

environmental concerns are met. I don't know how many public meetings

will or will not be scheduled, but certainly the environmental concerns

and interests will have to be satisfied.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the minister's response. I would

further ask the minister: if any environmental studies have taken place

prior to the granting of this licence behind closed doors, would the

minister be good enough to table those environmental impact studies in

this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, before I respond to

the minister, I must say that those members who insist on dialogue

across the floor when members are questioning will be asked to leave

the chamber if they do not desist.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No environmental studies have been

undertaken on that. The preliminary assessment has been made that water

is running into the ocean. Those environmental studies are not

necessary for the licence of occupation. As I indicated, that would be

done before any development takes place. All that has been done is a

short-term tenure to say that there's a licence there in place, and

that you would have to satisfy all the concerns before you do any

development. Environmental studies have not been done, so obviously I

can't table them.

INCOME TAX INCREASES

MR. STUPICH: To the Minister of Finance. The recent federal

budget imposed significant tax increases on working families. Has the

minister had any advice from his ministry as to the amount of the gain

that B.C. would expect to get in the current fiscal period and in the

subsequent fiscal period from increases in income tax?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Ministry of Finance, as the House would

expect, undertakes careful analysis of federal budgets and provincial

budgets across the country. I do not have the specific information to

which the member referred, but rather an estimate point by point of the

net loss and net gain on provincial revenues for this fiscal year, and

then projected into future fiscal years. I do not have a specific, as

the member had asked.

MR. STUPICH: Another question. Other changes introduced in

the federal budget are going to impose significant costs on families or

individuals receiving social assistance allowances in B.C.; I am

thinking in particular of increases in sales tax. I am wondering if the

minister has considered sharing the gain that B.C. will get from the

increase — there's bound to be an increase in income tax receipts —

with those lowest-income people in the province who are going to be hit

hardest, relatively, when they have to pay the increase in the cost of

living brought about because of changes in the same budget from which

we are going to benefit.

[ Page 6363 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, there are in terms of provincial

revenues some losses and some gains for British Columbia. I tabled a

budget in March in this chamber, as the House will recall, which took a

variety of factors into account, and I suppose the best possible answer

that I could provide to the member is that I have not contemplated any

change to the budget which is in place for this fiscal year as a result

of the federal budget. I thought for a while the member was going to

ask me to defend that budget. I can only defend one a year happily,

this year.

OKANAGAN COLLEGE BOARD

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Premier. On five occasions

I have written the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) regarding

the replacement of three vacancies on the board of Okanagan College. On

February 11 a list of candidates that were selected by a non-partisan

advisory council was submitted to the MLA after considerable community

input, along with letters of reference from a number of key individuals

in the community. Will the Premier please explain why his government

has continued to deny the communities of the Okanagan their rightful

voice on the Okanagan College board?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The communities do have a right. The government makes appointments from people from the community for the board.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That is precisely my point. These

recommendations have been submitted way back in the fall. Nothing has

been done on it. The government has been dragging its feet on the

issue. In addition to these three vacancies in Okanagan College, there

are two vacancies at Camosun College, one at Malaspina College and one

at Vancouver Community College as a result of recent resignations from

the board.

Will the minister explain the failure of this government to

reinstate adequate representation on these college boards, or is this a

strategy to weaken these boards during the present education turmoil?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. No, the government will make the appointments. They're all under consideration.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Can I ask the Premier if there is a time line for these appointments? We've been waiting for them since the fall.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They'll be coming forward shortly.

VICTORIA MORTGAGE CORP.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs regarding the Victoria Mortgage Corp. The

superintendent of brokers and real estate suspended trading of this

company back in April. The minister and I have had some discussions on

this issue. However, the auditors for the company have still not

received the appraisals and the financial information so they can table

a proper audit. The superintendent is concerned that he is not getting

the information. I am wondering if the minister has instructed the

superintendent to conduct his own investigation. He has the power to do

that — put in his own auditors so that debenture-holders, many of whom

have their life savings in this company, can get that information so

they can make an informed decision about what they're going to do in

the future.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member from Victoria and I

had a discussion on this yesterday in my office. I have not received a

report or a request from the superintendent with regard to taking any

further steps. At the present time they're awaiting information, as I

understand it. Should the information not be forthcoming, we would

certainly want to pursue other avenues if necessary.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I neglected to table documents

following question period yesterday, pertaining to a question I asked

of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I would like

to do so, with leave.

Leave granted.

Members' Statements

INTERCHANGE ON CANADIAN STUDIES

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'll just sort of pause and mumble for

a while so that people can take their leave. This usually happens to me

when I get up to speak, so I'm quite accustomed to it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The matter I want to raise..... I'm sorry that the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not here today. I understand he's

running around putting out fires over at BCIT and trying to find some

more Social Crediters to put into PVI and a number of other little....

They've all gone to learn about Expo and the program.

What I have to say is not really a matter of any great world-shaking

importance, I suppose. But I, along with a number of other people,

including the Minister of Education and some others, received a letter

I would regard as quite an eloquent letter from a Heather Cullen in 100

Mile House. She talked about attending a conference on what it really

means to be a Canadian. She said this conference, Interchange on

Canadian Studies 1985, was held in Edmonton and had certain basic

objectives for young high school kids from all across Canada. I think

that all of us recognize that except for perhaps in the last 15 years

we've had difficulty culturally and every other way in developing a

Canadian identity. A Canadian identity is something that I think needs

to be fostered by our young people so we get to know each other better

as Canadians.

I think that I must have been nearly 40 years old before I even got

to the place where my grandparents were buried. I met some of my

relatives who were still surviving there and found that while I had

grown up on the west coast and they had grown up in Ontario, culturally

I was probably more like the people in Washington and Oregon than I was

like my own relatives in central Canada. I think that was a very

shocking

[ Page 6364 ]

experience as far as I was concerned, and also a

very revealing one. But it also revealed that we didn't really, as

Canadians, know one another very well, and that we were quite different

culturally from different parts of the country if different parts of

the country accounted for our particular origins as a people.

[10:30]

Anyway, this development, along with the various kinds of student exchanges

that we have — there was a group in here this week from Quebec — I think is

very important. The objectives of this Interchange on Canadian Studies were

five in number: to facilitate further knowledge of Canada; to promote tolerance

and understanding; to promote understanding and appreciation of our diverse

heritage and, I imagine, our diverse peoples; to develop an understanding of

and appreciation for the regional aspects of Canada; and to foster in young

Canadians a greater commitment to participate in political, economic, social

and cultural life in Canada. I think they are worthy objectives, and it's

a worthy conference.

This Mrs. Cullen — I presume she's Mrs. Cullen — went there and was

very, very impressed with the seminars, keynote speakers and the city

tours, and in general felt it was a very worthwhile experience for her,

even though she was there only as a chaperone. But she has the

following complaints to make. She said that the conference developed a

tremendous kinship among the young Canadians who attended, but she said

that the end of the conference was climaxed by $700 from all these kids

to the Ethiopian relief as a result of hearing this record "Tears Are

Not Enough," which is, I think, the British contribution to — no, it's

not; it's the Canadian — the Ethiopian relief. Here are her complaints:

every province except the Yukon and British Columbia sent at least 20

students. We sent six.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: B.C. sent six students from 100 Mile House. Even

Newfoundland sent 22. Other provinces paid their registration fees,

which amounted to $250. We didn't pay any. Our kids had to pay their

own way, or most of them. I see the hon. member nodding his head. He

thinks that's good free enterprise stuff and "no free lunch." I wonder

if people felt the same way at the big extravaganza at Expo kickoff —

whether they paid for their own canapes and champagne.

She also said that they didn't even have any emblems or pins, nor

did they have any flags or even a room set aside for them to meet.

Other provinces had at least two or three days of orientation. Ours had

nothing. I said that it wasn't perhaps the most world-shaking case in

the world, but I don't think that we are very interested in improving

our image, especially among other people in Canada, if not the world.

To send our kids there sort of as the poor relations is not the best

image for us to foster as a people.

Mrs. Cullen asked the following questions: "Is B.C. that poor? Is B.C.

that badly off? B.C. must be poorer than Newfoundland. How can we afford Expo?

What's wrong with B.C.? Is education that unimportant in B.C.?" I could

have answered that one. "Are you going to send a delegation next year?

Are you going to have a full delegation?" These are the questions that

some of the other students from across Canada were asking of our kids: "How

come you don't have any pins? Is this your provincial room? You had to pay

to come? That's not fair."

So all I'm suggesting — and why I'm raising this as a subject today

— is that it may be what some people regard as a kind of a two-bit

issue, but if we're going to participate in these conferences, and I

think we should, then I think our youngsters from British Columbia

should be selected and treated at least equitably with those of another

province. I think they need to be prepared to go there; they need to

have some of the trappings and pins and that sort of thing. We have

Expo pins being given away by the thousands. I think that it's time

that we at least treated them equally and equitably.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the thing that bothers me most of all

about this particular issue is the fact that it shows the government's

lack of priority respecting our most important resource, our children.

Now it's obvious that the rest of the provinces in this country,

including poverty-stricken Newfoundland, feel far more highly.... That

is, they have a far greater motivation toward their children than this

government has. I recognize that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) and all of the people around them are all worried

about their economic problems, but, you know, they're lost in those

problems and are neglecting the kids in this province. If there is any

province that requires some cultural development, it's B.C. We are so

diverse in our populace that unless we begin to understand one another

better, it's my opinion that we will continue to drag behind the rest

of the country. Something like this would not happen in Tory Ontario.

Something like this would not happen in the other provinces of this

country, but this is the kind of thing that we see constantly happening

in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to lend my support to the member for

Coquitlam-Moody. I certainly echo how he feels about this situation.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sitting here listening to

these two members talk about how we treat our children. I'd just like

to remind them that this government sponsors the B.C. Summer Games that

this year are going to pump about $750,000 into an NDP riding. I think

that shows you how much this government cares about children and young

people, and that we're not even discriminatory. They accuse us all the

time of doing things in a partisan manner. We care about children in

this province. We pump millions of dollars into young people.

This may be one instance that the member can find where there's been

a mistake made. If the things happened that he says happened, they

shouldn't have. Certainly no young people should leave this province

without pins from the government or without flags to take to a

convention, and I'm sure there's been an oversight somewhere, because

certainly I, like all other members of this House, get requests

year-round for those types of things for groups to take. But for a

government that's putting this kind of money into youth, I find it very

strange that these members can stand up with this kind of criticism of

this government and young people.

He talks about Expo. Expo is for young people. It's for the youth of

this province and it's going to build this province for the future for

those young people and for everybody. I'll just go back to what this

province does. If you want to look at the last Olympics or look at

national sports awards, our young people do better than any other

province in Canada because of the support that this government gives

young people.

[ Page 6365 ]

MR. BARNES: I didn't think we were going to get into a heated

exchange, but the youth of this province certainly have a great deal to

be concerned about, notwithstanding the B.C. Summer and Winter Games

and notwithstanding a number of carnivals and fun and games that the

government considers to be its main program as a contribution toward

youth. As the member for Coquitlam-Moody pointed out, youth are

destined to be the leaders of tomorrow, and it's a far more serious

developmental program that is needed, an opportunity for them to

meaningfully have a role to play in the decisions of government today.

Really, when you consider the lack of access to real decision-making

and real power in this province, there is a great deal to be desired as

far as the youth are concerned. We have a youth parliament, but it's

usually without sufficient funds and real muscle to influence

decision-making.

With the 15-plus percent unemployment in this province, a large

percentage of those — probably two to one — are in the ages between 18

and 24. Now young people do not have a good deal in this province,

especially when it comes to access to education, and I mean education

as opposed to training — an opportunity to develop themselves

culturally, to develop themselves in terms of their potential.

The member suggested I know better. I would suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, in closing: analyze the cuts that have taken place in the

public school system. Take a look at the choices that have to be made.

Most of those programs are the programs that develop people

educationally, not their academic....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time must be allowed the proponent in reply.

MR. ROSE: I'm pleased that it has developed into a spirited

debate. I'd just like to mention to the member for Vancouver South, who

said "nonsense" about the student opportunities and student access....

I'll paraphrase the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in his

own estimates: we have the worst student-aid system in Canada. That's

coming from the horse's mouth.

I would just like to close by saying, yes, bread and circuses are

fine; and athletic events are wonderful, and we support them. That

wasn't the point. It was rather interesting that "we" — meaning, I

guess, the Social Credit or the government — are pumping money into NDP

ridings. Is it your money, or is it Socred money, or is the people's

money? Are they just having their own money returned? I think that that

just shows the kind of mindset that we're dealing with. Let me close by

quoting again from Mrs. Cullen's letter:

"It was extremely hard for the B.C. delegates to

support B.C. when they were feeling 'ripped off' by the government. It

was embarrassing to me trying to explain how B.C. can afford to spend

billions of dollars to build Expo and millions more to promote it, but

won't pay to send 22 students to a nationwide conference.

"There were 600 people from all over Canada at the conference.

B.C. had a perfect opportunity to spread the word about Expo at very little

cost — the price of a few pins. Had the B.C. delegation been properly supported

and prepared, B.C. would have been publicized around the country. Instead, the

other Canadians went home and spread the word that B.C. is in deep financial

trouble and that education is the lowest priority. I know I myself came back

feeling proud to be a Canadian but ashamed to be a British Columbian."

That's pretty devastating stuff, Mr. Speaker. I'm not suggesting

that it might not have been an oversight. I'm merely expressing the

feelings of a particular person who attended that conference and

regretted that more British Columbians, both adult and youth, couldn't

have had the exhilarating experience of knowing what it was to be a

Canadian.

JOURNEY FOR LIVES

MR. R. FRASER: The subject, as you know from orders of the

day, is Fonyo, which is 425 days, 7,924 kilometres, almost $10 million,

which all adds up to the Journey for Lives, one of the remarkable

achievements of 1985, in fact of the century.

Steve has been described as a lad who is neither eloquent nor

brilliant, neither handsome nor an accomplished athlete. He started off

with little support and ended up with a cavalcade. He followed in the

footsteps of a popular hero by the name of Terry Fox; and above that,

he accepted friendships on a face-value basis, without much analysis.

Those are obstacles, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the support you might give

to a student going from here to there, here is a young man who did not

start off on a very popular mission, nor did he appear to be a very

popular person. He says he isn't a hero; and perhaps it's true. So his

task becomes even more impossible and his mission more hopeless, and

his ability to generate funds for the Cancer Society perceived to be

negligible. But he did it: he completed the journey, raised the nearly

$10 million, and won the hearts of Canadians and of people around the

world. Incredible.

He says quite openly and candidly that he was an angry young man,

which I suspect was true. It's a very understandable remark for him to

make. Who wouldn't be angry, as a 12 year-old, to have cancer and to

suffer the loss of a leg? In my view, he typifies the spirit that built

Canada: the spirit of people who came here with nothing, and who built

this country with their bare hands, because they were self-reliant; the

spirit of people who didn't ask for handouts to get things started, but

who said, perhaps: "I don't know how I'm going to do it, but I'm going

to do it anyway."

[10:45]

Going back to the previous presentation, where the kids were upset

because they didn't have pins and flags at a conference, good lord, we

have everything in the world in British Columbia today. We have every

opportunity in the world, if you want to work at it. The kids from B.C.

who really represent the province, in my view, are the kids who fight

through it, as Steve Fonyo did, with insurmountable odds. The kids who

go to conferences are advantaged. If they haven't got the wisdom to see

what's out there, then lord help us in the future. The country was not

build by people asking for handouts and getting handouts; there weren't

any handouts.

Fonyo called upon us to respond and we did. He appealed to all of

us. It was because the had so darned much determination. How could you

say no to such an unbelievable achievement? The answer is, we couldn't,

and we didn't. He showed us the spirit and called upon us to recognize

that the will and the determination of one person can overcome

insurmountable odds.

[ Page 6366 ]

We hear that he was contemplating quitting in the middle of the run,

which can hardly be surprising. We saw him on TV in the winter; we saw

the reception he was getting at the beginning of the tour. He was not a

popular kid at the time. But he didn't quit, and that is the spirit we

need — the spirit to start a project and then to finish it,

irrespective of the obstacles that are presented to you on the way.

Steve Fonyo has probably done more for Canada and British Columbians

than we can mention. We need more of that type of spirit today. We need

to believe we can do it, for if we believe it, we can. We need to

believe it in sports, in public service, in business and at home.

I said at the beginning that he's described as neither eloquent nor

brilliant, yet his message to us all was very clear. He's described as

neither handsome nor an accomplished athlete, yet what does that mean

if he has a girlfriend who loves him? As an unaccomplished athlete, he

has done on one leg what most of us couldn't do on two.

On behalf of the assembly and all Canadians, I thank Steve for his

most marvellous achievement. I salute him for that most marvellous

achievement, and I wish him well in the future.

MR. BARNES: It is not often, but this is one of those

occasions when I must say I agree wholeheartedly with the member who

just spoke in praising the efforts of Steven Fonyo. I'm sure that to a

person, everyone in this assembly would like to unanimously endorse the

remarks that have just been made in recognizing the incredible effort

by this individual, who quite frankly started off on a crusade as a

result, no doubt, of the inspiring efforts by the forerunner, Terry

Fox, who also was mentioned by the previous speaker. There isn't enough

that we can say. Those of us in politics quite often are suspect if we

try to get on the bandwagon, so to speak; but I think there comes a

time when you simply have to recognize something for what it is and

take your chances on whether you're going to be misunderstood.

I was inspired when Terry Fox indicated his desire to run across the

country. I recall attempting to encourage members to get involved and

to support him, because I thought his cause was noble. In fact, I had

even gone so far as to say that when he got to Hope I was going to meet

him and run the last 90 miles, and that was misunderstood by some

people who thought I was going to get on the bandwagon.

So we do have our problems in trying to recognize, on the one hand,

the marvels of individuals who are doing things of such dramatic

proportions that the media and everyone recognizes them. But I think we

have to reach beyond those fears and begin to encourage the Terry Foxes

and the Steve Fonyos. Both are individuals, both are different,

probably in every respect, except one fundamental thing: they are both

human beings, and they both have the potential for inspired effort, as

all of us do. I think that's probably the message. We had someone who

was willing to stay with it long enough that everyone could see he was

sincere, he was committed; only God knows how long the story goes back,

how far back it really goes in that individual's heart — and in the

heart of any individual who decides to reach out beyond the common

efforts of everyday people and try to do something. But whatever it is,

I am sure there is a linkage with all of us, and the kinds of things

that motivate people to rise above adversity and begin to try to make a

statement of beneficial proportions for their fellow individuals

probably go back generations.

Well, we now have a superstar among us. We've been able to spawn two

of them — we've had Terry Fox and Steven Fonyo — and perhaps before

long we'll have Rick Hansen who, as you know, is wheeling around the

world. I understand there is another less celebrated individual by the

name of Al Howie, and I am sure there are hundreds and hundreds of

individuals who, because of examples set by these individuals, are

beginning to say: "Hey, maybe I can do something too."

One of the things I got from Steven Fonyo was that he is a happy

guy. In fact, some people are suggesting that his happiness and his

style of life are such that maybe he is not quite the model we like.

Well, he did one good thing for us. Let's be happy with that. He says

he's an individual; he says he's different. Then let him be different.

He likes junk food, for instance. I can see how that's going to go down

out on the strip, eh? But that's all right: he likes junk food, he

likes Coca-Cola, he likes to do it up. He says he's going to have a

good party, and I'm sure he's now having a very good time with his

friends in the Cook Islands.

But, you see, now that we have this superstar, now that the media

recognize him as an opportunity to get a nice front page story, no

matter what he does.... He has his problems too, as we all have to

learn. Once you get up, then you've got to be careful that you don't

fall down. I am sure that Steven has matured over the years. I think,

by the way, he's a very handsome young man despite what people say.

Maybe that's because I've seen his picture so much I've got used to it.

But whatever it is, he's all right with me. He may not be my particular

model for all aspects of the community, but I think that man has really

shown a lot of people with varying degrees of handicap or disadvantage

that, hey, if you want to do something, you can do it — just take that

first step.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, as the member who just spoke knows, we

all don't have to look alike to make a contribution to society. And in

his case in particular — having been a public figure in two fields,

athletics and politics — he knows probably more than most of us how far

you can fall if you find yourself in trouble. He has probably seen some

people do that.

It's true that we should respect people's individuality. I like

that. When it comes to supporting people who have these marvellous

achievements, we may differ in style as to how the support would come.

I think the Fonyo run was more substantial because he had the

obstacles, and it would have been less of an achievement had they been

removed, because he grew, as we know, because he had to overcome them

by himself most of the time. It's very similar to suggesting that a

butterfly should not have to fight its way out of the cocoon, that we

should cut the cocoon and let it fly out. If they get away too soon....

They have to struggle a bit, and it's a question of how much

struggling. We may disagree on that from time to time. But I agree with

the member who responded from the opposition. These marvellous

achievements do cross all kinds of social and political lines. We

respect them for what they are, and we encourage more people to try

harder, as he did.

[Mr. Ree in the chair ]

[ Page 6367 ]

CHEMAINUS REVITALIZATION

MR. REYNOLDS: We in this government place our faith not in

ideology but in the creativity, initiative and drive of British

Columbians. We see their spirit and determination and their efforts to

improve and strengthen their own communities. Their resourcefulness,

energy, imagination and determination exemplify the B.C. spirit. Those

who deny this spirit deny the ability, potential and desire of their

fellow British Columbians to contribute to the economic renewal and

growth of their communities and this province.

Today I wish to speak of the people of one community who possess an

abundance of the qualities of determination and creativity inherent in

the B.C. spirit. In recent years Chemainus has, as have all British

Columbia communities, experienced great changes as the international

economy continues to evolve. MacMillan Bloedel's sawmill had to be

closed in February 1983, despite the efforts of management and workers

to find some way to keep the mill going. MacMillan Bloedel then

promised to initiate new activities at Chemainus, but many predicted

the mill closure would spell doom for the little community.

The pessimists forgot the spirit and tenacity of the townspeople.

You see, the citizens of Chemainus are proud of their community. Its

heritage as a pioneer in the logging industry is a way of life. They

wanted to work together to save their town. When the mill did close,

there were no petty recriminations on either side. Mayor Graham Bruce

declared at the time that even with the mill closure and layoffs, there

wasn't the bitterness one might have expected. Chemainus embarked on a

forward-looking revitalization of the downtown core. The downtown

merchants, with assistance from the provincial government's downtown

revitalization program and the North Cowichan municipality, began

devoting their time and energy and money — a total of $400,000 in

improvements were carried out.

By early 1983, it became the first B.C. community to complete a

downtown revitalization program. A quarter of their expenses were paid

for by the provincial government promotional grant. But there was more.

The new downtown Chemainus also featured a novel idea: large murals,

which were inspired by Karl Schutz. Schutz, during a trip to Romania in

the seventies, was impressed by their 400-year-old frescos he found

depicting that country's history. He conceived the idea of murals on

the walls of Chemainus depicting its 120-year-old history as a logging

pioneer.

There were detractors at first, but soon the dozen murals became a

focal point of community interest in the revitalization project. It was

not only local people who were interested. Tourists also came to see

the murals, close to 60,000 in 1984. Local and international artists

asked to display their works in Chemainus. The Festival of Murals held

since 1983 in Chemainus each summer attracts artists from all over

Canada and the world. Not only have two documentary films been made,

but one was nominated for two Genie awards. An international award was

conferred on Chemainus by the New York Downtown Research and

Development Center. Chemainus tied for first place in the international

downtown revitalization competition out of 57 entrants.

Sponsored by the provincial government, Chemainus was not only the

only Canadian entrant, but was also the smallest community in the

competition. After the 1983 Festival of Murals, local merchants

discovered that the murals had been paid for in increased sales. Some

reported that business increased 25 percent, 30 percent and even 40

percent. Two galleries have now opened. Recent reports are that new

restaurants and businesses are springing up, including another art

gallery and an art supply store.

Past chamber of commerce president, Bill Jameson, is building a new

mall with space for seven shops, which have all been booked. Plans

continue apace to give tourists even more reason to visit Chemainus.

Today the people of Chemainus have even more reason to be proud.

MacMillan Bloedel has opened a new mill, thus contributing its share to

the region which has for them yielded so much. The new mill, which cost

$21 million, is highly modernized, with increased productivity and

efficiency. What a terrific boost for this resilient little community,

Mr. Speaker.

[11:00]

The spirit of partnership and innovation, which marks Chemainus's

attempts to revitalize its core, is in evidence once again at the new

mill. Manager Phil Dobson asks: "Why should we stay in the traditional

management role of telling people what to do, when they can organize

things themselves and have a stake and feel achievement in success? We

want the workers to have a say in how this mill is run." The new mill

is operating on a total involvement principle. Every employee becomes

involved in as many of the functions of the mill as an employee is

capable of, and therefore everyone contributes to the mill's success.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of progressive attitude we should be

encouraging in every part of our province. Chemainus has proven that

given leadership and initiative, we sail right past the doomsters and

gloomsters. The B.C. spirit is a reality in Chemainus and an

inspiration to all of us in the province. The people of Chemainus, in

partnership with their provincial and local government, rallied and

won. Mr. Speaker, the new budget with its partnership for economic

renewal will further reward communities such as Chemainus willing to be

creative and determined in pursuit of a better life.

The government is willing to translate its faith in the people and

communities of British Columbia into concrete commitments to their

growth and improvement.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to thank the member who has

pinpointed Chemainus and the things that have been happening there.

I've been very close to that operation, of course, as it is in my

constituency. I remember when the ceremonies took place as the first

downtown revitalization program to be completed. Karl Schutz of course

was there, and Mr. Vander Zalm was at that time the minister. We both

were called upon to speak. I remember saying that it was one of the few

times that Mr. Vander Zalm and I were in complete agreement on the

value of a program.

Karl Schutz and the people involved were certainly to be

congratulated on getting that novel idea of those murals. The one thing

that the member who just introduced this subject didn't mention was

that those murals are based on the historic background of Chemainus, on

the base of the forest industry.

The artists are certainly to be congratulated. Many of those murals,

one in particular.... There were of course several artists involved,

all of very high calibre. But that first mural was done from a

photograph that one of the old-timers provided. People go down there

now and point to pictures there and say: "That was my grandfather; I

can recognize him," or "my great grandfather."

[ Page 6368 ]

It's a terrific monument to the history of the forest industry. At

one time the mill in Chemainus was the largest sawmill in Canada. It

went through many hands before it was purchased by MacMillan Bloedel.

My husband at one time worked in that old mill. It was a very unique

mill, and it's a shame in a way that it's gone, because it in itself

was a historic monument with its saws geared to taking those huge logs

that they brought up out of the water in the days when we had those

virgin logs, those huge logs that were introduced there.

Yes, Chemainus is a bright spot. We talk about what MacMillan

Bloedel has done there; let's not forget what the trade union has done

there as well. I sat in there with that group, with Mr. Knudsen, who

was then the general manager. In fact I convened the meetings that got

those two groups together with the local government, and we were able

to sit down and talk about those kinds of things. Up to the point when

that mill was closed, those kinds of discussions had never taken place.

But we were able to sit down and talk, and work out an agreement. I

think that both management and the trade union — the IWA Local 180,

which was involved in that instance — are both to be congratulated for

coming up with the agreement that they came up with there. Sure,

tourism is alive and well in the Cowichan Valley — not just in

Chemainus.

MR. R. FRASER: Why don't you speak more optimistically about it then?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, what am I doing?

MR. R. FRASER: This is the first time in two years.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, come on!

The one thing that tourism doesn't do is provide the dollars that

the forest industry provided in the pockets of the workers, because

it's a different.... It's a lower wage scale and a shorter work year.

We do have a mill now that is employing two shifts of 85 people each, I

believe. That's great. I'm not knocking that at all. Mac and Blo have

plans for a second mill once the industry picks up, which will again

take more people. But there is still a great backlog of people who did

work in that mill who have not yet found positions. There were 600

people employed there. That's why we still have something like 30

percent unemployment in the Cowichan Valley.

I think that we should all be delighted that a town like Chemainus

has been able to become world famous, as it were. I see those murals

being copied no matter where I go. Towns are picking up that idea and

attempting a similar thing. White Rock is one. Vernon has a couple.

Those murals are picking up, and Chemainus was the instigator of that.

I'm proud that Chemainus is in Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. REYNOLDS: I can just say that it's a pleasure to stand

here and listen to the member for Cowichan-Malahat be so positive for

five minutes.

MR. REID: She should read her speech over again.

MR. REYNOLDS: It would be a good idea if she reread the speech. I think

that if we used that kind of attitude in this House all the time toward positive

projects that are happening in this province, we could turn a lot of things

around instead of the bickering and the fighting that goes on in this place.

The positive attitude that's taking place out there in spite of what

we do in this place is spreading across this province. The new

partnership agreements that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie) is signing across this province that are going to make this

province blossom again with new industry that's coming here are an

exciting prospect, Mr. Speaker. Chemainus is just one — sort of the

shining jewel, the leader in what has happened in that area.

The member talked about some of the other jobs that don't pay as

much as the logging industry does. Well, I was in a little store. I

think it was called the Chemainiac. I bought a number of things that I

hadn't seen in any other stores in British Columbia or in the United

States in my travels: neat little items and gifts that you could bring

to people, and some very funny things also. I'm sure that the people

who own those businesses.... The new little shopping mall that

has eight stores in it is exciting to people who are putting that kind

of investment....

MR. REID: The ice cream parlour.

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, the ice cream parlour. Everybody likes to

talk about the ice cream parlour. There's no better ice cream parlour

in British Columbia, I don't think, including most of the ones even in

my own riding. I've gone to them and said: "Can't you start making

those great waffle cones that they're making over in Chemainus?" There

are exciting things happening in Chemainus and all around this

province. As I say, if nothing else, it's made my weekend, because the

member for Cowichan-Malahat got up and said five minutes of very

positive things.

B.C.-FIRST EMPLOYMENT POLICY

MR. GABELMANN: I think I'm going to have to change the mood a

little bit from the previous discussions this morning. While things in

many parts of British Columbia are happy and progress is being made,

and no doubt, that's true in Chemainus, there's another side to the

coin as well. I want today to talk about yet another public

construction project in this province funded by B.C. taxpayers — being

built, in this case, almost entirely by workers from outside British

Columbia. I talked earlier in the Legislature about a couple of

projects on the Coquihalla highway where Alberta workers were hired and

still work, despite statements by the Minister of Highways (Hon. A.

Fraser) to the contrary, and I want today to talk about another one.

B.C. Hydro has let a contract in the East Kootenay for stringing a

powerline between the Alberta border and Cranbrook. The bid was awarded

to the low bidder, and properly so; no complaints on my part with that

particular award. In fact, the low bid was significantly lower. The

company then imported the entire crew from Alberta to work on that job,

despite the fact there were unemployed line stringers in Cranbrook who

wanted to work and attempted to apply for work on that particular

project. I have no objection with Ledcor on the Coquihalla — or Douvan,

properly called McGregor, on the B.C. Hydro project — bringing with it

its key personnel or, as the supers refer to it, their keepers, people

they like to keep with them on the projects as they move around. I've

no objection to them doing that. In fact, to run a successful

contracting operation I think it's probably essential that they do. But

I have serious reservations and serious concern about the fact that the

tradespeople employed

[ Page 6369 ]

on these jobs - in the case of the B.C. Hydro job,

all of them — are imported as well, denying work to unemployed British

Columbia tradespeople who wanted to work in those jobs and who are

fully qualified to work in those jobs.

In the job between Cranbrook and the Alberta border, 35 to 40

Alberta workers are now working on that project. There are literally

hundreds of unemployed B.C. construction workers, some of whom haven't

worked for two or three years, who are qualified to do this kind of

work and are being denied the work, despite the fact that B.C. dollars

are being spent to build these projects. Not only are B.C. workers

being denied the right, but B.C. taxpayers are being denied the

financial benefits of that work inasmuch as the income taxes will be

paid in Alberta, not here in British Columbia, and much of the

paycheque each pay period will be sent home to Alberta. That is wrong

in a time when construction workers have been unemployed in some cases

for three years, without any job whatsoever.

B.C. has a "B.C. first" purchasing policy, proudly announced in an

expensive leaflet printed by the government. The Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis), on December 14 last, said:

"We are seeking suggestions on ways to use public purchasing

more creatively as a tool to achieve both fiscal and economic development objectives.

To do this we plan to develop a comprehensive strategy which would benefit the

economy of British Columbia, its taxpayers and businesses. As minister responsible

for the Purchasing Commission, I have stated in my letter that I welcome suggestions

which might maximize the job-creating effects of the public dollar."

The policy is in place for goods but not for services provided by workers.

Why not?

When I raised the issue earlier this session in question period, the

Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) — and subsequently some newspaper

columnists — suggested that the Charter of Rights prevents us from

stopping Alberta workers from coming and taking jobs that properly

belong to British Columbians. That position is wrong on two counts, Mr.

Speaker, and I want to cite the provisions of the mobility rights

section of the Charter of Rights to demonstrate that it is wrong and

that in fact we can have a "hire British Columbian" policy in respect

of public money. The first point is that every citizen in effect has a

right of mobility. So they do. That doesn't mean British Columbian

workers should be specifically denied the right, as they are in these

cases, and only Albertans hired on these particular projects. That

flagrantly contradicts the provisions of the Charter of Rights mobility

section.

More importantly — and I want to spend the last minute and a bit

that I have, Mr. Speaker, on this part — subsection (4) of the mobility

rights clause,

section 6, says: "Subsections (2) and (3) do not

preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the

amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that

province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of

employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada."

Clearly, the British Columbia rate of employment is significantly lower

than the Canadian rate — 6 percentage points lower. I maintain that

construction workers are a group of economically disadvantaged

individuals.

[11:15]

Under the Charter of Rights the government can have, and should

have, a policy which says: "Public construction projects in British

Columbia will be built by British Columbians." It's the right policy

publicly, because the Charter of Rights specifically allows us to

develop that kind of program, and because we believe that's in the best

interests not only of those workers but also of the taxpayers of this

province. The money generated by those workers' incomes can remain in

this province, and we can begin to try to have some economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we have yet another contract being let,

in this case Douvan on the B.C. Hydro line from Cranbrook to the

Alberta border, where Alberta workers are being hired. That is wrong,

British Columbia workers should have those jobs.

MR. REYNOLDS: Just a few comments, Mr. Speaker. The member

states that the contract went to the low bidder, which it did — a

British Columbia company. He talks about the Charter of Rights. I'm

sure we have British Columbia workers going into Alberta for jobs. If

he thinks the Charter of Rights of some of these workers is being

affected, he should be protesting to his federal Member of Parliament.

We live in a country where people travel from province to province

working, and I would hate to see us saying only British Columbians can

be hired for a job. I know it makes good politics to stand up and say

that the provincial government should bring in a law, and that the

Charter of Rights allows it. I'm not sure that it does; I think we

could probably get into a great debate with the lawyers over that one.

But I would suggest that that company has a right to hire workers,

whether they be from Newfoundland, Ontario, Saskatchewan or British

Columbia.

I too would hope that the workers in British Columbia.... To listen

to him talk, it's as if this company went out of its way not to hire

the workers in Cranbrook. If they did that, certainly those workers in

the Cranbrook area have a beef under the Charter of Rights, and should

be calling in their Member of Parliament if there is discrimination in

that area. But that certainly is not the fault of this provincial

government. It's the fault of the Charter of Rights if it's not

protecting them in that area. For these members to get up and smile as

if this government would prefer to hire people from Alberta rather than

to hire people from British Columbia is absolute nonsense.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: He says that's what we do. It's absolute

nonsense, Mr. Member. You do not know what you're talking about. You

get up and fly silly kites around this province that make no sense at

all. Mr. Speaker, this government would certainly be as concerned as

anyone if citizens of this province were being discriminated against in

favour of citizens of another province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about doctors?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, you could go on and on. These

members want to discriminate against doctors, but now that it's a

worker in Cranbrook, they don't want to do that. Sure, hit the doctors

and discriminate there....

[ Page 6370 ]

MR. COCKE: They still live in Alberta; doctors move here. What's the matter with you?

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: There's the member for New Westminster again,

Mr. Speaker, blowing through the top of his hat again. There's the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) blowing through the top of her

head. She hasn't recovered from her cricket story a year ago, where she

was totally mistaken. Mr. Speaker, it's so interesting to listen to

these NDP members, and that's why these members' statements are so

interesting on Fridays. They want to get up and start talking about

something they know nothing about and keep on propounding things that

hurt our province, instead of trying to help. The member from Chemainus

talked about IWA 180, how they sat down and worked with management,

came up with a solution for the great things that are happening in

Chemainus at a mill. That's how things are happening in this province,

not the kind of nonsense we're hearing from these members today.

Mr. Speaker, if he has any beef at all, his beef should be with the

federal government to enforce the Charter of Rights. If what he's

saying is true, rather than get up and in a roundabout way try to blame

this provincial government, he should be getting to his NDP friends in

Ottawa and to his cousins in Ontario who are getting married up with

the Liberals — and you know, they're holding hands in Ottawa — and get

those people up on that floor of the House of Commons to start

demanding something be done under the Charter of Rights to help your

people in Cranbrook. It's not the provincial government, who would love

to see British Columbians get those jobs. If the Charter of Rights is

being maligned in any way, it should be straightened out, but it's to

be done at the federal level.

MR. COCKE: The member knows full well that the Member of

Parliament for that area is a Conservative. He fogs up the issue by

talking about what that Conservative Member of Parliament should be

doing, when it's British Columbia Hydro, a Crown corporation, that's

hiring these contractors. They have a policy, obviously, that's wide

open.

We're not talking about workers who come to reside in British

Columbia from another province to work here. We're talking about people

who maintain their residence in Alberta, do their income tax in

Alberta, maintain their families in Alberta, but work in British

Columbia and take British Columbia jobs.

MR. GABELMANN: We should understand what the Charter means

when it talks about mobility rights. What it means is that any Canadian

can travel from any part of the country to another part of the country

to seek employment. I have absolutely no problem with that; in fact, I

support that fully.

What we have in this case is something different. In both of these

cases, both Ledcor and Douvan, we have something very different. We

have a company using British Columbia tax dollars, either directly or

indirectly, and the company has a policy — the superintendent on one of

the Ledcor jobs told me this himself personally not more than ten days

ago — of deliberately bringing in Alberta workers and denying British

Columbia workers those jobs. It's a deliberate policy.

My argument is that under subsection (4) of the mobility rights

clause of the Charter, the government of British Columbia is allowed,

if not encouraged, to have a policy similar to the purchasing policy in

respect of labour. When our unemployment rate is higher than the

national average, which it is, we can then say that construction

workers, as a group, under subsection (4) can be hired in an

affirmative-action way from British Columbia.

The

section is quite clear. The members should read it if they

haven't. I might suggest that some newspaper columnists should read it

too.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to the marketplace?

MR. GABELMANN: The marketplace is there. The company got the

low bid, and it was significantly lower, and that's fine. That company

should come into Cranbrook and open a hiring hall or go to the Manpower

office and see who is available for the job. They shouldn't be bringing

in the entire workforce from another province, because those are B.C.

dollars that are being spent by our taxpayers, and the benefits are

going outside the province.

My point in raising this in member's statements today, Mr. Speaker,

is to encourage the government to adopt in respect of services the same

policy that it has in respect of goods: that is, a policy which

encourages British Columbians to both provide goods to the government

or its agencies and also, I'm arguing, services — and in this respect

labour services; I don't understand what the difference is. The Charter

of Rights clearly and specifically acknowledges the right of provinces

to do that in certain circumstances, which we qualify for here in

British Columbia. That should be done.

I find it obnoxious that unemployed construction workers in

Cranbrook can't get work, when they're qualified for that work, because

non-residents of British Columbia have come in and taken their jobs.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: In rising to move second reading of Bill 40,

I'd just like to make the comment that this bill will bring amendments

to the Chattel Mortgage Act, the Book Accounts Assignment Act, the Sale

of Goods on Condition Act and the Company Act — all under this bill

that is intituled the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment

Act, 1985.

These amendments clarify the law with regard to a new system which

we are instituting into the general registry called the statement of

particulars. This statement of particulars has enabled our central

registry and companies office to greatly reduce the time between

receipt of a security transaction document and the time the information

is available for public inquiry. Precisely, the statement of

particulars reduces the entry time for critical information from seven

days to one day, allowing for a more accurate and efficient search

capacity.

The purposes of the amendments in this bill are as follows. They

provide clarification that the statement of particulars prevails over

the security agreement for the purpose

[ Page 6371 ]

of giving notice to the public, but that it does

not affect the rights of the debtor or creditor. The amendments make

clear that current provisions that permit technical corrections to

filing also apply to the statement of particulars. The amendments

clarify that errors and abbreviations do not invalidate the statement

of particulars, so long as they are not likely to mislead a reasonable

person. Finally, they permit the registrar-general to require that the

statement of particulars must be filed on a form supplied by his office.

It is fair to say that this further modernizes our filing system. It

provides accurate information quickly to those people who are

interested in finding out what charges may be placed against title of

property. I think it's a credit to the people in my ministry who have

modernized the system to assist the private sector in filing their

documents, getting accurate information and getting it quickly.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments I now move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I'd like you to recognize the fact that I'm the designated speaker for the NDP on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we've looked this complicated little bill over and find

it quite reasonable; as a matter of fact, quite helpful. We do feel

that while important violations are looked at here very carefully,

trivial violations may be somewhat overlooked. So from that standpoint

the

section dealing with the statement of particulars may be just a

little bit light. But certainly it's a step in the right direction.

When steps in the right direction are taken in this House, we are the

first to approve those steps. With that, I've taken all the time that

the designated speaker wishes to take on this bill. We support it.

MS. BROWN: I'm just going to ask a question, Mr. Speaker:

that is, whether this information is going to be stored

technologically. Are we seeing the use of computers in that ministry

now? Is that the reason you're able to do this faster and better?

Computers come in for a bad name in a number of ways, but in fact this

could be one of the positive uses of them. I just wonder whether that

is what the minister is doing here, or is it just that he's got people

who type faster? Or is he actually coming into the twenty-first century?

[11:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises to close debate on Bill 40.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the comments of the members on the opposition benches.

Yes, it is a result of computerization. It's a system that can be

stated to be positive. We're making use of the computer for storing

documents for easy access. The statement of particulars is a standard

document on which our people can get information very quickly, store it

in the computer and recall it when there's an inquiry. It does bring us

into the twenty-first century.

Prior to bringing in the statement of particulars, and this bill, to

the House, we had full consultation with the people in the credit

industry, with accountants, with lawyers, etc. We feel we have a very

positive bill and a very positive step forward in automation.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

Leave not granted.

Bill 40, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act,

1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 19.

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In moving second reading of Bill 19, I'd

just like to point out a few of the highlights of the bill. First, it's

designed primarily to encourage and enable the creation of an exciting

new type of financial vehicle in British Columbia, which would be the

small business venture capital corporation. These corporations will be

private enterprise organizations with the primary function of providing

a new source of new equity capital to small business that will allow

expanded production and economic and employment growth.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Small business has been a key provider of technological innovation

and productive employment. Most economists and others are predicting

that 90 percent of all the new employment created between now and the

year 2000 will be created by small business. I don't think anyone would

argue with that. At the same time, our small businessmen in our society

today face a most difficult economic environment. The slowdown of the

economy and increased capital costs have had particularly damaging

effects on small business. Investment requirements are then

accelerating, while a lot of the traditional sources of financing that

small business used to call upon have been either drying up or have

become so prohibitively expensive that they are relatively unavailable

to the small businessman.

Personal savings levels, at the same time, remain at record levels.

So what we find is, then, that sufficient investment funds are not

being challenged into developing the potential and the energy of the

B.C. small business community. That's really the purpose for this act

and its regulations. They will establish registration and reporting

requirements, define the rules under which these new investment

vehicles must operate, and seek to create an entirely new equity source

for these small businesses.

The VCCs, as I said, will be privately owned. Their operations are

neither sponsored nor guaranteed by the Crown. They provide that if a

number of requirements are met, they'll be allowed to raise investment

capital through the sale of new-issue equity shares to individuals,

other corporations and certain other investment entities, such as

pension plans, which have a very significant British Columbia

component. The province, to encourage the sale of these shares, will

provide a tax credit or, in the case of pension plans, a grant to each

VCC share subscriber who is now subject to income tax in British

Columbia.

[ Page 6372 ]

The corporation will then reinvest the raised capital by issuing

equity shares in various British Columbia small businesses which meet

the eligibility requirements of the act. Very simply, the individual

and corporate investors will buy an ownership interest in a new type of

merchant bank, the VCC, and this new institution will make equity

investments in promising small business ventures. The act has been

written to actively encourage participation by a wide cross-section of

B.C. residents.

The act contains provisions to ensure that each registered VCC

raises sufficient capital to maintain a viable operation, and to

effectively prevent a VCC from giving preferential treatment to any

special group of shareholders. All VCC shares must be paid for in cash

and cannot be issued for any other form of consideration — labour

services, capital assets or anything like that. Once the equity capital

has been raised, then it must be reinvested in order for it to maintain

its status in eligible small businesses.

In addition, a VCC is not allowed to acquire a controlling interest

in any of the small business investments. That restriction is designed

to ensure that the VCCs fulfill the spirit and the intent of the act,

and that the control of the company remains with the original

shareholders and with those who had the ideas and the energy to put the

company together. They will be encouraged to operate as widely-held

merchant banks catering to the equity capital needs of the small

business sector.

The small business itself will have to conform to a number of tests

which will limit its size, guarantee that its operations are located in

the province and ensure that it is substantially engaged in certain

prescribed activities on which we're targeting this program. A small

business is defined as a firm which, together with its affiliates, has

fewer than 75 employees. Once the investment has been made, the company

will be allowed to expand to a total of 150 employees. That limit

should ensure that the company remains a true small business. If you go

beyond that, you lose your small business status, and presumably you've

been successful enough that you can carry your own equity from then on.

The VCC is allowed two years to complete such a divestment should that

company rise to a size where it is no longer eligible.

I want to emphasize that in addition to that test for small

business, the VCC-funded firm must be located and primarily operating

in British Columbia. This will require that 75 percent of the wages and

salaries of both the qualifying small business and its affiliates be

paid to employees who normally report to work at operations located in

this province.

It will also, as I have said, be limited to certain prescribed

activities. At the present time, it's proposed to target the program on

firms engaged in manufacturing and processing, value added to British

Columbia products, research and development, tourism activities and

aquaculture. These activities were selected because of their importance

to the province's general economic development objectives, their

employment potential and the desire to exclude certain activities which

already receive substantial federal and/or provincial assistance.

Certain uses of equity supplied by the VCCs will be expressly

prohibited. A small business is not allowed to relend the funds it gets

from the venture capital corporation. It is not allowed to reinvest

them outside Canada or use them to reinvest in land, except where the

land is absolutely incidental and auxiliary to the principal objectives

of the business. So it cannot get into the business of flipping real

estate. These prohibitions are designed to ensure that the capital is

always employed for the purposes set out in the act.

A final, I guess, feature of the bill is a provision to forgive the

VCC's liability to the province. After ten years of successful

operation, a VCC can be completely relieved of any incentive repayment

liability.

I believe we have before us a unique piece of legislation designed

to meet the special equity capital needs of the small business sector.

It is

an act which effectively deals with the important economic

challenges of the present, while building for our future economy and

employment needs. In saying that, I would move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support this legislation.

Certainly we can without any problem at all agree with his concerns.

Small business does have difficulty raising equity capital, and it does

have difficulty borrowing — no question about that. It has that

difficulty because it has to go to commercial lending institutions,

which exist not to help small business, or even large business, but to

make profits for their own shareholders. That's why the banks and trust

companies are organized; that's why all these organizations work.

They're there to make a profit for their shareholders, not to help

small business.

It will be the role of these new organizations to help small

business. But there's a price, of course. The provincial government is

forgoing tax revenue. That's the price that the provincial government

is prepared to pay to get this additional financial assistance for a

small business. But in exchange for that price, the government is also

reminding the VCCs that they are instruments of government policy, and

that they exist solely to further government policy. The legislation to

make sure that everything that the VCCs do is in support of government

policy, which is to encourage small business.... We all agree with

that. We know that small business will be the main employer. There's no

question about that. So it's important, and that's why we're supporting

the legislation. It's here to support and to encourage small business.

But there is a price, Mr. Speaker, in giving up this government

revenue and in saying to the small business corporations: look, because

we're giving you something, because you're an instrument of government

policy, we're going to draft some very complicated legislation to make

sure that everything you do is completely in line with our policy, that

you do nothing that is in any way opposed to our policy, that in every

way conceivable you are instruments of government policy. And always

there's a possibility that we may change this legislation, change the

regulations to make sure that if government changes its attitude as to

how best to create more employment in the small business sector, then

we'll change the legislation and then the VCCs will be obliged to live

up to the new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, they want to do the job, but they want to say that

we're not doing it ourselves — somebody out there is doing it. It would

have been so much more efficient, in my mind, for the government to

have simply made this money available even to BCDC — a Crown

corporation — and say: "This is the direction we want to go. This is

the kind of help we want to give. We're not going to tie you down to

all of the parameters in these pages of legislation and make it so

difficult for you to operate that you almost have to come to the

minister and ask in every instance: 'Now is this actually what

[ Page

6373 ]

you had in mind? Is this what you want to do?"' If

it were done through BCDC, then at least that corporation, with the

experience that it's had, I believe could have done the job more

efficiently and could have more quickly reacted to any changes in

government policy from time to time.

However, Mr. Speaker, having said that, since it is a plus, since

the goals are there, I wish I could share the minister's optimism that

it will actually accomplish something. Frankly, if it's just a matter

of getting credit for small business — and that's a large part of it —

there is another bill coming up this morning, which I think we will get

to, that touches on the same subject, and there are some things I'd

like to say then. But I wonder if perhaps the minister might have had

an opportunity to look at the Quebec experience. I draw on this not

simply because Finance Minister Wilson referred to it in his budget

speech on May 23, but it's described in that budget speech as an

innovative venture capital initiative that has been taken by organized

labour in the province of Quebec in cooperation with the Quebec

government. The federal government likes this approach to the extent

that it is prepared to cooperate with it. Now I know this came out

after the legislation that we're considering now. I wonder whether the

minister has had any opportunity at all to check with the federal

government to see whether the VCCs will also be acceptable to the

federal government, or indeed whether or not we should be bringing in

further legislation. It may be hard for this particular administration

to contemplate working with the B.C. Federation of Labour or with trade

union organizations in this kind of a program, but has the minister

given that approach any thought, considering that the federal

government is prepared to cooperate financially with that?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, again I'm really just asking some

questions. I introduced a private member's bill, M207, called Women's

Career and Employment Opportunity Act. What it had to do with

specifically was to ask the government to help women who are interested

in starting small businesses in terms of giving them an outright grant

or loan without interest for a period of 12 months to be able to do

this. I'm not sure whether this bill as it stands now actually would

make the bill which I have on the order paper no longer necessary. Does

this bill mean that the business has to be already in existence, or is

it funding for new small business? That is one of the questions I

wanted to ask the minister. The other: in

section 8 where he talks

about the minimum capital requirement being $100,000 of equity capital,

does that mean that the women would have to be able to come up front

with $100,000, or could they have a debt of $100,000, for example, at

which point they would start to benefit from the bill?

[11:45]

It's quite a long bill, and I must confess that I really don't know

enough about venture capital and that kind of thing to know whether

it's actually doing what I tried to achieve through M207, which was to

have women who wanted to get into small business get the funding, at

least for a year, to be able to do so. I wonder whether in closing

debate the minister would explain whether this bill does that or not.

MR. COCKE: Again, I certainly agree with my colleague for Nanaimo that

anything today in this province that will encourage new business is a plus.

But the problem that I have is that while that minister has under his jurisdiction

and arm the B.C. Development Corporation, he didn't see fit to use this

kind of measure in conjunction with the work they do. He's likely to explain

to us that because this is, from a certain standpoint, not necessarily a capitalization

but more of a tax avoidance and that kind of thing — in other words, providing

government service for less money to new enterprises or to struggling enterprises....

I worry about a bill of this sort, in that it's so close to

government. Sometimes I feel it's important to have real arm's length.

I notice there is an arm's length

Section 1n this bill. But I think you

can get better arm's length outside of direct access to a ministry.

Direct access to a ministry oftentimes, in the minds of those who view

it, has that connotation around it of political assistance for those

who warrant that kind of assistance. So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest

very strongly that the minister should come up with some very

persuasive arguments, at the time that he closes debate on this bill,

around that one particular point.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds talked about minimum

capital requirements. I realize that S 100,000 isn't very much, but

certainly some businesses have started on a lot less than $100,000. If

he's talking about a capitalization of $100,000 in terms of issued

shares — not necessarily those dollars put up front — that's one thing.

But I think that's another question that he should answer vis-à-vis

whether or not it calls for that much money on the table in cash prior

to the eligibility of the corporation for this particular assistance

With that, Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague for Nanaimo. This

is a plus, and we have no choice but to support it, but we'd like a few

of those questions answered.

MRS. WALLACE: I have just a couple of brief questions too. I

wonder if the minister, in closing his remarks, would tell us what he

means by aquaculture. What does it include? Does it include

mariculture? Does it include trout farming? If he would just give us a

rundown of what he perceives aquaculture to include........

The other one I would like him to answer is whether or not this

venture capital could he used for consolidation of debt or paying off

of outstanding debts. Could it be used in that way? Because I know a

lot of the small businesses in my community are into debt up to their

necks. They're having real problems with some of those because of the

high interest rates, including some of the ones in Chemainus that our

colleague was talking about. I would like to know whether or not he

perceives this being used as a sort of a debt consolidation — perhaps

at a lower interest rate — to help some of those people that are in

that situation, or is it just for an expansion or a new enlargement?

Is there anything tied to job creation in this? Is it going to mean

that you have to guarantee that you're going to employ so many people

like the old ASEP or LILA programs? You know, that was the criterion:

how many people you were going to employ. Is there anything tied to

jobs in this at all?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll try to answer some of the questions that have been raised first.

The corporations would not receive tax credit for the repayment of

debts. They are for the creation of business and jobs. Aquaculture

really covers everything that you raised and more, a bit, including I

would think the production of seaweed products and anything related to

what has come to be known as aquaculture. It's more than fish-farming;

it would

[ Page 6374 ]

also in some ways cover research and development in

aquaculture as well. That is proving to be one of the big stumbling

blocks for people who want to get into the aquaculture business:

getting their research programs in place with early development.

There's a problem, I think, perhaps.... It's my fault for not

explaining this as well as I might. First of all, the arm's length

relationship that the member for New Westminster refers to is not an

arm's length relationship between the government and the corporation

but rather between the corporation and the eligible businesses in which

it invests. The major reason for that is that we don't want to create

an opportunity for someone, because they have a greater capacity for

raising money, to be able to take the ownership away from a small

business operator.

We feel that that small business operator, just because he needs

equity financing, shouldn't have to give away the farm in order to get

his equity financing. So that's where the arm's length relationship is.

The $100,000 in cash, which is the minimum startup requirement again,

is not a requirement of the eligible small business. It's a requirement

of the venture corporation.

So the venture corporation has to be well enough funded so that it

can then go out and buy the equity shares in these small businesses and

give them the opportunities they need. Again, I must stress that this

is not a loan that has to be repaid by anybody. It is an actual pool of

venture capital which will buy shares in an eligible company, and the

venture corporation will raise its profit not from interest but from

actual investment earnings that the small company will have.

So it is a big mistake to think of this as a loan. It would not

replace any of our other loan programs which the BCDC has, which we

will have under discussion in some other bills later today, in the

small business manufacturing and which can apply to business women who

want to start up their own businesses. Particularly, though, we are

still targeting on those areas that we think need to be strengthened

most, and that's in the processing, manufacturing, research and

development. That gives added value to British Columbia goods which

then spreads out into the community to support all those other business

ventures. But without them you can't have your shoemakers and your

tailors or hotels or tourism operators or anything else we might need

in the community. So we've targeted directly on those areas.

On a couple of the matters that the member for Nanaimo raised, first

of all — and I'll say this again — don't mix this up with the $575

million ERDA agreement that we've signed. That's all available for

various kinds of loans for those same various kinds of businesses

across the spectrum of the community of British Columbia. As far as I'm

concerned — I'll check this out later and we can perhaps talk about it

when we get to committee stage — this venture capital corporation will

fit perfectly into the ideas that they have about labour pension funds

being able to invest in this Crown corporation. We've said specifically

that these are available to pension funds. I don't see why one pension

fund should be any different from any other.

We have studied the Quebec program, the Ontario program and the

Alberta program, and they have been successful. You see, the whole idea

of this is to try to get British Columbians to start thinking of

themselves as investors rather than simply savers. I'm told that we in

Canada are the greatest savers in the world. Our bank accounts in this

country, despite the poor economy, are at record levels. What we'd like

to see is some of them get their money into some of the small

businesses that we're going to need for the future. So that's the real

thrust of this whole bill.

In studying those other provinces' activities, we found that there

had been some serious loopholes. You know the problems that have arisen

with those research tax credits that the federal government has just

eliminated. We did get into serious problems with money that came from

investors and went into land speculation and a lot of other things it

was never meant to go into, and we've tried to close all of those

loopholes so that the money really goes where it's supposed to go.

On the matter of changing government policy, I would doubt that any

government could change a policy which would affect an existing venture

capital corporation, because these will be done under a contractual

arrangement. There will be contracts signed, and those contracts will

have the force of law. The force of law, I would expect, would not

allow you to change that contract by a change in government policy.

Finally, I wanted to mention that I agree with the member for New

Westminster that there will be some forgone revenues. But I think

"forgone revenues" is a phrase that the economists and Treasury Board

and finance people have made up to scare us away from doing anything. I

don't like to call them forgone revenues. I think they're fictitious

taxes, because they wouldn't be here if the company didn't start up.

Sure they're forgone, but they're forgone from nothing, in my opinion.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 19 read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I believe I need leave to ask for second reading of Bill 46.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, leave will be required. It was just introduced this morning.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's essentially the same bill as Bill 23, with some technical amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I

appreciate that from the members opposite. There are no surprises. The

main purpose of this bill remains the same, and that is to authorize

economic development programs, again to allow for specific business

sectors to expand, diversify or create new long-term job opportunities.

What we do new in this, I think, is rather than have everybody follow

down the straight line, this program should allow us to be able to sort

of cut the pattern to fit the cloth — look at a company's needs and try

to build a program that will help that company with its specific needs.

It will include the small manufacturers' incentive program, which will

provide interest-free repayable loans up to $50,000 per project. I

think that

[ Page

6375 ]

would be of interest to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who

spoke about her bill which is on the order paper as well.

Again, I wouldn't go over.... It's the same targeting that we've had

for the other programs. It is much the same as the previous assistance

to small enterprise program, the small manufacturers' assistance

program and the recent small manufacturers' development assistance

programs. They have been very successful in the past, Mr. Speaker. They

have been good vehicles for job creation, they have provided investment

of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 million and provided an

estimated 4,600 jobs.

[12:00]

You will recall that the five-year, $50 million TIDSA program in

1983 was terminated, and now we will see in this bill a new initiative

addressed by the tourism infrastructure incentive program, again to

provide low-interest loan assistance to stimulate further development

of destination tourism attractions. The so-called bricks and mortar

part of the program will be funded with a total of $25 million, again

in the form of low-interest, repayable loans. The funding should result

in about $100 million in direct new capital investment in the tourist

industry.

The industrial incentive fund again is designed to be as flexible as

possible and respond to the needs of the private sector. It will assist

medium- and large-scale private sector people engaged in higher,

value-added manufacturing and further processing of our resources, of

our knowledge-based industries and of innovative projects of prime

importance to the project.

As I said in introduction of the bill which is now on the table.... Bill

46 is a bit broader than the previous bill only in that it provides now

for our authority for initiatives which will form part of the $50

million small business incentives package under that ERDA agreement

which was reached with the federal government and final approval given

on Monday of this week. It also makes provision for the aquaculture

incentive program and the industrial development assistance programs.

So ultimately, with the passage of this bill, they will all be

contained in a small business incentives subagreement that we will be

signing with the federal government as soon as this bill is passed. As

you know, the funding is shared fifty-fifty between the province and

the federal government. It is the first agreement — the $50 million

part of it — of any province to be signed with the federal government

in this new area.

I might just say as well — perhaps this isn't the right place, but

I'm sure the Speaker will tell me if it isn't — that for the first time

we have reached agreement essentially — there are just some dots to be

done and t's to be crossed — that the program will be run by British

Columbia, not by the federal government. There will be a management

committee which of course will have federal and provincial people on

it, but the management of the program itself will be by the province,

so that we can target the areas that we really need. The federal

government has given us — I must say — complete cooperation on this and

also the problem that we ran into with the old funding by the federal

government that found British Columbia getting hardly any money out of

the program, certainly not compared to many other parts of Canada,

because of the so-called tiering of the program. Many of you who are in

constituencies who weren't in the right tier will know that you never

got any money under this program. The federal government has now agreed

to end tiering and that British Columbia will be treated as one

province, without any special status for one part of the province over

another. I think those are very good achievements, Mr. Speaker. I

wouldn't want to be remiss by not paying full dues to the federal

government for having come to that agreement with us.

Finally, this is another step in a series of steps that the

government is taking to foster cooperative growth and development in

partnership with the private sector, and in so doing I would move

second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Once again the opposition will support this

legislation, because it is providing some help to small business and we

agree with the goals. Personally, I don't particularly like the method.

I have to say that, and then I'll get into this particular bill.

The minister was a member of the opposition when I introduced the

farm credit legislation. On the bill we discussed earlier this morning,

I said that it's government policy to do all of the things that are

going to be done by the VCCs, and the legislation is so complicated

because the government wants to make sure everything they do is exactly

in line with government policy. I suggested, why not do it yourself

rather than turn it over to private capital? In this instance, why not

leave it to the private people to do it, as we did with the farm credit

legislation? In that instance, borrowers went to the lending agency of

their choice: bank, credit union or whatever. There was a government

policy which allowed for subsidizing the interest rate to bring it down

to whatever the government thought was appropriate at that particular

time for that particular circumstance — not for one individual, but in

general. There was also provision for the government to guarantee in

some instances; if the lending agency felt that the loan was worth

while but risky to the point where they wanted someone else on the

collateral, there was provision for guarantee. Of course, the borrower

paid a little extra for that.

That program meant that the government could help a lot more people

with limited funds, because it was simply a subsidizing of the interest

rate at the end of the year, which is going to happen anyway. Also, it

interfered less. The borrower went to the bank manager or credit union

manager who knew him and whom he knew — or she, whatever the case was.

So it took the administration completely out of the hands of

government. Here, the minister is going to do all this. It's the

minister who's going to decide whether or not a particular applicant

for borrowing fits his program.

This legislation establishes five programs — under the previous bill

it was three — under which he may loan money to business. The first

one, the small manufacturers incentive program that the minister talked

about, can loan money to encourage manufacturing, processing and

advanced technology; aquaculture is now a separate section. But the

minister has the authority and it's his responsibility to make the

decision as to whether or not.... I appreciate he's not going to do all

this himself, but it certainly leaves open the possibility that

politics may have something to do with whether or not an applicant will

be favourably considered. It takes it right out of the area that I

talked about previously, where an applicant went to the lending agency

of his or her choice, and puts it firmly in the minister's office.

That's where the decision is going to be made.

Certainly in cases where any of the individuals in any of these sections are turned down for a loan application, some of

[ Page 6376 ]

them are going to wonder, some of them are going to

suspect, and some of them are even going to make charges to the effect

that politics had something to do with whether or not they got

favourable consideration, as opposed to what the neighbour down the

street got. I think it's bad that there's even the possibility of that

question coming up. I prefer the method that we used — and that is

still used — with the farm credit legislation.

I appreciate that in this program it's working with the federal

government. You have to be prepared to go along with the program

they're making available; they're providing half the funds, so we

really don't have the choice. I'm just saying that I think the minister

should on other occasions make the point with Ottawa that he would

rather not have this responsibility in his office; he would rather not

have the administration of this kind of program; he would rather have

the kind of program that B.C. now has in effect with respect to farmers

The bill is certainly a short one — that's in its favour — but it's

very vague as to what directions the minister has. He's really got a

lot of freedom to act in this. I suppose it imposes a real obligation

on the community generally, and the opposition in particular, to watch

for examples and to bring them to attention wherever there is any

suspicion anywhere — because that's not good for government in total,

not just for the minister himself — that the vagueness and generality

of the legislation is such that the minister or his office may be

accused of any kind of favouritism at all in dealing with these loan

applications.

We support it because it is positive. I wish personally that it had

been in a different direction, but that's my personal feeling, as not

opposed to but distinct from the opposition. But we will support the

legislation.

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

Leave granted.

MR. REID: In the gallery today, from sunny Surrey, is a group

of students from Anniedale Elementary School, accompanied by Mr. R.

Clifford. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm wondering whether or not the minister could

tell us when he closes debate just why he has chosen these specific

items that he has chosen here. I notice aquaculture has been added in

this new bill we're discussing, as opposed to the first submission, and

also industrial development assistance. They are two items with

specific amounts of money allocated to them. I recognize that

aquaculture is a new and coming industry, and that there are probably

great opportunities there. Certainly we need the research; we need the

capital to get those industries going. Then we go on to industrial

development and it outlines "...that support the industrial and

resource sections of the economy of the province...." I think the one

that always gets omitted in these kinds of things — certainly it did

under the ASEP program, which, as the minister had indicated, this is

replacing — are those agriculturally related industries. Somehow you

don't think about what happens in agriculture as processing.

There are just a few examples that I'd like to bring to the

minister's attention. I was in Vernon last night, and I was talking to

a chap who has a rabbit farm. There are many rabbit farmers there who

want to produce rabbit for meat. He is trying to get a loan for

processing that product. He has a market: he could sell all he could

get across the border. But he can't get funds from the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) or from your ministry for that

particular thing. It falls through the cracks.

Another one where there is an extensive market is the mushroom

industry. Somehow the expansion of mushroom farming seems to fall

through the cracks. Again, this is particularly true on Vancouver

Island. There would be ample room for greater production here, but we

somehow just can't seem to get that covered. The growing of mushrooms

doesn't seem to come under the terms — at least it didn't under the

ASEP legislation. I can't see anywhere where it's going to fit into

this particular piece of legislation. I hope the minister can tell me

I'm wrong, that there is a place in here where those kinds of things

will fit in; and then I can go out and tell these people to get their

applications in right away.

I want to talk a little bit about the tourism incentive program. I

assume this is replacing the old TIDSA program. The minister will

recall that a few days ago, just before his estimates were up for

discussion, he circulated to all of us a

summary of the programs that

had taken place in our particular constituency. I don't have those in

front of me right now, but I do recall very clearly what had happened

with the TIDSA grants. There were five grants made in my constituency:

four of them were very major grants; one was a minor grant on Thetis

Island. That minor grant on Thetis Island is the only firm that made

it. All those others went bankrupt; the loans were written off.

Sure we need to encourage tourism, but do we need to encourage it at

a cost to the taxpayers and a cost to those individual entrepreneurs,

in a situation where they don't make it? It's a great cost to them;

it's a great cost to the taxpayer. And somebody comes along and picks

up, for a song, that facility that we the taxpayers have paid for and

got nothing in return. So I would hope that there will be some specific

direction in these loans relative to tourism, so we don't see a

recurrence of that type of thing happening. With the hype of Expo and

all the anticipation about these 15 million tourists that are going to

come to Vancouver Island, I hope we don't get involved in overbuilding;

I think there would be a real incentive to do that.

What we are trying to encourage is the bed and breakfast, and the

utilization of facilities that we have. Yet I'm sure, if this money is

floating around, there will be an incentive to do this thing. What I'm

saying to the ministry is: for goodness' sake, look cautiously so we

don't get into the situation that has been so pinpointed in my

particular riding.

[12:15]

Also, while I'm talking about that, I hope that when the minister

reports to us, as he and his predecessor have done, on what they have

done in our constituency, he will tell us not only what has been

approved but what has actually been given. So often under the old ASEP

grants, all we got were the approvals. As I went down that list, I

could pick out all kinds of firms who, for some reason or other, didn't

qualify when the cards were down. What the government was talking about

in the terms of filling its appropriation for $10 million, $30 million,

$25 million and $50 million under the different sections.... It really

wasn't spent at all. I don't want to say that's sharp practice, but I

certainly think it's deceiving. It's not factual as to what actually

happens. So I hope that in

[ Page 6377 ]

reporting on what he does under this act, he will tell us not only what he approves but also what he actually grants.

MS. BROWN: I want to ask how this bill would

impact on the one which I have on the order paper. This bill says that

appropriate. Would that ever include, for example, interest-free money

for 12 months, which is really the gist of the bill which I have on the

order paper? It's so difficult, first of all, to establish a small

business. Most of them, as the minister knows, go bankrupt before

they've had a chance to really get started. Because it's so difficult

to establish a small business, and because funding is in such short

supply as far as women trying to establish a small business are

concerned, would it be possible under this act for a loan to be given

to a woman wanting to start a small business which would be taxfree,

for example, for the first 12 months? That would basically bring it

into line with a bill I have on the order paper.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: I have very little to say, other than that this is

a step forward — there's no question about that in my mind. I am

impressed with the inadequacy of the fund, except that it's a lot more

than zero.

The only thing that amazes me is that the federal Conservatives have

brought in a proposition whereby money is going to have to be put up

front. Therefore the provincial government has to go along with that

program. In other words, the provincial government has to put up their

share of the fifty-fifty, when they both have access to guarantees

using traditional lenders. You know, if there's going to be a

compromise vis-à-vis the amount of interest that will be allowed, and

so on and so forth, there could be some money required from the

provincial and the federal government to pay that interest. I really

think it could have been a bigger program.

Banks right now are howling to lend their money, and even some

credit unions are in the same position. I am particularly delighted

that the bill that preceded this — and I know one shouldn't digress too

far from the bill we're on........ I think that this is going to give

an opportunity for the pension plans, if they have used their brains to

set up those funding arms.

On this one here, I think we could have to some extent done exactly

the same thing. I'm not blaming the minister or this government on that

particular situation, because it was the feds who set the program up on

the sharing basis. I think that next time the minister is in Ottawa

talking to his counterparts down there he should say: "We could make a

richer plan if we used traditional lending institutions, at least as

the basis for the capital that goes up front, rather than taking the

bucks from the different treasuries and putting them into this

particular thing." The only dollars then required from the treasury

would be dollars that would subsidize interest or whatever else.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to repeat, I guess, what I

said in debate on the last bill, and that is that this should not be

looked at in isolation. It is part of a total package that is available

in a number of different areas.

To the member for New Westminster, we already have the opportunity

to make the kinds of guarantees you talked about, and we often do,

through the British Columbia Development Corporation. It's a preferred

way of doing business. I believe we've been pretty fortunate in making

those guarantees over the past several years, with our track record and

that of the businesses we've helped. So that too is available to us as

part of the package. The member is right. In negotiating the agreement

with the federal government, we had to take into account what the

federal priority was as well, and they wanted this kind of a fund

available. I can say that I think we've come away pretty good. In the

last ten-year agreement that expired last fall the total amount of

money received by British Columbia over that ten-year period, both

shares, was well under $300 million over ten years. We've managed to

get a five-year agreement of $575 million, with the opportunity both to

review it during the term of the agreement, should things change, and

of course to negotiate the new second five-year term under the ERDA

agreement, because the ERDA agreement is still a ten-year agreement.

But from that point of view, we were somewhat locked in. Things may

change, and we may do things with the federal government in different

ways in the future.

The program does allow for interest-free loans, Mr. Speaker, to the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), under a number of various

areas. The interest would not necessarily just be free for 12 months.

It would be free for the term of the loan. So whatever the terms were

that we negotiated with the person who wanted to get into the business,

that would be available to them over the life of that loan,

interest-free. That's under the small manufacturers' incentive program,

and it's available, of course, to everybody.

I might say that I don't have the complete records, but I think it

might be useful for the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to get them. Not

only in British Columbia but across Canada the vast majority of new

small businesses which are being started are being started by women.

The second part of that equation is that the successful businesses,

which are not only the start-ups but those which do not go into

bankruptcy, the ones who are successful........ The vast majority of

those are being operated by women.

I share the member for Cowichan-Malahat's (Mrs. Wallace'

s) concern

about the tourism agreement. There were a lot of mistakes made by every

government in Canada on that tourism program. We really focused it in

exactly the wrong direction, and I hope we've learned from our

mistakes. You will note from some of the notes, if you go back in the

Blues, that I mentioned that the bulk of the money will be either to

help the infrastructure of what we describe as a destination resort or

to make infrastructure available that might get a destination resort to

become a year-round destination resort, rather than just to build motel

and hotel rooms all over the province. We'll be very careful with that.

It's certainly something that all of us in government have recognized

and perhaps are a little embarrassed about.

Now as far as agriculture goes........ As far as I'm concerned, if

it's processing, it’s processing, and it doesn't matter whether it's in

the agriculture industry or anywhere else. We will, particularly since

the ministry has changed its name to Agriculture and Food........ I

think even the Ministry of Agriculture has learned that a whole lot of

our agriculture industry is an added value to British Columbia

products. Those loans will be available to the agriculture industry. It

will be treated just as another processing industry, and we hope to be

able to add value.

[ Page 6378 ]

The two specific things that she mentioned about failing through the

cracks........ The mushroom problem is really not one that is ours. It

has been a problem of the growers themselves and their board, who

attempted, as the member will probably remember, to restrict the number

of operations that were allowed in the province. I don't have all the

details of this one, but they've just lost in court. The court has

ruled that their act doesn't allow them to restrict operations. I would

assume, reading that court case, that they will now have to issue a

whole lot of licences to people who have applied to grow mushrooms in

British Columbia.

So that's the problem with the mushrooms. The rabbit farm....

MRS. WALLACE: Mushroom-processing facilities?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No problem. If they qualify, the loans

will be available to them. The same is true with the rabbits, Mr.

Speaker. We've been dealing with the rabbit farm through BCDC. The

difficulty is that no matter what lending agency it might be — whether

it's a bank, a credit union, the government or a government Crown

agency — some business plans have to be acceptable. At this point at

least, the people who have been evaluating the business plans of the

particular people you're talking about have not found it to be

acceptable. As you recall in my estimates, I promised the member for

Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) that I would go back and have a second

look at that, and ask the people to have another look at it to see if

there is a way in which those business plans could be brought up to a

level where they would be acceptable.

The one other major matter that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

raised, I believe, was about the business of giving loans to competing

businesses, and that's one we're very aware of. It's something that we

have to be extremely careful of, that you don't impede somebody else's

business by the government giving a loan to another business which is

in a similar kind of production or manufacturing or export sales or

whatever. It's sometimes a little difficult to do, but we intend to

keep very close track of that. I've given instructions to my staff that

one of the tests of any eligibility is whether or not it's either in

some kind of sensitive area where there might be overproduction and

you'd hurt another company by giving the loan, or there's direct

competition to another British Columbia business in our province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 46.

Motion approved.

Bill 46, Industrial Development Incentive Act, read a second time

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

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The only way I can get my stuff done is if I'm House Leader as well. Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 27.

LOW INTEREST LOAN ASSISTANCE REVOLVING FUND ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this really is — and I say

this with all sincerity — pretty well housekeeping. It formally

establishes the funding for the low-interest loan assistance program,

which is administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation

as a revolving fund, which is really what it has been for quite some

time. We had a request from the auditor-general last year to bring the

program more into conformity with the requirements of the Financial

Administration Act. This bill really is to answer that objection from

the auditor- general.

It also, however, serves to put the fund on a formal revolving fund

basis, which will facilitate the continuing availability of the fund to

help small- and medium-sized firms engaged, again, in the areas that

I've mentioned on a number of occasions before: manufacturing,

processing and advanced technology.

As of March 31 this year, the LILA fund still has a value of

approximately $25.3 million. It has been, I believe, remarkably

successful to date. It started in 1977, and from that date until 1984

just over $50 million in low interest loans had been approved for just

under 500 private sector-initiated projects and it has created about

5,800 jobs in the province of British Columbia.

So it has been a good program, I hope that it will continue to be a good program, and I would move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will certainly support this

legislation, and I'd like to compliment the minister for recognizing

that it was the auditor-general who brought this to the attention of

government. As the minister said, it's housekeeping. It's cleaning up

something that is, in effect........ It's working; we're pleased to

hear that. I had figures that were made available at an earlier date.

They weren't quite as good as the ones that the minister gave us,

because his are more up to date. I'm pleased that the program is

working.

[12:30]

1 know from time to time we've had questions about some of the loans

that were made. I'd be interested if the minister can give us any

information at all during committee stage — not with a view to finding

anything wrong with the