1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9361 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government brochure. Mr. Howard –– 9361

Property rights. Mr. Leggatt –– 9361

Housing and employment development bonds. Mr. Stupich –– 9362

Deterioration of B.C. economy. Mr. Howard –– 9362

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

Mr. Cocke –– 9363

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 9363

Mr. Levi –– 9365

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9369

Ms. Brown –– 9371

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 9374

Division –– 9378

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9378

Mr. Stupich –– 9380

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. STRACHAN: I'd like all members

of the Legislative Assembly to welcome to the precincts today Mr. and

Mrs. Art Siddals from Valemount. Mr. Siddals is the former mayor of

that great little community of Valemount.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like the House to join with me in welcoming a class of grade 11

students from Esquimalt high school. I would like to ask you, Mr.

Speaker, to ask the House to be on its best behaviour, because this

class is made up of the gifted students from the greater Victoria area.

they are here under the auspices of their teacher, Mr. Bowker. I wish

all members of the House to give them a good welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT BROCHURE

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to direct a question to the Premier: I ask the Premier if the

particular brochure — which I'm showing to him across the floor now —

containing his picture and the picture of a large number of his cabinet

ministers, if not all of them, is being mailed today to a number of

people on the Premier's mailing list through the services of the

government. Can the minister say whether this particular brochure was

paid for, or is to be paid for, from public funds?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, that's a government document to do with government

programs. It's not being mailed to anyone on my particular mailing

list. It's going to the institutions in which inquiries would be made

regarding the programs contained in the brochure.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD:

Perhaps that answer of the Premier explains why the government was

ashamed to put its name on the document and thus fail to indicate that

it was printed by the government. I'd like to ask the Premier if he

could apprise the House of what the cost of printing this document was,

how many were printed and whom it is going to.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I'll be glad to get that information and bring it to the House. The

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) might have it. If the

government's name isn't on the document, we'll make sure it's on the

second printing of the document.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: There's Depression Don again.

One of the reasons the government's name is not on this document is so

that the Social Credit Party can glean it and put their name on it. Is it government

policy that money attained by cutting back on health care and education in this

province should be used in this most blatant fashion to advance the cause of

the Premier's own decrepit, deceitful political party"

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the question was in order right up until the last. Members

familiar with the rules of this House.... I would caution that in

phrasing a question that kind of language would in fact make the

question out of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker,

it's a government document that will assist the people of British

Columbia to take advantage of the economic-development and job-creation

programs this government has introduced: the new mortgage assistance

program, programs relating to high technology, industrial expansion and

the job-creation program. All of those new programs, and existing

programs, are contained and outlined in the publication. They'll assist

people to get help and to get B.C. going. They'll help the private

sector create jobs. As we have an expanding economy and additional

jobs, there'll be much more money for government. The important thing

in this province is to allow the people the information so that they

can take

part in helping to build the economic recovery. The

government's restraint program requires the cooperation of all British

Columbians; they have been invited in. We have a positive response from

the BCGEU and the doctors. The only ones voting against it are the NDP

— I wonder why.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: There's Depression Don Phillips again.

Would

the Premier mind telling the House how many children requiring special

educational care in this province have had to forgo those educational

opportunities and how many people requiring special health care? How

many people were denied health care in order to pay for this blatant

political fund?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can give the member the exact figure: none.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

MR. LEGGATT:

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

Development. It's on another aspect of the northeast coal question, and

addresses particularly the minister's very high concern about property

rights.

What steps has the minister taken to protect the

property rights of Mr. John Terry, who has had a homestead in the

Wolverine valley for 31 years? As the result of construction, he has

lost his livelihood from trapping and hunting, and is now bankrupt.

What steps has the minister taken to compensate Mr. Terry for his loss

of property rights in the northeast?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'm glad to see that Moira Farrow has done some research for the

official economic critic. One thing that Moira Farrow forgot to mention

in her little

article is that one man is not entitled to a third of

British Columbia.

Evidently the gentleman in question was in

my office while I was away. He has not since contacted me. He has made

no contact with either of the mining companies, because I have checked

that out. However, being the soft-

[ Page 9362 ]

hearted,

humble servant of the public that I am, I have asked the agencies to

move forthwith to contact this gentleman and to see that he is not hurt

in any way by the great development that is providing jobs for 5,000

British Columbians this summer.

HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

BONDS

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Minister

of Finance. The Housing and Employment Development Financing Act

authorizes the borrowing of $250 million, of which $190 million is

committed for purposes under Bill 82, $1.4 billion for the Homeowner

Interest Assistance Act, and $8 million for a portion of the government

salary bill. Social Credit election promises to date total some $1.6

billion, funded by $250 million in bonds. Will the minister tell the

House how he expects to finance the shortfall of $1.35 billion from

consolidated revenue as promised in Bill 79?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to check very carefully the figures cited by

the member in the

preamble to his question, because I'm not certain

that they are entirely correct. I will take the question as notice,

therefore.

MR. STUPICH: Since agreement has now been

made that $100 bonds are

part consideration for the preliminary BCGEU

agreement, there must be a value assigned to these bonds. Since the

interest rate is such an important factor in determining value, is the

Minister of Finance now prepared to tell the House what interest rate

these bonds will bear?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm

pleased that the member has asked the question again. I apologize to

the House for being absent yesterday, but I think I have been present

for most question periods over the past several years.

The

point is that this government will not make the mistake made by the

federal government last year with respect to Canada savings bonds. That

error has been admitted by representatives of the federal government,

Mr. Speaker: an interest rate set too early in an environment of

falling interest rates, and a situation which has caused great

difficulty for other borrowers, both sovereign credits and the private

sector.

I can't tell the House today what the interest rate

will be, because I don't know. The interest rate will be assigned when

we are ready to issue the bonds. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the member

opposite understands that, and surely those who are interested in the

bonds understand that. I am not withholding information, but would it

not be foolish today, in a volatile interest rate environment, to say

that the interest rate shall be this, on these particular bonds, which

cannot be ready for distribution for some little time yet? Therefore I

am not taking the question as notice. I'm simply indicating to the

member who asked the question — to you, sir, and to the House — that it

is impractical to set an interest rate on a bond some weeks or months

before it is issued. The member knows that.

MR. STUPICH:

I agree that the question was asked yesterday, but the Premier and the

Minister of Finance have been giving different answers lately, and I

wondered what we'd get from the Minister of Finance today.

The

Minister of Finance will have to agree that the BCGEU employees are

being asked to take a pig, in a poke, when they don't know what they're

getting with that $100 bond. Can I ask further with respect to these

bonds: since the employees getting these bonds will be interested in

knowing how long they'll be obliged to keep them, is the minister

prepared to tell the House what will be the term of the bonds?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that is a matter of public knowledge.

With

respect to the first, I reject the inference — particularly during the

time of ratification — that the employees of the government of British

Columbia are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I think their

negotiating committee clearly understands the nature of the bond, and

the purpose. As I indicated earlier, it is not possible to identify the

interest rate. But most of the other information is already public

knowledge, and I think the member knows so.

DETERIORATION OF B.C. ECONOMY

MR. HOWARD:

I run the risk of asking a question which is going to bring question

period to a close. I'll take that risk anyhow and ask the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development a question: can the minister in

charge of the depression in this province confirm that the faltering

B.C. economy is showing little sign of improvement, and that conditions

in the forestry, mining, construction, manufacturing and tourism

industries continue to deteriorate during this Socred-generated

depression?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the

member's question, I'm sorry that the member was not in British

Columbia in 1975. While the rest of the world was experiencing growth,

British Columbia had its own mini-depression, brought on by the

socialists who had reigned in this province for three years by that

time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why wasn't he here?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's his business. You'll have to ask him.

would like to point out to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that we

have a plan for economic recovery based on employment and policies

which you have usually voted against. You have been against everything

we've tried to do to bring about economic recovery. Mr. Member, I would

be quite happy to send you a number of brochures outlining this

government's plan for economic recovery so that the member can have

them in his constituency office. I know that he'll want to distribute

them widely in his riding to help the small business community in

Skeena and the area, which was on the verge of bankruptcy when I first

went there in 1975. It has shown great growth under the policies of

this government, particularly in Terrace and Kitimat, with further

economic development to come.

As I outlined the plan for the

development of the northwest just recently, that member over there

pooh-poohed the plan and said there was nothing happening immediately.

He hasn't the foresight to see that the development of the northwest,

which this government has committed to, will provide thousands of jobs

for his constituents in the years ahead.

[ Page

9363 ]

MR. HOWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order

I want to raise with respect to the blowhard from South Peace River is

that with respect to the question I posed to the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development, the words thereof were taken from a

document that he and his department produced — word for word.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The expression

"deliberately misleading the House," or "misleading the House," is of

some controversy. It's certainly been found to be unparliamentary. Two

or three days ago, the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development held a press conference to launch the northwest package. He

admitted at that time that it would not create one job. It had the same

cover on it as this new pamphlet we're seeing today, which I suppose

entails the same economic recovery package. If the minister is saying

one thing outside and another inside this House, it should be brought

to the House's attention. It could be misleading to the members of this

Legislature; we won't know how to properly debate the issues before us.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will give the matter consideration.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before putting the question, I hear several noes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

On a point of order, on such an important question I would hope that

you would put the question so that we'd know who was voting no.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is well made. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 82.

Leave granted.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT

(continued)

MR. COCKE:

Before the luncheon adjournment I mentioned that the Small Business

Development Act, as it's named, did not provide the kind of parity one

would wish — parity, and clarity in the way it was presented. The lack

of parity is enjoyed by those people in the service industry. This is a

very small band-aid to assist some people who are in manufacturing —

fair enough. But I do think it should assist people in small business

across the board.

The problem, however, is as follows: in 1978 that government went to Ottawa

to present its proposals on the economy of the country. What did they suggest?

In the document they took to Ottawa they said exactly the same words that Pierre

Trudeau has been using ever since: the only ways to deal with inflation are

high interest rates, monetarism and tight money. As a result, they have thrown

more than 200,000 people out of work in Canada. That's why we're now

in a position where we have to provide some band-aids to undo the terrible wrong

that was done.

High

interest rates, monetarism and tight money have killed this country.

Holland and a few other countries in the world, which have turned their

backs on that kind of depression orientation, have fared much better.

The sooner we get away from the stupid ways they tried to cure the

problems in the 1930s, the better off we're going to be. In the 1930s

they used the identical cure that they're using now. If they don't know

that history, then the whole country suffers as a result.

That

government is a party to everything that's wrong in this country. They

have pushed for high interest rates, and we have all suffered as a

result: businesses unable to raise the money to keep inventories or to

produce the jobs this province needs. They're a party to it. They went

down there and insisted, as they always do, that a very conservative

response was the one to take: and Pierre Trudeau, their partner, took

it hook, line and sinker and has taken us down to the depths of a

severe recession.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

No giveaway! Mr. Speaker, this government, who give away resources and

subsidize the Japanese steel industry, had better keep their words to

themselves with respect to that kind of outburst.

Sure, a

little adhesive plaster, deathbed repentance. But it's not good enough.

I sure wish they hadn't made their original mistake, which has placed

us in the position we're in now.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER:

In support of this bill I would like to answer a couple of questions:

briefly, why is this program necessary; what have other jurisdictions

done that is comparable; who is it going to help; and how long will the

first cycle of the program be in place" In answering those questions,

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to enter the debate, the subject of

which has been entered by members opposite — perhaps not directly

related to the four questions I have stated, but related to the

principle of the bill.

Why is a program like this necessary?

As has been mentioned by both sides of the House today, small business

is the backbone of our economic strength and provides by far the

majority of jobs. We talk about how many jobs are directly related to

resource industries. In the workforce of British Columbia, 97,000 jobs

are directly related to forestry. We believe that forestry is our major

industrial plank. Strange as it may seem, in the resource industries

agriculture ranks second, with 42,000 people directly employed in the

primary food-producing industry. I never thought that agriculture was

that large an employer, to be rated second in all the province. But if

you add the two biggest ones together, regardless of how many are still

left to be mentioned, you have hardly a fraction of the number of jobs

required so that each British Columbian can have one. That means that

somebody somewhere is picking up the major slack so that buying-power,

as a member opposite mentioned this morning, can be placed in the hands

of the citizens — so that you, Mr. Speaker, and I and the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) can each have some.

Why is it

necessary to provide some kind of support, crutch, or assistance while

we have a trough in our economic cycle? It is important because small

business is the key to

[ Page 9364 ]

recovery.

Why is it necessary? Because through monetary policies over which the

province has no control but over which the federal government has

control — which power was ensured by that party opposite.... It's sad

enough that its power was ensured by that party opposite, but the

critic who talked this morning about placing buying power into the

hands of individuals was in Ottawa to be sure that the policies of that

little opposition over there were felt by the government which they

made sure was in power, and that the true will for economic decadence —

not recovery — which they had in mind was in place. I want you to know,

Mr. Speaker, that what we've got in Canada today was ensured by that

party right over there; make no mistake about it.

It seems

to me that when they say "unless we have employment we cannot have

economic recovery," and that employment.... You remember, Mr. Speaker,

the cycle that was drawn up for us this morning by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody. He said that unless we have employment, we do not have

the buying power in the hands of the individual, which buying power can

be utilized to buy the product which is being created by small business

and by the manufacturing industry, which in turn takes its product from

the primary resource in which we are rich in British Columbia. There's

only one problem. There is a hiatus in his whole cycle. It doesn't make

too much difference how much employment we have if the buying power

that we place in the hands of our individual citizens is usurped by

some other force and they are given a disposable income which is not

adequate for their style of living. I will give you an example of the

kind of robbery that I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: High interest.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER:

You better believe it. You got it bang on. In order to make it

understood, let's take an individual who has a home mortgage of

$60,000. He has committed himself for a long period of time, and when

he entered the contract it was at 10 percent. Now I'm not too smart,

but I've got this figured out: $60,000 at 10 percent in the first year

will be $6,000 of interest earned, not buying a thing. You're not

buying any real estate, improvements or fixtures. You're not buying

anything except the right to buy. It's already bad enough that it

should be $6,000 for the year, but enter the villain. You change, in

the middle of the contract, that 10 percent to 18 percent. You figure a

$60,000 mortgage at 18 percent. You've got to have $10,800 in the first

year just to cover the right to buy. In a given year, that's $4,800 of

buying power snatched out of the hands of the individual. That's

unbelievable! You can see what weight that puts.... At $4,800 a year,

12 months in a year, that's $400 a month that I've got to spend,

because I've got a $60,000 mortgage, that I didn't plan on spending,

nor do I have the strength to spend it, nor did:1 commit myself to

spend it. But all of a sudden I am spending it. Guess what I'm not

spending it on if I'm spending it on the right to buy. I am not

spending it on refrigerators, suits, automobiles, tables and chairs,

shoes....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You noticed that, did you?

All

of a sudden the buying power that that member was talking about has

been lifted out of the hands of the people, where it belongs, and it's

done by high interest rates. That's the hump that I'm talking about,

Mr. Speaker, which we don't believe is going to last forever. It never

has before. However, somebody has got to do something to be sure that

every individual in this province has a chance to make it over the

hump. There are a few who committed themselves to what some people call

100 percent financing theories. They didn't have any equity in their

industry; they didn't have any financial strength. The minute that the

cash outflow was greater than the cash inflow, and they didn't have any

equity to make up the difference, guess what happened. They had to give

up. Some of them have already given up — and I feel bad about it. There

are some in my constituency today who are no longer operative because

they couldn't make it over the hump.

Somebody has got to do

something. That is why this kind of program is necessary. That's one

question — my time is racing on and I've got four questions. What have

others done to try to help those who can't make it over the hump?

have our brothers to the east. We have the province of Alberta. They

have a heritage fund. That member for Coquitlam-Moody said they've got

a heritage fund in Alberta and Saskatchewan. And he said: "How come we

don't have a heritage fund in British Columbia?" You want to know why?

When those people were in power, and they had the opportunity to put

the primary industries on the map, they said: "Let it stay in the

ground. Leave it in the ground." When markets were good and we could

have sold our primary resource at a markup, which would have returned

us a reasonable profit, they said: "Leave it in the ground."

Where

is our heritage fund, Mr. Speaker? You know where it is; you're smarter

than that. That heritage fund is in the ground, where it was left.

Alberta has a program — I don't know whether it is as good as ours — in

which they are using the dollars that they put in reserve. Their

program is over two years. It is a grant, a subsidy, a net cash outflow

to help something like 60,000 small businesses; but it is not

recoverable, and it reduces the rate to a fixed rate — 14 1/2 percent.

If the hump doesn't last long and interest rates go below 14 1/2

percent, how much help are the people in Alberta going to get? You

answer the question. I like our program better, but that is a

comparison with what is being done by other people, other jurisdictions.

Enough

of that. Who's it going to help? It's going to help that manufacturer

in my constituency who is involved in putting together a product that

is not put together anywhere else in Canada, or anywhere else in the

world. He's putting together a piece of equipment used to make endless

single seam corrugated pipelines. It's ingenious. He invented the

machine. There is only one problem: it takes forever to build one, and

it takes an unbelievable amount of equipment and material. It also

takes an unbelievable amount of man-hours to put one together. Add up

the material and its cost, the manpower and its cost, as well as the

length of time, and by the time that machine is available to be placed

with the person or company — like Saudi Arabia, which has ordered one

of those machines — it's forever. Somebody has got to provide the

financing until you can realize the real value of that equipment.

Under

normal circumstances, under a 10 or 12 percent program, it's bearable;

the company can operate. Put that together with an interest rate that

says you've got to pay 2, 3 or 4 percent above prime, and you've got

somebody who can't make it over the hump. That's the kind of individual

this program will help. I'm proud of a minister who has the

[ Page 9365 ]

ingenuity,

the creative thinking, to say: "Let's find some bucks somewhere that we

can make available to these people at a preferred rate so that they can

make it over the hump." Because if they don't.... A lot of people in my

constitutuency are depending upon that particular manufacturer for

their jobs. If they lose their jobs, not only are they not going to be

able to pay the $4,800 they didn't expect to pay, but they're not going

to be able to pay the part they have to pay to keep a roof over their

heads.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fantastic program. Who else is

it going to help? It's going to help a processor...the only way I can

relate it is to give you an example. I've got a processor in my

constituency who provides fresh duck to the Vancouver market. That's

d-u-c-k, the ones with wings and a bill.

If somebody says:

"Which is correct, Bill or William," you say: "Have you ever heard of a

duck with mud on his William?" Bill is right.

These ducks

are provided to the Vancouver market — I want you to hear this; sober

up, sir — and no one else is providing them to that market. The problem

is that the processor has only himself as a supplier. He's has to hatch

— at least, somebody has to hatch them — the eggs that some duck

somewhere has laid, so that you can have ducklings, and so that these

ducklings can grow up into big ducks that he can provide to the market.

Time is involved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Which came first, the duck or the egg?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You ask the man out there and he'll tell you which came first.

This

processor cannot operate, not because he doesn't have a viable product,

not because he doesn't have a viable industry, but because he cannot

bear to pay the 18 to 20 percent interest from the time he starts out

until the time he can realize the cash return for his product. This

kind of program is going to help that kind of processor; it's going to

help manufacturing and processing. I'm proud of this program that's

been put in place. It's not just the two I've given you as examples;

hundreds, maybe thousands, of businesses are going to be assisted by

this program.

How long is this program going to last? Is

this forever? Is this money that is going to be extended going to be

out there forever or is this a recoverable program? It's both. If you

look at the bill — and I certainly don't want to transgress the rules

of this House — there are several sections in the bill. If I could have

the attention of the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), I have some fantastic things to say that I'd like her to

hear.

This bill has three distinct parts. One part says that

we're going to spend a small portion of the entire provision on those

who are in dire straits. I want you to know that they haven't the

strength to pay. back any interest, so they are going to have a

forgivable loan. But you would expect that any free enterprise

government wouldn't have the major portion of the program in that

category. Five percent of the entire program is set aside for those in

dire straits who have to have help now and who can't possibly make any

repayment now. Five percent is for forgivable loans. Then there is a

further 10 percent provided for those who can't even afford to pay a

reasonable rate of interest — a low-interest investment. Perhaps they

can't pay the principal now, but at least they can cover the small

amount of interest and accept the responsibility for their share in

this recovery program. The greatest percentage by far, 85 percent of

the program, is recoverable. That's why I say that our program is

better than the Alberta program. This is recoverable. It doesn't teach

industry and small business to be reliant upon government. It teaches

small business and small industry, medium-sized business and

medium-sized industry, what they already know to be the truth — that is

that everybody has to accept responsibility for his share in the

recovery program on which we are embarked.

I don't know of

too many people in the province who are not willing, on this date in

late September 1982, to carry their share. There may be a few, but I'm

not aware of many. Give it just a few more days, until it dawns on each

one of us that this recovery program will work best if everyone puts

his shoulder to the plough to make it work. I like this program because

it's a teacher in that respect: it's recoverable. Perhaps the dollars

recovered can be used again. Who knows? I'm going to leave that to the

imagination and creative thinking of the minister who thought up the

program in the first place. Anyone who can think up something this good

I can trust with it when it's finished.

I think both sides

of the House recognize the value of this program. I wouldn't be a bit

surprised if every individual in this House supports this program. I

think that the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who has a hiatus in his

economic thinking.... He doesn't understand that you've got to have

more than jobs to have buying power. You have to have disposable income

to have buying power. Even that member, I think, will vote in favour of

this bill. The quicker it passes this House the quicker we can get on

with this recovery program, and the quicker we'll return to the kind of

British Columbia to which we had become accustomed, where jobs would be

available for everyone and buying power would be left in the hands of

those who need it, and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) would

have enough money to go home from time to time to visit his

constituents.

MR. LEVI: It's very nice to hear from

the renewed member for Chilliwack. In the past seven years we've missed

those golden nuggets he dropped in debate, his sense of humour, and

it's nice to have him get up every now and again and say something. He

was coming out with such quasi-Biblical aphorisms as: "Somebody has to

do something." A few minutes later he said that everybody has to put

himself behind the plough. He can't get over being the Minister of

Agriculture — its very difficult for him. He did talk about disposable

income, but he forgot to mention that liquor prices just went up 20

percent. That really upsets both you and me, Mr. Speaker. That's going

to make some difference to my disposable income.

If you

examine the bill very closely, and listened to the minister's

introduction, it's actually a piece of creeping socialism. This is the

government's first sane attempt to do something about the economy.

We've waited the seven years that the government has been in power for

it to come up with an economic strategy that would not just tackle one

aspect of the economy, or one

section of our community, but would look

like a plan made up of a number of entities. In the last few days the

government has brought down a mortgage plan, a borrowing plan and

assistance to the small businessman — seven years afterwards.

I'd

like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we all know that somehow we're

standing on the brink of an election. The only thing is that I don't

think it's ever going to come. We've had

[ Page 9366 ]

many false dates that I think maybe they've given up on the idea.

However, we've had three pieces of an economic plan that took seven

years to put together. I refer to the minister, in an endearing

fashion, as Old Hiccup — that's how he sees the economic problems in

this province. The economic times in this province are tough, but it's

just a hiccup. Two weeks ago he couldn't find anybody who was

unemployed. Seven years ago he sounded a little bit like the member for

Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and kept talking about jobs. The

reason he did that was because one of the major planks in his party's

platform in the 1975 election, which is so graphic.... This paper of

December 3, 1975, with a picture of a very attractive-looking Premier,

says: "This province has the people and the resources to lick any

problem." That was seven years ago. All the minister has given us is

northeast coal. In the body of the advertisement he said: "All it needs

is a government to manage its affairs." So they got the government.

Then they said: "We're going to put British Columbia to work." That was

in 1975. And that's what the Premier said this afternoon in question

period. This incredible hiatus! We've been waiting for seven years for

the government to do something.

Further on in the

advertisement it says: "To do this we'll provide a responsible,

well-managed government that will earn the respect of taxpayers, the

respect of our worldwide customers, the respect of investment dollars."

Well, that's an awful lot of respect. To find out whether in fact they

have the respect of the taxpayers, the greatest test the government can

make is to call the election. Then we'll find out what they've thought

about you since the last election, and in the seven years you've been

in power. Then he said: "Social Credit is committed to getting our

prime resource industries moving forward again in order to increase tax

revenues, and to create jobs and opportunities." That was the plan

seven years ago. "We will remove the punitive legislation and

restrictions that have frustrated our major employers and stifled

expansion. We will restore confidence in British Columbia." The mining

market was down then, and it is down today. But we get different

explanations from the government.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: If you want to debate, sit in your seat and wait your turn.

goes on to say: "Our efforts will not be made at the expense of our

environment or in reduction of benefits to people. Indeed, only through

a healthy economy can we provide more services to our people and more

help to those who need it and deserve it." Services to people and

assistance. For the first four years all they did was cut them back.

They've never quite caught up. This is all in their manifesto. This was

their creeping socialist manifesto. "Governments must serve the needs

of the community. We will put an end to waste and mismanagement of

public funds and stop spending foolishly." We know that didn't happen.

To this day we've been dealing with a government that's the biggest in

terms of its ministries and its bureaucracy. It's the most expensive

we've ever had. It's the most wasteful. It's incapable of managing this

economy. That's the major thing we've been able to find out: you are,

and have been, absolutely incapable of managing this economy.

heard from the minister that the important thing about the bill is that

we have to. save small businesses. This is not new. Two years ago in

this House we debated and had questions in question period about when

you were going to do something about the small business sector, when

you were going to give them some help. All we got back from over there

was: "We are not going to put money in that we don't have. We are not

going to run this province into debt and leave a dead-weight burden of

debt for the coming generations. We are going to let the

free-enterprise system take care of the needs of the people." That

statement is fundamental to the difference between that group over

there and the group here. We have no great confidence in the

free-enterprise system.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Today

out there, without even an election, we have some 260,000 people who

are unemployed and who also have no confidence in that. And almost at

the last minute, here we are repenting. We bring in a bill, and we're

going to help the small business people, when over here, over three

years ago, we said to them: "It's not MacMillan Bloedel or the

companies that BCRIC owns or is thinking of buying that create the new

jobs in this province." It's the small business people; they create 60

percent. That's not new. Those figures aren't new, and we didn't

discover it yesterday, although one would think that the minister did.

He's the great free enterpriser. He constantly said: "Nobody needs any

help. Everybody wants to do it on their own." In the best of all

perfect worlds, that would be the way it should be. But we don't live

in the best of all perfect worlds, because in neither this province nor

this country do we have control over the levers that manage our

economy. That's the great tragedy. That's the difference in what we say

is an approach.

So finally he comes in with a bill that is

incomplete, in terms of the benefits that are going to be dispensed. My

colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has made the argument: where,

other than in manufacturing? After all, the service industry is the

major employer in this province; they employ far more people than any

other industry. But there is no help there.

My office

received three phone calls this morning. Two of them were in service

industries, and they want to know about the program. I told them: "Get

in touch with BCDC; they're going to administrate it. But if you're in

the service industry, don't look for any help; however, phone anyway."

Those are the kinds of calls that every MLA is getting. We have people

out there — we have debated this in this House endlessly — who have

cash-flow problems. Why is it that we have the largest bankruptcy rate

in the history of this province? We're not alone. I was recently in the

United States, where they have bankruptcies in the same proportion as

we have.

Now denying all of the suggestions that came from

this side, or just getting up and mouthing this business about being

negative or saying: "What suggestions did he have...?"The very thing

that we said, in terms of how you help small business people.... It is

by giving some help, by providing some money and incentives. Their

answer was: "People who are in business do not want any help. They want

to do it all by themselves." Suddenly we are faced with this bill. Why

is it that they've suddenly discovered that there was logic in the

recommendations that were made from this side of the House?

They took their first tentative step two years ago towards a socialist solution. They had a mortgage plan — $200 million.

[ Page 9367 ]

That

helped small business people. Housing and the spinoff from housing.

Some 5,000 units were built. They got a lot of sales tax, personal tax,

and corporate taxes back from that effort. What did it cost? The

government had to put $200 million into the mortgage market, pick up

the subsidy for the mortgages — which was another $9 million — and the

program not only paid for itself but the $200 million is coming back.

Then they stopped. They didn't do it again. They didn't really care to

examine the validity of doing that kind of government infusion into our

economy.

They went back to the old arguments that somehow

the free-enterprise system will work. All of them over there said when

they answered: "The economy is not going to stay the same. It will

improve." Of course it will improve. We know that eventually we'll

reach the bottom of the trough and we'll be able to get out of it, but

that may take an extended period of time. One of the things that

they've found out is that in peaks and troughs, the troughs broaden

out, and it's not long until you get into the peaks. In the meantime

you face the reality of doing something about the basic question that

we have in this province — jobs. It's remarkable. Seven years ago,

before this government came to power with all of the rhetoric that they

heaped on top of the other government.... They never had more than

110,000 unemployed at the worst times. There was a period in 1973-74

when the unemployment was down to less than 5 percent. But it's been a

constant problem with this government. They haven't been able to get

below 8 percent. They're constantly in the 10 percent bracket, and

nothing happens.

I said to the very noisy Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) during his estimates: "Why not call the

forestry committee together, get a group of people forward and ask them

to offer suggestions beyond the ones that you can come up with, if you

can come up with any at all?" That never happened. He simply became an

excuse maker for all of the problems.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I'll ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development to come to order, and also the member who is not in his

seat.

MR. LEVI: Of all the money that went out the

back of that so-called truck, not one nickel went to tickets for some

crazy musical in New York, or Pouilly Fuisse wine. It went into

people's stomachs and made them live better. So don't compare the two,

because there's no comparison.

Back to the bill because that's where we have to be.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: What are you talking about? He should withdraw that.

MR. LEVI: What did he say?

MS. SANFORD: He said it went to marijuana.

MR. LEVI: Marijuana. The minister said it went to marijuana. Don't worry about it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Seriously, if a comment from a member has offended another member....

MR. LEVI:

No, I'm not offended. My gosh, what could I expect? There's a minister

who's got an IQ of 89 when it's a hot day, What are we talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Now we're really getting unparliamentary. That is a personal allusion.

MR. LEVI: Tit for tat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to take his seat or withdraw from the chamber. I'm sure he is aware of that.

MR. LEVI:

Let's go back to the bill. The minister, in closing the debate, should

explain in more specific terms the question put to him by my colleague:

why is it only the manufacturing industry? Look at the figures, look at

the analyses; he knows where the jobs are created. If the manufacturing

industry at the moment is on the low ebb because the economy isn't

moving, because the major industrial enterprises in our province are

shut down, what is wrong with also looking at the service side of our

economy, which is soon to become the largest part of the economy

anyway? It is very high still. There is no indication in this bill at

all. That's its great shortcoming.

I This is coupled with a

number of efforts that the government is going to make, but they are

predicated on one basic theory, one which for seven years that minister

has denied they would ever do because it's not the Social Credit way.

It's all based on debt. These are the people who years ago called debt

contingent liability. But we know today, even before we get into this

or the mortgage program, which has got to be a spinoff for small

business, that it's debt; it's deficit financing. Soon we'll probably

be legitimizing that. I won't get into the other legislation before the

House. That's how long it's taken it to come from really what must be

considered a crazy ivory tower that they live in at the top of the free

enterprise system, in which they say the government has no role in the

economy, can make no infusion into improving things, yet denying....

I'm sure the minister doesn't read any of the Gallup polls

know they're reading a lot of polls right now — but Gallup has been

saying for three years that more than 60 percent of the people in this

country believe governments can assist in the business community, that

they should be involved in doing that kind of infusion of capital. When

they say that, what they're doing in fact is rejecting the basic free

enterprise principle that somehow the market will take care of itself.

The essential part of the market has not been taking care of itself

because investment has been low. Then, of course, we have the world

crisis. I don't find, Mr. Speaker, in examining this bill in respect to

small business, at this time it is any different than it was nine or

ten years ago in this province. Regardless of what the minister might

say about the previous government, the reality is that we were always

touched by world economics. Everybody has problems. The only comparison

you can make is the degree to which a problem affects individuals in

terms of employment and small business, and that's what we're dealing

with.

The comparison is that things are worse now than they

were before. That's not to say that previous government is going to

take some pride, and this one's going to hang its head. The key

question is do something about it! That's what we've been saying over

here for seven years. Don't get up in

[ Page 9368 ]

debate

and trickle out this terrible rhetoric and poison that comes out from

time to time. We're all in this together, so we can have a reasonable

debate about what the problem is. Let the minister get off his

arm-waving. Let him say to himself as Minister of Economic Development

in this province.... It's a sad thing when he says, in a joking

fashion, that our economic problems are just a hiccup. They're not just

a hiccup; they're a very bad case of pneumonia. The only remedy right

now is for the government to do something about it. I know that comes

very hard for many members over there. Some of them were in business,

but we have people over here who were in business. My friend the member

for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) came here because he wanted to

get away from socialism. He says we don't believe in ownership of land.

My god, what's the matter with him? I own a home; my colleagues own

homes. They take one statement and turn it around, and that's the basis

of their argument in laying down that their philosophy is better than

ours. It's not a basis for an argument at all. It's not accurate, and

it really has nothing to do with the problems the province is facing.

The

solution is something else. This solution is a partial socialist

solution that's been talked about on this side of the House for seven

years. There is a role for government to assist, but unfortunately it

falls terribly short, particularly in a major part of the small

business sector. The minister was committed to only one plan, northeast

coal, and from that was going to flow all of the spinoff that was going

to create all of the business those people would need. Well, we know it

hasn't worked. It's the one big megaproject, the quick fix, and in the

meantime, while ministers have stood up in this House and read off

every year.... I notice they haven't done it this year. Last year

15,429 new businesses were registered in the province. We haven't heard

anything this year. They know they can't say that.

It's not

a pleasure to be able to speak back to them about how many bankruptcies

we have and how many people's lives are ruined. We asked them earlier

to help those people, make provisions for cash flow and talk to the

banks and the real estate people and the mortgage people. We said it

three years ago, two years ago and a year ago, and we got no answer.

All of sudden, as in a deathbed repentance, they come in with great

piles of legislation. This is one of them, and it falls short. As I

said before, it's all based on debt. I don't know whether the

minister's mouth is a little ashen-tasting because he's having to

swallow some the things he denied several years ago. He's always denied

it.

If governments have no role in the free enterprise

system and people want to help themselves, why are they suddenly

deciding to help people? It must be a coincidence — there must be an

election coming down the pike. It's done with a great deal of cynicism,

and people are treating it with a great deal of cynicism. In this one

we have grants and forgivable loans, and in another program you have to

pay it back. Where's the logic? You give it to some people, and you

make some people pay it back. There's no great overall plan; it's as if

several pieces of sticking-plaster have been put over the economy.

There is no cohesive plan for what they're going to do after the

implementation of this program, which falls far short.

have waited seven years for ministers to get up when their estimates

are on and spend 20 minutes or half an hour talking about their

philosophy, where they want to go in terms of their ministries, and

where the government wants to go. We've never heard a thing. We have

never had a comprehensive statement from any member on that side of the

House about how they view the economy, how they view long-term planning

and what they're prepared to do. Everything has been done in a crisis.

It denies what the plan was when they set out. "We're going to put B.C.

back to work," they said in 1975. "To do this, we'll provide

responsible, well-managed government that will earn the respect of

taxpayers, the respect of our worldwide customers and the respect of

investment dollars." What happened? Three years ago what could the

small business sector have done with the $16 million that the former

Minister of Health washed down a rat-hole about some stupid program?

The

hard-nosed Social Credit philosophy is based on no deadweight debt for

future generations. In seven years they have doubled the deadweight

debt on every citizen in this province, an I d if they get their way in

the next little while with the bills they've brought in, I don't know

where we'll be, if they haven't got a plan to go with all that money

they're going to put their hands on. If this bill is an example of the

plans.... It's incomplete, because it only deals with one aspect of the

small business community. The minister should look at it again. It's

not too late; we haven't passed the bill. He can bring in amendments to

involve the service sector. Don't keep viewing only the manufacturing

sector.

Look at the unemployment figures in respect to both

sides of that economy, service and manufacturing. Look at them and do

something. Don't ignore the most significant part of the economy. As

things move they improve; then the major interest in terms of

assistance will go to the industrial people. At the moment the

service-industry people, the so-called mom-and-pop stores — all of

those people who are crashing every day.... It's a great tragedy that

that happens, and the bill falls far short of that. It's something;

it's not everything, but it's something. Sure, it has to be voted for,

but it's incomplete. That's why you have to have an opposition — to

point these things out. It's tragically incomplete. I would hope that

when the minister gets up he will understand that.

It would

be different from what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder)

was saying if the government had a philosophy that the Premier was an

individual that would be able to go around and encourage people, as he

said, to put their weight behind the plough. Not one of them over there

is capable of doing that kind of leadership. The minister of economic

development's long-thought-out explanation for the state of the economy

is to shrug his shoulders, wave his arms, and say: "It's a hiccup." How

can one really have any confidence in a government that makes those

kinds of ridiculous, spurious observations about it? That's how they

view the economy. Then they come in with the bill, and we've got

another bill out here, and then they've got something else. Then

they've got the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Curtis) saying one thing

about one bill and the Premier saying something else about the bill. I

doubt very much if the Minister of Finance even saw the bill.

Nobody

knows what's going on over there. There are more rumours flying about

this place in the last three months than there have in the last 13

years that I've been here. My gosh, every day there's a rumour. Yes,

we're going to have an election, no, we're going to have a bill that's

going to help small business.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I heard you're after Barrett's job.

[ Page 9369 ]

MR. LEVI: There we are. I want your job, never mind Barrett's job. Boy, I want you badly, baby.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where is he?

MR. LEVI: He's over at the UBCM, that's where he is. Where's your minister? Is he over there? Or didn't they invite him again?

MR. RITCHIE: He's been gone all week.

MR. LEVI:

He hasn't been gone all week. He's so slim these days you don't even

notice when he comes into the House. He's been here every day.

The

low-interest loan aspect of this bill. The minister's had a program

called LILA; that's not new. LILA's been there right since 1976 —

low-interest loans. So what's new about it? That's the key thing. It's

new, it's different, and it's inadequate, and that's the major

criticism.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister to explain

to us in more detail than he did when he opened the bill exactly why it

is that he's gone this narrow route in terms of this piece of

legislation, and has not dealt with the people that every member of

this Legislature has to deal with almost every day: people who have

very small businesses and who need some assistance. It misses those

people completely. He has an obligation to tell us that. We want to be

able to say to these people that there is some hope out there for you.

This

morning I spoke to two of them and said: "The only suggestion I can

make to you at the moment is to call BCDC" — I presume they now have a

number that is going to answer these inquiries — "and find out just

whether you can get any help. And I will undertake" — as I told them

when I was speaking to them this afternoon — "to point out to them that

the major shortcoming of the bill is it will not cover those people."

It's not a question of money, because you're making all sorts of

provisions to lay your hands on more money than was ever created.

You've found the Midas touch now. You've suddenly muffiered everything

that you've said over the last seven years, and you're going to dig

real deep into the pot, and we'll never hear about the dead weight of

debt on the next generation. It's about time they came to this kind of

consideration.

I would urge the minister to tell us why this

bill is so narrow. Let's give some hope out there for thousands of

small business people who need some help at some time. Then I'll feel

real good about supporting this bill. I feel that it's inadequate. If

from time to time you were to bring in a piece of legislation that we

could in a very fulsome way vote for, we'd vote for it, and you'd get

the credit. Right now you get only 50 percent of the marks because

you're only dealing with a little less than half of the business

community. I'd ask the minister, in closing the debate, to tell us

whether he is prepared to change his mind and reconsider this, in view

of all the arguments that have been put forward. Don't just listen to

your own members, because they've just repeated what you've said.

You're getting practical, positive suggestions from over here; do

something about the rest of the people in the small business economy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill, I'm going to begin by quoting an

outstanding Canadian. "Let us confess the truth: in self-confidence and

self-confidence alone, we have gone downhill since 1867." These were

the words of Bruce Hutchison when he wrote of Canada's centenary. It's

strange that the people of a nation that was founded on boldness, hope

and very little else should from time to time show a serious lack of

faith in themselves. What we're doing in this country and province is,

unfortunately, showing a very serious lack in ourselves in these past

months, when we have been challenged by a world recession in a province

that has the most remarkable natural resources. The most remarkable of

all is the natural resource of our people. When people lose their

confidence and sense of direction, then something must be done by some

area in the province, or in that community, to give them hope and

confidence and a sense of direction. I'd like to congratulate the hon.

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development for bringing to us

in this House a formula for success for those people who are in that

position today in the small business community.

Members on

both sides of this House have said that the small businessmen and

business women in our province are the backbone of our community. I

think we can say that although we don't often have unanimous opinion in

this House, both sides of the House look with great respect and

admiration to those people who put their lives on the line each and

every day, open the door of a small shop and greet their few employees

— sometimes one, sometimes two, fifteen, perhaps three, whatever. They

keep the doors open each and every day, and at the end of the week

perhaps — just perhaps — they'll be able to have a day off and be in

their homes with their families, and then start it all over the

following week. Most of them don't have the luxury of even a five-day

week; they usually give it their all, and they usually give such a

tremendous amount of activity just to keep other people working. Many

people of this House have been there, and they know what an effort it

is. But in the past few months, when the forces that are at play in

this country and worldwide have come to wreak their havoc in this

nation and on this total North American continent and throughout the

world, those businesses have suffered.

This bill addresses a

very insecure part of our B.C. economy, those in the past who have had

a tremendous capability of keeping their heads above water. I want to

give credit to those people who started with very little capital and,

with just their efforts and their faith in this province, have been

able to keep people working for a very long time in this province. This

bill comes at a time when those people need a sense of confidence and a

sense of direction.

The member who has just taken his seat

talks back six or seven years; I have just quoted back to 1867. He

talks back six or seven years when he tells us that the people of the

province have been shortchanged because of this government. I'm going

to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are people working in small

business today, getting their paycheques at the end of the week,

opening the doors of the small businesses throughout the province and

serving the people in the service sector and in other more basic

industries in small manufacturing, simply because of the fact that we

have had an economic blueprint in this province which stands us in good

stead right this moment, right this year, right this month,

it were not for the economic blueprint of this government, there would

not be men with hard hats working on northeast coal, Mr. Speaker. If it

were not for the economic blueprint of this government, there would not

be men and women taking paycheques as they build in the city of

Vancouver the most effective stadium that this North American

[ Page 9370 ]

continent

will see. If it were not for the economic blueprint of this government,

we would not have an ALRT, with people working today, last week,

tomorrow and next month, building a communications and transportation

system which will see more housing built in the lower mainland of

British Columbia, around the Vancouver area. If it were not for the

economic blueprint of this government for this past seven years, we

would not have people working in those areas and small business

flourishing in some areas of this province. So I can reject entirely

the argument that has just been made.

I'd also like to say

to the member who has now left the chamber, but who made the point....

The service industry surrounding those areas which I have just

mentioned, and I have only just mentioned a few.... We can go on to

talk about the initiatives in Nanaimo by this same minister, whose

responsibility is this bill before the House. We can talk about the

initiatives that have happened in Terrace; we can talk about the

initiatives that have happened in Prince Rupert. Just the ones that I

have mentioned — all of the hotels, all of the restaurants, all of the

small businesses, the little manufacturing places that are

manufacturing things to put into the stadium and ALRT, all of those

people.... All of the small businesses and the service industries which

the member is asking about are all working attached to those projects;

they are spinoffs.

We know, too, that the bill that was

before our House earlier is going to address itself to giving help to

small business as well, and the service industries which that member

has just made a plea for — that is, the landscapers, the contractors,

the painters, the wallpaper people, and all of those people who will be

attached to the homebuilding which will be created by the mortgage

program that was introduced and passed in this House earlier.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to address a couple of things in this bill; I

don't think they've been mentioned by other members that have been on

their feet. In relation to my responsibility for the Ministry of Human

Resources, I want you to know that this bill is very important to the

people whom we serve and who a very large portion of our ministry

serves with income assistance. All of those endeavours which this bill

will seek to help — all of those industries and businesses — are the

very businesses which will give assistance and work to those who find

themselves on income assistance or on welfare when they do not want to

be on income assistance or welfare. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that's the majority of the people who are on income assistance.

What

we have in this bill is a reinforcement of the ideal of having

businesses that can in some way or another help people either on a

part-time or a full-time basis. It will create employment. It is the

kind of employment which our people who use, and come from, income

assistance, and who want to work.... Sometimes they don't have some of

the skills that they could use, and sometimes they need the kind of job

which they can just fit into by walking into the job. I really think

that because of that, this is very important to our ministry. It will

give us an opportunity for small business to employ a great number of

our Ministry of Human Resources clients and provide the kind of casual,

part-time work which our clients very often need in order to assist in

the raising of their families.

Also, this bill, as we have

all said, is addressing small business, which really drives the engine

of economic growth in this province and in this nation. There are far

more small business people than there are big forest companies and big

mining companies and large industries, which we have traditionally

relied upon.

It also pays tribute to the fact that when

those businesses lay off and are in a recession, huge blocs of people

are laid off all at once. In helping small business, we will be able to

help businesses which will be able to give the continuity of assistance

and work to many employees. Instead of large layoffs, they will have

people being hired in small businesses to give them a sense of security.

want to talk also about a comment that was made this morning in the

House. It was in reference to the megaprojects which I have spoken

about. I think it's a misnomer to say megaprojects. The member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) was on his feet this morning and said

that our government had a fanaticism, I think was his expression, for

megaprojects. If we have a fanaticism for megaprojects, we have a

fanaticism for job creation. B.C. Place, the stadium, the ALRT and

northeast coal are all good, sound projects. If we didn't have that

economic blueprint and weren't building those things today, the men and

women wearing hard hats who are working on those projects — driving

trucks, constructing those projects — would not be working today. We

have paycheques in pay envelopes for people at work. That's what those

megaprojects are doing in the province of British Columbia.

I'm

interested to know that we're in the midst of a debate on the economy.

It's fascinating that we are, because as I'm speaking there are only

two people from the opposition in the House. For the past week they

have been crying for a debate on the economy. In fact, there are

resolutions on the order paper asking for a debate on the economy. The

opportunity is very clearly here in this bill. I am very surprised.

cannot underestimate what this bill can do for the people of British

Columbia, coupled with some of the other initiatives we've announced

that are already being enacted — the ones I've mentioned; also the ones

already on the drawing board or presently going through the House. It

seems to me that we cannot underestimate the effect they can have on

the economy of British Columbia,

In the past few days a

letter was put out by the Royal Bank. I noticed that one of their

spokesmen, Mr. T.W. Bleockley, has been quoted in the newspaper as

seeing "a very chipper future." What a great headline, after all the

doom and gloom. For the past 14 or 15 months you would have thought

that those who produced the television news and wrote the headlines for

the daily papers were all members of the New Democratic Party, because

they sounded consistent with them. It's exciting to see a headline

saying that a banker sees a chipper future. Mr. Bleockley said: "To

suggest Canada's economy is somehow beyond repair, that we are on an

inevitable slide to economic ruin, is absolute nonsense."

I'd like to quote from another commentary by that same bank:

"A nation founded on boldness, hope and precious little

else" — this is in reference to Canada — "...then

there are Canada's abundant natural re sources, which continue to hold

great potential for the future. Historically the discovery and

development of the natural riches of this harsh and inhospitable land

have been among the stiffest challenges Canadians have had to surmount.

We should never forget that the national bounty in which we all

indirectly share would have remained in the ground and under the water

if our

[ Page 9371 ]

pioneers had not risked their lives, limbs and money to release

it from the hard grip of nature. Canada's good fortune in this respect was

not given, it was earned.

"To

discover the reserves of strength in themselves, present-day Canadians

could do worse than look back to those who have come this way before

them. These were the people who shot the rapids, climbed the mountains,

cleared the forests, dug the mines, broke the sod, and built the dams.

They did not let adversity get them down for long. How could they, in a

land of such ruggedness and loneliness, such cruel weather, such

endless distances to conquer? They had an abundance of the combination

of faith and hope that makes confidence. When they came together to

form a nation, critics called it a triumph of confidence over common

sense."

Before us is a bill that only calls on us to draw on

the best of the people we have, the good people in the province — the

small business person in the province, those who strive each and every

day but who are having a little bit of a problem with having that sense

of confidence that our forefathers had in building this country. Surely

it isn't asking too much of the opposition to be excited and enthused

about giving some assistance to them to get them over this very

difficult time. It's difficult for them; it's difficult for everyone in

this province.

If we can get through these next few months,

we can once again see ourselves in that position. How can we lose that

position? Those of us who know we are in the most blessed part of the

North American continent, where the opportunities for the Pacific Rim

are right at our feet.... We are in the best place, at the best time in

Canada's history, because the challenges and opportunities ahead for

our young people are there to the east of us. We are in the right place

at the right time to take advantage of them. It is really western

Canada's time. There is no question of that.

So we have a

delay before we can take full advantage of that. This bill says: "We

will help you through that time — that little delay." This bill says:

"Yes, we expect repayment, as good sound British Columbians with faith

in the future of this province, the same faith that had you invest in

your small business. You're going to be able to pay that back; we're

going to give you a break on the interest rate. We're going to be able

to assist you in that regard." There is no question that this bill will

give a lift to their spirits and a lift to their sense of confidence

going into the future of this province. We can't underestimate, as I

said, the good news that this brings, and the psychological impact,

because we have unquestionably put ourselves and this nation in the

position that the consumer in this province and in this nation will

determine when this recession is over. What we need is that sense of

confidence back. What this minister has brought to us in this bill has

been that sense of confidence, that lift that we need.

So,

Mr. Speaker, could I just say that I'm pleased for those people whom I

serve in the province, those people who need special assistance. They

will have special opportunities now because of this bill. I'm pleased

for the small business people who have really tried very hard to keep

going and are having a little difficulty. This, coupled with those

other initiatives that we have taken, will have us on the road to

recovery in a very short time. I predict that this province, which was

the last province to feet the recession across this nation, will be the

first province to get out of the recession.

I quoted Bruce

Hutchison as I began my few remarks on this bill. I'd like to say that

in taking some of the statements that have been made by Mr. Hutchison

in the past, both from his book and these statements that have been

done by the Royal Bank — which we have found in not as large a quantity

as the negative statements over the years.... We have seen some people

who have had the vision which our forefathers had for this country; we

have seen a few spokesmen in that regard. I would hope that in this

House we can put aside those kinds of political differences for the

good of the people, because that is why we're in this House.

The

members talked about having an election and rumours abound that there

may be one, Mr. Speaker. I guess there just may well be. There's bound

to be one some time between the last election and when our mandate

expires after five years, which will give us until 1984. Every time we

come in with a bill that's as good as this one, we're accused of going

to an election or having an election. I recall many bills that this

Social Credit government has put forward in this past six or seven

years when we were told that it was an election gimmick. If it's an

election gimmick, so be it. Let the people of British Columbia benefit

from all the election kind of legislation that we can possibly put

before them, because that was what we were sent here to do — to do good

for the people of British Columbia.

So may I once again

congratulate this minister who has brought this bill to the House, and

congratulate all those who will get up and vote for this bill. I hope

that it will be unanimous in this House. But with some of the

statements that have been made by members of the opposition, I am

afraid that perhaps political things will get in the way, and we may

not have unanimity on this bill. So let us hope that if that is the

case, those people who built the country and have left us a fantastic

legacy will not be disappointed by us on this side of the House. Let us

go forward, in the words of Mr. Hutchison, "with boldness, with faith,

with hope." If ever there was a time that the people of this province

needed boldness, faith, hope and leadership, it is certainly today

during this downturn in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I fully

support this bill and the government's initiative to bring forward a

bill which has so much optimism in it. I would hope that all members of

this House would put forward a very positive vote in support of it.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I was really interested to listen to the comments not of

the previous speaker but of the one before, the Minister of Agriculture

and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), as he spoke in support of this

legislation. As I listened to some of the virulent and partisan

comments he made, I kept reminding myself that not long ago in his role

as Speaker of the House he was expected by this Legislature to make

nonpartisan decisions and rulings on matters affecting it. I just want

to say that his speech certainly made a mockery of any ideas we might

have had that he was being fair or nonpartisan at any time during the

term of his office in that role.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With the greatest respect, a comment about the behaviour of the Chair would be unparliamentary, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: No, I was commenting on the behaviour of the Minister of Agriculture.

[ Page 9372 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's fine. Thank you.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation.... I'm sorry that while it's

being debated the minister responsible is not in the House. As the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) just pointed out,

we've been trying to get a debate on the economy going for some time,

ever since we were brought back to the Legislature under false

pretences to vote for the Social Credit welfare legislation to give

themselves some more seats in the next election. Now that we've finally

got a debate going on the economy there are only two government members

over there, and the minister responsible for this bill is not even

interested enough to be in the House. Of course, we have to remind

ourselves that on the three or more occasions when we tried to get

permission for a debate on the economy those members of the government

over there voted no, so it doesn't surprise us one bit that now that we

are debating the economy there are only two government members in the

House and the minister responsible for this legislation is not even

interested enough to be here.

I wanted to say a few words

about what this legislation does not do for the constituency of

Burnaby-Edmonds. Most of the small businesses in Burnaby-Edmonds fall

into the service sector. They are retail, laundry, repairs,

restaurants, some real estate, women's dress shops, shoe repairs, comer

drugstores, those kinds of things. There are some that will benefit.

Some are into manufacturing, and maybe high technology; I'm not sure, I

haven't come across any of those yet. But mostly they're in the service

sector, and they're not going to benefit one bit from this legislation.

The minister responsible knows that, because in July this year — I

think it was July 12 — he received a letter from Mr. Laurie Taylor, the

president of Burnaby Kawasaki, explaining his particular dilemma and

why it was so important that some kind of relief be introduced by the

government on behalf of the small business sector in the service area

to slow down the number of them who were sliding into receivership and

bankruptcy. This is the response that that sector of small business is

receiving — absolutely nothing.

Mr. Taylor pointed out that

he started out on April 1, 1971, as a one-person operation selling

Kawasaki motorcycles. By working six days a week, very long hours,

taking incredible financial risks, doing all the things he was told

spell success under the private enterprise system, he managed to build

his business up. He ended up with three stores and a total of 27

employees. As a matter of fact, he was doing so well that in April he

was voted Dealer of the Year and was regarded as the largest Kawasaki

motorcycle dealership in all Canada. He wrote all this in the letter he

sent to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, so the

minister knows it.

He pointed out that it's been a struggle;

he's been hanging on by his fingernails. But because he believes in the

private enterprise system he continued to work six days a week, to take

financial risks, to go without holidays.... I think he said he has had

one holiday of two and a half weeks in the last three years. But now he

found himself on the verge of bankruptcy. He wrote to the minister

because he had just received his tax notice from the municipality,

which, as a direct result of this government's policy and practices,

had been forced to increase his taxes by 35 percent. He pointed out in

the letter that in 1981 he had paid $6,882.12 in taxes. He had just

received his tax notice. This year he was going to have to pay

$9,259.22 — an increase of 34.54 percent on his municipal tax alone. In

addition, his hydro rates had increased, as had a number of other

service fees — such as his business licence — levied on him by this

government. He was being forced to the verge of bankruptcy not by what

the previous speaker, the Minister of Human Resources, referred to as

the "forces at play around the world"; he was being forced almost into

bankruptcy by this government, directly through the increases in their

fees and taxes which were being levied on him, so much so that he now

found himself having to close one of his stores, on the verge of

closing another, and reducing his staff to something like 13. He said

he was going to try to operate with a skeleton crew. Even so, he

couldn't guarantee that he would be able to keep them working fulltime;

they'd probably have to go on a seasonal basis or work part-time. In

his letter he referred to himself as "treading water" — not as a result

of international forces at play, but as a direct result of fees and

taxes levied on him by that government.

He took pen to paper

and wrote the minister a letter asking that there be some tax relief,

that there be some program introduced that would help people like him,

who believed in the system, to stay afloat. He pointed out that his

credit rating was so good that when he borrowed from the bank he got

bank rate, plus prime. He also pointed out that property values had

been dropping, including those of the properties that he had his own

business in, over the last nine months and that he really needed some

assistance.

When this bill was first introduced, the first

thing I thought was: "Thank goodness. Maybe Mr. Taylor will be able to

open up all his three stores again and rehire the employees who would

have been laid off." There would be 27 people in Burnaby back at work.

But I read the bill. There is no assistance whatsoever in this bill for

Mr. Taylor or for any other of those small business enterprises

involved in what is referred to as a service sector — the little

laundries, the corner stores, retail stores, the restaurants.

One

of the largest restaurants in Burnaby, which used to serve lunch and

dinner.... A treat for the residents of Burnaby was to go there for a

smorgasbord dinner on Sunday evening. Less than two months ago, when my

family and I tried to go there for dinner, we found that they weren't

serving dinner there any more. They were having to cut back and lay off

their staff. Now the only time they were open was during lunchtime.

They served a lunch, and that was it. They could not afford to continue

the excellent service they had been giving the residents of Burnaby.

They were feeling the pinch of the large increase in their municipal

taxes, in hydro and other utility rates, in their business licence and

other government fees. They were being forced to retrench, to cut back

and try to operate on a skeleton crew. They would have welcomed some

assistance in this legislation, but there's absolutely nothing in the

bill for them.

The little dress shops, the flower shops: the

plant shops, signs of bankruptcy and closing out. Some are businesses

that had been in existence for over 25 years. Others are staying open,

but going further and further into debt to the bank each month while

they do so. They were looking to the government for some assistance and

relief. Most of the problems they're facing are not the result of

international forces at play, but the direct result of being overtaxed

and overburdened as a result of the financial policies of this

government. There's no relief in this legislation for them. I'm hoping

that when the minister stands to close debate, he will explain to us

why.

[ Page 9373 ]

What

was the reasoning behind his decision not to help this very important

part of the small business community? Why did he decide to ignore the

service sector?

In her speech, the Minister of Human

Resources said this bill is going to be really great for the people for

whom she is responsible. She talked about people on welfare who would

rather work. She's right. I know that people on welfare would rather

work than receive income assistance. They are not working, for the most

part, because they have not been able to find jobs. As a direct result

of this government's policies there are, we are told — in the

statistics bulletins coming out of the Ministry of Labour — 84,000

fewer jobs in the province today than when this government took office

in 1979. We also know, by looking at the statistics coming out of Human

Resources, that the largest increase in people going on to income

assistance is for single, employable males. Men who want to work and

can't find work are showing the largest percentage increase in terms of

now applying for income assistance. If we look at the statistics coming

out of the ministry we find, for example, that in June 1981 there were

17, 942 single males receiving income assistance in this province; in

June 1982, that number had risen to 26, 326 single. We're also told

that British Columbia registered the largest number of people going on

to unemployment insurance in Canada last month: a 94 percent increase,

a direct result of losing their jobs through layoffs, cutbacks, plant

closures or whatever.

The other thing we know — and I know

the minister will not deny this — is that most of the people who work

in Canada work for small businesses. The small business community is

responsible for the creation of more jobs than anyone else, with the

possible exception of the Social Credit bureaucracy. So when the

minister and the government turn their backs on small business, they

are deliberately deciding that it is cheaper for the government to keep

people on welfare and unemployment insurance than to create jobs so

that they can work. There's something hypocritical in having one

government member stand up and say people would rather work than be on

welfare, and another government member doing absolutely nothing about

the creation of jobs. As a matter of fact, a third government member,

the Minister of Finance, is taxing the small business community out of

existence, thereby ensuring a further loss of jobs. There are 84,000

fewer jobs in this province as a direct result of Social Credit

policies and Social Credit actions, not as the result of international

forces at play, as the Minister of Human Resources would like us to

believe.

When we look at the statistics coming out of the

Ministry of Human Resources, and the number of family heads who would

rather be working but who are being forced to apply for income

assistance — 37,995 in July of this year; single parent heads,

25,252.... As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you add the dependants

to that, we find that this government would rather support 152,000

people on income assistance than create jobs so that those people can

work and support themselves.

This piece of legislation could

have addressed itself to that matter. Assistance to the small business

sector which is being forced into bankruptcy and foreclosure as a

direct result of being overtaxed by this government could have brought

some relief under this piece of legislation. They were not assisted;

there is nothing at all for them.

Another thing that this

government does, Mr. Speaker, which is really quite interesting is that

the small business community — even those who do manage to survive and

stay in existence — is continually being double-crossed by this

government in terms of jobs being exported rather than being allowed to

remain in the province here. I have a letter from Mr. Watson of Watson

Mobile Home Sales in Burnaby, who would have benefited if, when he

applied for one of the contracts to supply homes on the Tumbler Ridge

project, he had been accepted. What happens, Mr. Speaker....

MR. KEMPF: What happened to your red dress?

MS. BROWN:

I am discussing the dilemma of the small business community in Burnaby;

the member for Omineca is asking me what happened to my red dress. I

want this to be on the record, so I hope that Hansard is

reporting it, that when I rose on the floor of the Legislature to bring

to the government's attention the dilemma of the small business

community in Burnaby-Edmonds, the only questions put to me were about

where my red dress was. I hope Hansard has made a note of that,

because that, my friend, is going to get into the hands of a lot of the

small business community in Burnaby. The minister sat through all of

that. He's now reprimanding his irresponsible colleague.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

He's congratulating him. If the government paid as much attention to

the needs of the people of British Columbia as they paid to the clothes

I wear, I think the people of British Columbia would benefit.

However,

the decision was made not to support the application of Watson Mobile

Home Sales on Kingsway for the contract for housing at Tumbler Ridge.

That contract went to an Alberta company. So not only is there

overtaxation, not only are they overburdened by government fees and

licences, but even when it is possible for them to compete for

contracts here in British Columbia the government does absolutely

nothing to assist them to win those contracts, and the jobs are

exported out of the province. The contract for the mobile homes went to

Alberta. Watson Mobile Home Sales in Burnaby, which submitted an

application, went by the boards: they lost the contract.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, in discussing this piece of legislation I want to

remind you that this is the minister and the ministry which, as one of

their first acts after taking office, wiped out the women's economic

rights branch. Just to refresh your memory about some statistics, Mr.

Speaker, all the statistics that we have point out, first of all, that

most of the poor people in this country, as in this province, are

women. In 1982 Stats Canada told us that as far as incomes are

concerned, women average half the income — working women that is — that

men do. So keeping, that kind of information in mind, Mr. Speaker, in

1973, the then Minister of Industrial Development introduced the

women's economic rights branch, including within its mandate assistance

to women who wanted to open their own small business.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The position was never set up, so don't give me that malarkey.

[ Page 9374 ]

MS. BROWN:

Not only was the position set up, but there was also a person in that

job. Eileen Caner was a director of the women's economic rights branch,

which was introduced in November 1973. I can't believe that the

minister doesn't even know that much about his ministry. On November 8,

1973, she was appointed director of the women's economic rights branch.

Part of the responsibility of that branch was to assist women who

wanted to go into small business or who were in business and having

problems keeping their heads above water or who wanted to expand. That

was part of the mandate; that was one way of dealing with the poverty

that so many women in this province experienced.

I One of the very first acts of that minister, when he

took over his portfolio, was to wipe out the women's economic rights

branch. He was questioned about it, and he explained that they would be

fitted under something known as a socioeconomic analysis unit, the

economic analysis and research bureau. Put them under that umbrella and

the job would be done. Obviously it wasn't done. If that branch had

done the job, the minister would have had the information that would

have told him that any kind of legislation to assist small business, if

it is really to be of benefit to women, has to include assistance to

the service sector of the small business community. It has to include

assistance to the retail businesses — laundries, restaurants, corner

stores, dress shops, shoe-repair stores. That's where most of the women

are: in the service-sector component of the small business community.

If the Minister of Industry had not been so anxious to destroy the

women's economic rights branch...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How can you destroy something that was never there in the first place?

MS. BROWN: ...which

was introduced on November 8, 1973, and whose director was Mrs. Eileen

Caner, if the minister had not been in such a hurry, as have other

ministers in his government, to immediately start eroding any kind of

assistance or service to the women of this province, he would have had

the information that would have made him include in this legislation to

help the small business community assistance for the service sector as

well. By wiping out the women's economic rights branch, he lost

statistical information, because part of its mandate was to monitor and

to prepare statistics and information for the ministry. He has also

lost the review of available programs that do exist for women and any

understanding of the gaps that exist and the need for the assistance

they must have.

What we have is an instance of chickens

coming home to roost. The minister has made this very serious mistake.

Today, in 1982, we have legislation with a very serious flaw in it — a

direct result of his actions in 1976 and again in 1979, when he phased

it into the socioeconomic analysis unit, the economic analysis and

research bureau. It disappeared from the face of the earth after that.

I am hoping that when the minister stands up to close this debate he

will tell us that he has amended the legislation so that any assistance

in it will be extended to cover the service sector. Manufacturing and

processing, high technology, and resource-related transportation is too

narrow. It just doesn't cover most of the small business community in

Burnaby-Edmonds, as I pointed out. There is some manufacturing and

processing there, but for the most part they are service industry

people who are feeling the pinch of overtaxation and increases in

business licences. As a matter of fact, I think it was the Canadian

Federation of Independent Businesses which documented something in the

neighbourhood of 131 such increases in excess of the current inflation

figure.

When the minister rises to close the debate I hope

we will find that he has amended the legislation to broaden its mandate

to include the service sector. He's nodding his head in agreement; I

hope that means he has seen the light. By doing so he will be helping

the people about whom the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) spoke: the 151,000 people presently in receipt of income

assistance. He would do something about the 94 percent increase in

people receiving unemployment insurance, and it certainly would be of

benefit to small business in Burnaby and to the many women who depend

on the service sector for employment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, it's been a good debate from this side of the House, but

not too much has emanated from the socialist benches, as I had rather

anticipated. They're so full of "me too" lately that it's astounding.

They're going to support the bill, but they want a little more added to

it. It's very interesting, because they thought there was going to be

an election last spring. So they came out with what you might call a

great economic program to woo business: let's get moving. What's the

date? March 26, 1982.

When I say "me too," it's amazing,

because I've gone over this economic program that they unveiled to woo

the business community, and there was not one single, solitary word in

their whole program about assisting the small business community with

lower interest rates. Yet, by gosh, today you'd think they had invented

it and that it wasn't big enough. They came out with the great NDP

economic program to woo the business community. There was not one

single Word in there about assisting small business with lower interest

rates.

I had to listen with a great deal of interest to the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who, when the socialists were

government in that short time between 1972 and 1975, rambled on

tirelessly about the small business community. He mainly brought up

questions that I had already answered in the House yesterday afternoon.

That has been typical of the debate for the last three or four years.

The NDP do not stay in the House; they do not listen to the debate.

Then they come in from outside, wherever they hide, under the telephone

books in their offices, and go over the same things that have been

explained to them time and time again in the House.

If I may

be so bold as to say so, Mr. Speaker, I think they're over at the

University of British Columbia trying to find some socialist students.

The pendulum is swinging, not only in British Columbia but all over

North America. Young, intelligent people today are sick and tired of

socialism. Young people growing up today are sick and tired of union

bosses and unions, when they can't get a job in their own province. The

socialists over there and the NDP union bosses have been in bed

together so long that they're almost one.

The NDP are a

little tired today and a little scared that an election is going to be

called. The union coffers are down a little bit, and they may not have

all those union stewards out driving around in union cars, putting

union gas in them and going all over the province. I think they're a

little concerned. They're going through the phone book, phoning their

constituents who have children in UBC and saying: "How come your young

son, your young daughter, is no longer a socialist? What happened?" You

can peddle that stuff only so long.

[ Page 9375 ]

The young, intelligent people who are going to our universities and schools today are not buying your socialism any longer.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

want to reiterate, for the benefit of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) who has just arrived in the Legislature from his busy, busy

duties, that when the NDP laid out their economic recovery program last

March — when they thought there was going to be an election, they

brought out a 26-point program — there wasn't one word about helping

with the interest rates that the small business community was

suffering. Now that we're bringing it in, they're saying: "Oh my

gracious. We want more. We want it enlarged." You'd think it was their

idea. But that's typical of them — not one word. I'll have a little

something to say about this later.

Do you know where they're going to get some of the money for this economic recovery program of theirs?

MR. RITCHIE: Out of the trees.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No, they're going to get it out of the petroleum industry. What a

laugh! The socialists who supported the socialists in Ottawa to drive

the petroleum industry out of British Columbia. Talk about a heritage

fund. They have driven the heritage funds from all of Canada, not only

British Columbia but even the poor province of Alberta. The socialist

philosophy, and getting in bed with Marc Lalonde, who was the Minister

of Energy, drove the petroleum industry out of Canada at a time when we

needed new petroleum resources. That's the type of experience we had in

this province between 1972 and 1975. After the world energy crisis of

1973, when there was demand for the petroleum products in British

Columbia and prices were increasing, they managed, through their

policies, to drive the petroleum industry out of British Columbia.

I've said in the House, the fellow from Vancouver East who used to be

Minister of Energy should have worked for Warner Bros. or RCA or

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. He created more ghost towns in the northeast

section of this province than they ever dared think about. And they

dare to talk about a heritage fund. We're talking about this bill to

create a climate to help the small business community, and they're

yacking over there like a bunch of chickens that are in the com.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, orderly debate and parliamentary language.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

They've said that we have nothing going in this province except

northeast coal. They seem to forget that one of the first major

projects that we brought in to get the petroleum industry back into

British Columbia was to build a pipeline and a new refinery in the

northeast

section of the province. The experts over there stood up and

said: "Don't ever build a pipeline, don't build a gas-processing plant,

because there's no gas up there." They fought it; they were against it.

That was one of the first projects that this little government started,

to put people to work. We brought in policies to put people to work in

our gas fields, and in our oil fields in the northeast. Lo and behold,

we just get it going nicely — Fort St. John was the fastest growing

community in all of Canada, thanks to the policies of this government —

and what happened? The socialist philosophies came emanating out of the

benches opposite carrying over into the socialist benches in Ottawa.

What happened in six short months? They killed the industry; they

killed the northeast

section of this province they killed Fort St.

John. They talk about a heritage fund, and they're going to take money

from the petroleum industry to help the small business community. You

know. Mr. Speaker, they're great people to help the small business

community.

Oh, what else are they going to do? I want you to

listen, my friends. They're going to have a three-year phase-out of the

corporation capital tax. Who brought in the corporation capital tax? I

ask every, small businessman in British Columbia to help me answer that

question. Because I remember standing on that side of the House,

telling them that it was punitive taxation on the small business

community in British Columbia. Who has relieved the small businessman

of the corporation capital tax? Not the socialists opposite who brought

it in, but this government. Who has reduced the income tax on small

business to one of the lowest income taxes in Canada? I'll tell you, it

wasn't the socialists opposite. It was the Social Credit government.

What did their financial expert over there say about the reduction in

the small business income tax when it was reduced from 10 to 8 percent?

Now they're all in favour of the small business community, but what did

the financial critic have to say when we introduced that measure to

reduce taxes on small business? This is the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) speaking, their financial critic:

reducing the tax on the smaller corporations to 8 percent, what we are

really saying to the people who own small businesses is that you, who

already have certain advantages in the income tax legislation that are

not available to individuals, can claim expenses and deductions that

the ordinary individual receiving salary or wages can't claim, In

addition to having those advantages, we're going to give you one more

advantage.

They were against the reduction of income tax on

small business. They say to the small business community: "You can

juggle the salary. wages and dividends you take out of your company.

The net effect will be that the receiver-general will get less money.

If you play the rules the way they're written. To that extent I don't

support the reduction in taxes."

That came from the benches

opposite — the socialists opposite — who today stand up and want to

claim what great supporters of the small business community they are.

You talk about deathbed repentance, my friends! Mr. Speaker, I want to

read this into the record again: "To that extent I do not support the

reduction in taxes to the small corporations, because it is disturbing

the relationship intended to make it fair to taxpayers generally." They

didn't support the reduction of taxes to the small business community

when we brought it in a year ago last spring, Mr. Speaker. I want that

to be emanated to all the small businesses in this province.

They

say we haven't done anything for the small business community. Well,

I'll tell you what they did for the small business community when they

were government. They tried to tax them out of existence. because to

them profit was a dirty word. "Oh, we can't have anybody in this

province making a profit, and we can't have anybody building new

buildings and building up assets." I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, what did

they want to do when the owner of a small business died or passed away"

Would they allow it to be passed on to the son or the daughter? No.

I'll tell you, when we eliminated

[ Page 9376 ]

the

death taxes and succession duties, who was against it? The socialists

opposite were against it. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this little

government here has done more to detax the small business community in

British Columbia than any jurisdiction. All they did when they were

government was add punitive tax after punitive tax onto the small

business community, and every time we have relieved the small business

community of some of those punitive taxes, they have been against it.

I'll

tell you, they want to tax the small business community while they're

alive, and they wanted to tax them into their deathbed, and when they

went to their deathbed they wanted to tax them again! Oh, I want to

tell you, Mr. Speaker, they're great me-tooers now. They're going to

help. They want the relief that we're bringing in, the interest rates.

They want to me-too-it; they want to add to it. As I say, when they

brought in their great economic recovery program last March because

they thought there was going to be an election, was there one single

thing in that program to relieve the small business community of high

interest rates? Absolutely not. Where were they going to get the money

from? Oh, they were going to get it from the petroleum industry, which

they drove out of the province. Then they were going to get it from the

extra economic activity it was going to create. In other words, they

were going to spend the tax dollars before they even made them.

want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, our restraint program combined with our

economic recovery program is going to do more for the small business

community than the hot air emanating from the benches opposite for the

small business community. I'm surprised to see so many of them in the

House again because I thought they were all over at UBC looking for

socialists. They can't find any socialists at UBCM anymore.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. Premier and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to come to order. The minister continues.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I just have to wonder, when we listen to the socialists

opposite who supported the Ottawa government, what western Canada would

be like today had the socialists in Ottawa and the socialists opposite

supported with the same vim and vigor, the same courage, and the same

determination the Mackenzie Valley pipeline that we attacked the

development of the northeast coal with. I want to tell you, where would

western Canada be today? Every program that this government has ever

brought in has been opposed by the socialists opposite.

They

have the audacity to stand in this Legislature and tell us that all

we've done is bring in northeast coal. In a time when there is a

worldwide recession, and no great demand for a lot of our materials,

what do we have going on the drawing-board, not even started yet? What

do we have? We have a new $1.2 billion LNG project, which will supply

thousands and thousands of opportunities for our small business

community, not only in the Prince Rupert area but in those communities

that line the pipeline route where they will be spending $550 million

on the pipeline. Not only along the route, Mr. Speaker, but also in the

northeast

section of our province, where hopefully the petroleum

industry will come back again because we have to have the gas.

Through

this great project we are diversifying our market. And who was against

the LNG project? Last year the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) stood

in this Legislature and chastized the then Minister of Energy, because

he said the LNG project shouldn't go ahead. They said the Grizzly

Valley pipeline shouldn't go ahead, the Pine River plant and the

scrubbing plant shouldn't go ahead. Every single project that this

government has ever tried to bring in has been opposed by those

negative, harping, carping critics — the socialists opposite.

the drawing-boards is another coal-mine in the northeast. Monkman coal

project, the third major mine in the northeast coal project, is now in

stage two. But I want to tell you it will never go ahead if those birds

ever again form the government; neither will the LNG project. I've

mentioned just two projects that are in the planning stages and will go

ahead now in a time of economic recession.

I want to talk to

you for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, about some of the other projects

that are going ahead in British Columbia at the present time, long-term

planning projects developed in our economic blueprint some five and six

years ago which are proceeding today. I stood in this Legislature last

year when they said we were building monuments to Social Credit. I

said: "We're building monuments to the people of British Columbia." At

that time I named about 24 projects that were proceeding, all projects

for the workers of this province. I never heard them mention monuments

again during that session. But today, because it has such a bearing on

the small business community, I'm going to have to talk to you for just

a few moments about the other projects that are going on. Member after

member opposite has stood in this Legislature and said: "The only thing

they've got going for them is northeast coal."

MR. LEA: Nobody said that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, nobody said that. Speaker after speaker over there has said it. Some of them whined a lot worse than that.

I said, Mr. Speaker, I stood here yesterday and talked about the

thousands and thousands of jobs created by the British Columbia

Development Corporation — not megaprojects, but happening all over the

province. People are gainfully employed.

MR. COCKE: The Waddling Dog?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the member for New Westminster. I want to

talk about that. That member said we gave a political advantage to the

person who built the new hotel and owned the Waddling Dog and the

Imperial Esso station on the way to the airport. He said we gave him a

political advantage...

MR. COCKE: No, an economic advantage: three million bucks.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: All right, economic and political advantage.

...because

he used to put up signs condemning the socialist policies of the NDP.

We loaned that man some $3 million-plus, and we were so hard on him, so

high with our interest rate, and made so many demands, that the

gentleman went elsewhere and got his financing and paid us out. That's

[ Page 9377 ]

the

way that party over there continues to twist the facts. When they were

running the British Columbia Development Corporation they shovelled

money out the back end of a truck to anybody who held an NDP card.

There was no sense or sanity about anything, whether the business was

viable or not. If they held an NDP card they got a loan from the

British Columbia Development Corporation. It's not so any more. We had

to write off literally millions and millions of dollars that you lent

out for political purposes, my friends, when you were running the

corporation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could return to orderly debate on Bill 82, and members could not interrupt the minister now speaking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In closing the debate, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to answer some of

the questions raised by the socialists opposite, because otherwise they

would be critical of the minister for not answering.

Another monument, or project, that is ready for economic expansion was built

by this government through the Development Corporation: one of the greatest

industrial parks on this Island, Duke Point at Nanaimo. It was talked about

while they were there; nothing was ever done. It took this government, this

ministry, to get the project off the ground, now ready for economic expansion

and jobs here on Vancouver Island.

the not-too-distant future somewhere we will be starting another

project which will employ a thousand people in a high-technology

industry. It happens to be a little engine plant. We worked with

Canadian Pacific here, kept it in British Columbia instead of it going

to Manitoba where it would have been heavily subsidized by the

socialists in Ottawa or Toronto. We managed to talk to them and put

together a package. Now a great new economic activity will soon be

starting here in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

If you can't stand the heat, get right out of the kitchen, my friend.

To the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), if you can't stand the

facts, just go run over to UBC and look for a socialist on the campus.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, nobody complains about you, my friend. They've never heard of

you. You go answer your phone. Then come in here and stand up in debate

and don't know what's going on. If you don't want to hear the facts,

you go answer your phone.

There are thousands of people

being employed by the redevelopment of New Westminster, thousands of

people being employed by the development of Lonsdale Quay. Those are

projects that are going ahead today. Do you know why they're going

ahead today? Because they were part of our overall economic blueprint.

And they have the audacity to stand up and say that nothing is going in

the province except northeast coal.

Our shipyards are

today employing thousands and thousands of people, selling ships to

many other countries in the world, in part because of the work of this

ministry in assisting their sales people to break into the

international markets.That's why we're selling tuna boats to Mexico and the PhiIlipines. That's why our shipyards are busy.

have a program in my ministry and it's called financial assistance for

developing markets. It is an aid program to assist the business

community in the offshore market. A number of industries in the

province of British Columbia are so busy today because of the

assistance that we have given them to break into that very competitive

international marketplace. We have what we call our export-promotion

assistance. That's a market development program, whereby we assist

firms in finding new export market opportunities. We have an incoming

buyers program, whereby we assist potential buyers to come into the

province and meet businesses from which they may be interested in

buying some goods or services. We have a trade show program. All of

these programs assist the small and medium-sized business community in

British Columbia. We have a program for assistance in developing new

products, whereby we give them technical assistance to analyze the

market. We have a product-development management program. We have a

management assistance program for the small business community, whereby

we give management assistance, assistance to associations and small

business counselling. We have an advisory information service for small

business counselling, audiovisual seminars, regional economic

development commissions, publications, and on and on. All these

programs were developed by this government in the last six years to

help the small business community.

What, I have to ask you,

Mr. Speaker, did the socialists do for the small business community

when they were government? I'll tell you what they did. They taxed them

almost out of existence. They created an economic climate in British

Columbia in which there was no new investment coming in, no new

opportunities, no projects on the drawing board. In 1975, when the ship

of state was almost on the rocks, the then social welfare Premier and

Minister of Finance deserted the ship and passed it over to the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in a last-ditch effort to try to save it. It

was too late. It had created in this province no confidence for the

future. Nobody was investing. There were no opportunities for the small

business community.

Mr. Speaker, they say that we haven't

done anything in this province except megaprojects. What else have they

got in the NDP's new economic program? What are they going to do? They

are going to establish a tourism development fund. They must have been

going around this province with their eyes closed for the last five

years. We have a tourism development fund. Who in heaven's name do you

think assisted the tourist industry to establish British Columbia as a

12-months-a-year tourist area? It was this government. We didn't just

go out and talk about developing the ski areas in this province; we've

done it right here, up Island at Mount Washington. Who helped Mount

Washington get off the ground? It was this government. What has that

done for the Courtenay-Comox area? It has brought in opportunities for

the small business community in that area. Now the motels not only get

summer tourists, but the motels and restaurants are full in the

wintertime. That is the policy of assisting the small business

community. Did they do anything? No. They talked about it. How do you

think Hudson Bay Mountain in Struthers came into being? Not because of

a lot of hot air and promises, but because of a program this government

brought in.

[ Page 9378 ]

MR. STUPICH: Look what they did with Mt. St. Helen's.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

There's the member for Nanaimo, who was against reducing income tax for

the small business community, asking frivolous questions.

want to talk about a few more projects that are presently going on in

British Columbia. I cannot allow the socialists to go around this

province and perpetuate the myth that the only thing this Social Credit

government has done for the economy is northeast coal. As a matter of

fact, northeast coal certainly is a major project, and a lot of

planning went into it. It's part of our economic blueprint, but only a

very small portion of our total economic blueprint. All you have to do

is go around this province to see the other projects going on to

realize that in spite of an economic recession there are many projects

at the present time. Thousands and thousands of people are employed

today, people who would otherwise be unemployed. Of all the projects

that are going on today, those socialists opposite were against every

one of them.

They talk about the small business community.

What did they do for the small business community when they were

government? What did they do for the small contractors? They said: "If

you're going to bid on any government work, you've got to be

unionized." That's a great help to the small business community. First

they bring in heavy taxes on them and then they tell them they have to

be unionized before they can bid on any government project. Now they're

all for the small business community.

Today there is a major

expansion going on at Roberts Bank which will triple the coal-loading

facilities in that area. Thousands of people are employed. The Canadian

National Railway is upgrading....

MR. LEGGATT: You'd better sell more coal.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the member for Coquitlam-Moody again. Thousands of people are gainfully employed in that development.

MR. LEGGATT: Are we going to need it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Certainly we're going to need it, but you'd never think so to listen to

you negative socialists opposite. You'd close down the province. When

you were government, all you did was run around and shovel money out

the back of a truck to welfare recipients. You stand up here and

pontificate about what you'd do. The people of this province and the

people of Canada are sick and tired of the socialist policies that

emanate from you people and from Ottawa.

I could go on and

talk about the other major projects going on all over the province,

whether it's a new trade and convention centre, a new grain terminal at

Ridley Island, a new petrochemical storage area on Ridley Island, the

new ALRT being developed on the lower mainland, further expansion at

Duke Point or at Roberts Bank, the Annacis Island bridge, the Ocelot

plant at Kitimat that just opened. It doesn't matter where you go. I

was in Quesnel not long ago. What's going on in Quesnel? A new pulpmill

opened up there a short time ago — an $11 million expansion. Nothing

going on! All of the activity going on in this province is a direct

result of the policies of this government. It's a direct result of the

longterm planning of this government. It's a direct result of our

blueprint for economic stability in this province. When times are now

tough in the rest of