1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 10

[ Page 5583 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Hagen: Visiting the Legislature today are members of the B.C. firefighters, who are meeting with MLAs about issues of importance to them. We welcome them on an annual basis, and I'd like the House to welcome them to our assembly.

V. Anderson: I'd like to welcome to the House today Larry Buttress and Malcolm Boswell of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, who are visiting the House today.

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two people I would like the House to welcome today: Denise and Michele Della Mattia, who are extended family of some of the people who work in this minister's office.

J. Dalton: There are several visitors in the gallery that I would like the House to welcome. Mr. Ken Michael, a long-time friend and a rugby buddy of mine is accompanied by Fan Chan and her daughter Mimi Wang. I would also like the House to welcome a constituent and neighbour, Mr. Tim Hollick-Kenyon.

Hon. P. Priddy: Since the Minister of Social Services is not here, there's someone in the gallery who is a friend and colleague, and an activist in a sister riding to mine: Fred Girling. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Ministerial Statements

GOVERNMENT SHARES IN MACMILLAN BLOEDEL

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would like to make a statement respecting a matter that has been before the House in recent days. Members will be aware that Stephen Owen, commissioner on resources and environment, last week released a public report respecting the government's Clayoquot Sound land use decision, to which the government is preparing a response. Mr. Owen's report recommended in part that the government request the conflict-of-interest commissioner, hon.

Ted Hughes, to undertake a special assignment, pursuant to sections 15.1 and 16 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, to inquire and report to the Legislative Assembly on the issue of potential, real or apparent conflict of interest arising from the government's ownership of shares in MacMillan Bloedel.

In recent days, in response to this issue, I have referred members to the Financial Administration Act, which provides that there is no actual conflict of interest between the various roles of government, be they those responsible for investment of taxpayers' dollars or those of taxation and regulation of corporations. However, government acknowledges the importance of public perception in these matters. We accept the need for this issue to be resolved to assure the public that there was no impropriety in the government's actions and to protect the integrity of, and the confidence in, the Vancouver Island CORE process.

To this end, cabinet today has approved an order-in-council appointing, pursuant to the Inquiry Act, Hon. Mr. Justice Peter D. Seaton as sole commissioner to immediately inquire into and report on this matter using terms of reference reached in discussion with Justice Seaton.

These terms of reference are: (1) whether the government was in a conflict of interest related to the purchase by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations of additional shares of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. on or about February 9, 1993, and the government policy regarding Clayoquot Sound; (2) whether there was compliance with sections 36 to 36.2 of the Financial Administration Act in relation to the ownership and purchase of shares of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.; and (3) to make recommendations to protect the public interest arising from consideration of the above matters.

As I have noted, the recommendation of Stephen Owen was that this matter be dealt with under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. However, as I have stated in this House on previous days, the government has concerns respecting Commissioner Hughes's previous role as Deputy Attorney General during the time that pertinent amendments were made to sections of the Financial Administration Act, which are part of this inquiry. While the government and, I am sure, all members of the House maintain the utmost confidence in Commissioner Hughes, the government's concern about this specific issue persists.

I am certain members will agree that in the appointment of the hon. Mr. Justice Seaton to inquire into this matter, we have put in place a process worthy of the public's confidence.

W. Hurd: The opposition is pleased that the government has initiated an investigation into the share purchase by the B.C. Endowment Fund, but I think it's important to acknowledge the reason the opposition asked the conflict-of-interest commissioner to be involved. Clearly the rules for individual members in this assembly not only spell out a real conflict, hon. Speaker, but they also spell out a perception of conflict, which every member of this assembly is governed by.

It therefore continues to be the position of the opposition that Mr. Hughes should have been the one to initiate this investigation. However, we accept the fact that the government has decided to appoint an outside investigator, and we look forward with a great deal of interest to what recommendations he may come up with on the principle of government owning shares in a corporation which can clearly benefit from a decision of cabinet.

C. Serwa: This is a most interesting ministerial statement. Talk about an initiative to close the barn doors after the horses have left. This really takes the cake.

[ Page 5584 ]

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Yes, indeed. This perception is reality. There are two issues here. One is a genuine conflict of interest of the government of the day in acquiring those shares just prior to the announcement, and the public has a right to be concerned about it. The second issue that they've tried to roll into one is the integrity of the commissioner of CORE. That commissioner's integrity was in fact compromised by the Premier of the province, who insisted that the commissioner of CORE accompany him. That compromised the integrity of not only the commissioner but also of the CORE process. So there are two separate issues here.

It was interesting also, in the matter of the instructions in the preview of this, that the instructions are in fact subjective. The purpose is to assure the public that there was no impropriety in the government's actions. Are these implied instructions to a justice, to Mr. Justice Peter Seaton? They certainly are clearly evident that these are implied, rather than objectively stating the need for the question. And in allowing the justice to come back in with his recommendation, we have implied a set of directions for the justice. I'm disappointed in that particular bias exhibited by our Attorney General.

There seems to be implied here some question of the integrity of Mr. Hughes. It is questioned whether Mr. Hughes, because of his former association as deputy minister of the Ministry of the Attorney General, is fit to judge this. I would suggest quite the contrary, hon. Speaker. It's specifically Mr. Hughes's strong integrity, fairness and sense of balance that particularly concerns the government. That's clearly evident. It's been demonstrated in this particular case by the quality of an individual like Stephen Owen, who was staunch enough in his sense of fairness and justice to make a statement with respect to the public perception.

[2:15]

So while the government has made a step in the right direction, they've made the step much too late. Because of decisions already taken, it will be impossible to clear up that public perception that indeed the government has compromised themselves, the commissioner of CORE and the process in order to make some quick dollars on a fortuitous share purchase.

DAY OF MOURNING FOR KILLED OR INJURED WORKERS

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that today has been proclaimed a day of mourning for workers killed or seriously injured on the job in British Columbia last year. The cost to workers, employers and to our economy was staggering last year: 161 workers killed on the job; 3,600 workers permanently disabled; 7,700 workers taking time off because of injuries; 160,000 WCB claims for injuries; and 3.1 million days lost because of workplace injuries, not including fatalities.

I know that I speak for all members of the House when I say that we deeply mourn the 161 British Columbian workers who were killed on the job during 1992. Their deaths are a tragic loss for their families, friends, co-workers and employers.

Members may recall that on the same occasion last year, I pointed out that the best way for us to express our deeply felt regret at the loss of these workers was to redouble our efforts toward making our workplaces safer. There has been no greater injustice in British Columbia than the absence of health and safety regulations for the 30,000 men and women who work on B.C. farms and ranches.

Workers' compensation has existed in this province for 75 years. Over that time there have been too many injuries, too many deaths and too many families that have suffered. In the last ten years alone some 59 long-term disability claims have been paid with regard to injuries in the agricultural sector -- a total of 1,096 injuries, with claims totalling about $5.1 million.

The time has come to provide justice and protection for these farmworkers. I'm pleased to advise the House today that on Friday, April 30, 1993, farmworkers will officially have the protection which has been denied to them for so long. On the 30th I will be meeting with farmworkers and the Workers' Compensation Board to officially sign the regulations and bring them into full force and effect.

I would like to express the government's thanks and appreciation to the committee drawn from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Farmworkers' Union and chaired by WCB governor Mark Thompson for the remarkable work they have done to achieve this milestone farm safety agreement. By any standards, what they accomplished was significant, because the safety regulations had to cover a wide range of agricultural operations, such as tractor and equipment safety, pesticide and chemical fertilizer use, personal and protective equipment use, farm structures and farm operations.

During its first five months of deliberations, the committee drafted the 150 regulations covering all these complex operations. What makes the achievement even more remarkable is that it was attained through a process of consultation and consensus, not only with the Federation of Agriculture and the farmworkers' union but with hundreds of farmers and workers who attended public hearings held early in March in the Okanagan and Fraser Valleys. Twenty additional suggestions made at the public hearings were incorporated into the final regulations.

British Columbia is also pioneering a new process for implementing health and safety regulations on the farm. The WCB, along with the board of directors of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Farmworkers' Union, are establishing a Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Agency, which will be known as FARSHA. While the WCB will retain its legal right to ensure the new regulations are enforced, the agency will assist it in an advisory role in establishing inspection programs specifically modelled for the agriculture sector and making representations available to the board for inspections.

The agency will be responsible for developing a wide range of educational programs that will assist farmers and farmworkers to become familiar with the new regulations and to use

[ Page 5585 ]

them to their advantage. I should add that all materials regarding the new safety measures are available in Punjabi, Chinese, French and Japanese, and that the wording of the warning signs is in the language of the workers.

I understand that the Workers' Compensation Board will soon be approving a budget of some $200,000 for the agency to begin developing and implementing its educational program. As I mentioned earlier, we salute the agriculture industry and the WCB and its committee for this monumental agreement and for the fact that it should be operating as early as this summer.

In the industrial, forestry and construction sectors we have made good progress in reviewing and updating our safety regulations in these fields during the past year. Our task for the future is not only to reduce the number of accidents on the job but also to cut down the number of occupational diseases in the workplace. Therefore I want to put all members on notice that in the months ahead there will be additional and significant changes, with regard to both regulations and procedures, at the Workers' Compensation Board to better protect the interests of working men and women.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would be remiss if I did not mention the passing last week of Cesar Chavez, the leader of the United Farm Workers in California. He fought for better working conditions and improved levels of safety for the people who picked vegetables and fruit for the tables of North America. Before Mr. Chavez, these people were truly outside the American dream, marginalized by the colour of their skin and the labour they performed. His boycotts secured, first, the right to certify as a union and, second, the right to work under safe conditions. These campaigns reverberated across the continent.

I know that Mr. Chavez was also instrumental in developing the Canadian Farmworkers' Union.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the minister says is true to a certain extent, regarding the fact that there has been some progress made on a number of issues at Workers' Compensation and on health and safety of workers in general. But I think all I need to do, in reply to the minister, is quote the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca when he spoke in this House some time ago, because I think he summed it up best. He said:

"The perception persists of a large, unwieldy bureaucracy not meeting the needs of injured workers. Workers and their reps voice concerns that the system is becoming so incomprehensible and legalistic that it's not really available to them. There's poor linkage between claims and rehabilitation.

"Pension delays are far too long. There's no face-to-face with pension decision-makers. There's no literature on how the pension system works. Pension reviews are not balanced in the area of loss of earnings and percentage of disability."

He went on to say:

"There are complaints about policy consultation: too much paper, too many studies and not enough actual positive change and results. There is concern within the WCB that there are too many committees and that responses to reports detract from the real mission of WCB to protect, rehabilitate and compensate workers.

"What is happening after all these studies are lined up? In the claims area, it has resulted in another management study, an internal study, extended deadlines and more subcommittees on those issues. In the appeals area, there are review board delays -- a 6,000 case backlog. This is unacceptable. Some 1,000 hearing slots were lost last year. The average waiting period just to get a hearing date is seven months. There are strained relations between the review board and the appeal division.... 700 appeals are in the inventory, but it seems to be a problem maintaining commitment to continue to try to meet statutory duties of timely decisions."

In conclusion, the member stated: "We have complaints about workers' treatment, the delays at WCB, executive salaries and pension schemes, a deteriorating financial picture and statements like: 'We have to get more workers kicked off WCB.' I can tell you...that kicking isn't needed at the workers; the kicking is needed elsewhere."

While the minister has made some progress, there is a heck of a lot more work to be done at WCB, and I would hope that in the next few years you'll get down to it.

L. Hanson: I and my party certainly join in extending our sympathies to the families of people who are injured in the workplace. I think all of us have had first-hand experience in dealing with people who have difficulty with the system in getting what they felt was a fair examination of their case. I do know that there has been some progress made in those areas. I'm not sure that the progress has completely answered all of those problems, but certainly there has been some progress made.

I have some concern with the minister's statement about what a great situation it is with the regulations relating to the farmworkers, because the message that I'm getting is that it isn't as happy an arrangement as the minister might have suggested. But I suspect that we will learn more about that as time goes on and as those regulations are actually applied to the farming community. There is no doubt that we as government and as citizens of British Columbia should recognize and join the people -- and their families -- who have been so badly hurt by accidents that happen in the workplace. Our side of the opposition certainly supports that.

Introduction of Bills

ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. T. Perry presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. T. Perry: I am pleased to introduce today Bill 15, Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, which contains

[ Page 5586 ]

proposed amendments to the Institute of Technology Act, the Open Learning Agency Act and the University Act.

The Purpose Of These Amendments Is: (1) to allow for the recovery by the government of savings resulting from strikes or lockouts at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, at the Open Learning Agency and at provincial universities; and (2) to repeal

section 2 of the University Act, which provides that the Lieutenant-Governor is the visitor of each university, with authority to do all acts which pertain to visitors. I assure the hon. members that the Lieutenant-Governor supports that initiative.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL CLOSURE

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last night a community rally, led by the health union members, was held outside the Vancouver city hall. A letter from Ken Georgetti was read which called for the provincial government to immediately establish a process of public consultation regarding the Shaughnessy Hospital decision; and saying that consultation ends with a decision, it does not begin with one.

Dare the minister say no to Mr. Georgetti's call for renewed public consultation?

Hon. E. Cull: Mr. Bert Boyd has an extensive consultation process underway, which involves dozens of people -- both inside and outside of the hospital -- in determining the relocation of the services of Shaughnessy Hospital. If there is anyone -- workers, community people or particular health-interest stakeholders -- who want to join into that task force, they are more than welcome to join any of the committees which are looking at specific services.

[2:30]

V. Anderson: We did hear from Mr. Boyd last night, but he did not provide any of the answers that you talk about. Also in that rally last night Carmela Allevato spoke on behalf of her members, saying: "Let there be no misunderstanding. We stand for keeping Shaughnessy open. We stand for public consultation."

Will the minister say yes to the considered demand for a public review of the Shaughnessy decision from the very people with whom she is now trying to negotiate a contract?

Hon. E. Cull: The decision to close the old Shaughnessy Hospital building is a sound decision. There is a surplus of 500 acute care hospital beds in the city of Vancouver and a shortage of over 800 beds in the growing areas of the Fraser Valley. This decision will allow us to reallocate $40 million in savings to those parts of the province which need more acute care hospital services, and we stand with that decision.

V. Anderson: My final supplemental is to the Minister of Women's Equality. The major theme in the presentation at that rally last evening was that this is a women's issue, because it affects the women's centre and the women's assault program, and the emergency services that support those, and all the other auxiliary services that are part of that. We heard the vice-president of the Canadian Automobile Workers' Union and Maureen Whelan of the Health Sciences Association demanding a new task force for public consultation regarding Shaughnessy Hospital.

Will the Minister of Women's Equality listen to these women's demands and encourage the Minister of Health to have the public consultation they demand?

Hon. P. Priddy: This minister and this government will continue to listen, as they have throughout the last 18 months, to women in British Columbia. This government, including this ministry and other government members, has worked closely with the Women's Health Centre at Shaughnessy Hospital and has ensured that the services for that centre are supported and safe, and it will continue to do so.

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last night the Vancouver City Council moved a motion to create a task force to review the programs and to ask the transition team to defer the decision to close Shaughnessy Hospital. Yet the Minister of Health stood in this House on Monday and said that she had the support of the Vancouver City Council to close Shaughnessy Hospital. Why did you say that you had that support?

Hon. E. Cull: The support of Mayor Gordon Campbell of Vancouver was evident by his presence at the press conference and the remarks he made at the press conference and also, I believe, by the remarks he made last night.

L. Reid: The mayor did not speak to the question last night. He in fact has said that he has the support of his council, which he does not have. He is not representing anybody in this province any better than this government is.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair did not hear the question, and I'm sure that the minister did not. I would ask the member to repeat just the question portion, please.

L. Reid: At the same meeting last night, Dr. Blatherwick stated that he too was not consulted about the future of Shaughnessy Hospital. Yet this same minister stood in the House on Monday and said....

The Speaker: Order. Hon. member, I only asked for the question. If the minister heard the question, will she please reply.

[ Page 5587 ]

Hon. E. Cull: After hearing the remarks of the member from last night, I went back and checked Hansard to see exactly what I had said about Dr. Blatherwick. I'll read it to her. Dr. Blatherwick, "after reviewing and considering all of the analysis" -- that we presented to him -- "said that he, too, supported the decision to close Shaughnessy." I understand that in recent discussions -- as recently as this morning -- he confirmed this to my staff.

Mayor Campbell was on CKNW this morning, and I believe that he said it "was very ironic that some members of city council who have demanded that the province do some cost cutting are now shooting at the one person who had the courage to take on a difficult job" -- Mayor Campbell's words.

The Speaker: A brief final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: This minister's transition team indicated in a report dated April 26 that the following programs should remain at Shaughnessy Hospital: medical genetics, the women's health centre, family practice and in-patient services. If the transition team is saying that programs should remain at the hospital, how in fact does the minister reconcile her decision, against the best medical advice of the day, to close Shaughnessy Hospital?

Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately, the member hasn't been paying much attention to the details of this debate over the last number of weeks, because we've made it very clear that there are some services that will remain on the Oak Street site: the women's health centre and services that are necessary to support Children's Hospital and Grace Hospital. When our transition review team has finished its consultation with the community, the medical experts, the workers in the hospital and the others in the health care community in greater Vancouver, they will be making decisions about what stays at Oak Street and what goes to other hospitals.

FOREIGN CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN B.C.

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Yesterday in Asia the Premier tried to convince investors that the corporate capital tax is not ideologically driven. Has the minister had any success in convincing investors in B.C. that this preposterous statement is true? And how can the minister possibly support the corporate capital tax when he knows that it's the major reason investors decide against coming to British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In reply, I think I have recognized that any tax is an impediment to people investing. However, we are remaining competitive with the jurisdictions around us. The proof is that when the Premier was on his trip, he announced a $50 million to $80 million investment in Tod Mountain by Asian investors.

J. Weisgerber: If he announced that yesterday, he was further behind than we thought he was.

A supplemental to the Minister of Economic Development. The minister says that the corporate capital tax isn't ideologically driven. We do know that it's driving investment away from British Columbia. Will the minister stand up to the Minister of Finance and demand that this tax be withdrawn?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member is asking if he's going to find a split in this cabinet like they had in the previous government, the answer is no.

If the question is are we going to deal with some of the problems created by some of the taxes -- as this Minister of Finance has -- by changing and raising the threshold of the corporate capital tax to benefit 3,000 businesses, then the answer is yes.

And if the question is can we verify that investment is up, we'll quote an independent study that Peat Marwick did on their own, tracking Asian investment. It indicated, by intentions of companies, that investment is going to be up $4.7 billion this year -- up from $1.8 billion last year.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, the minister should know that he can do his job without causing a split in cabinet. Secondly, I doubt very much that Li Ka-shing was impressed to learn that the level had been raised to $1.25 million.

We do know that the fixed-wage policy is ideologically driven, and it happens to consume just about the amount that the corporate capital tax raised. Will the minister do what's right for the investment climate and for the business community in British Columbia and demand that both of these items -- both the corporate capital tax and the fixed-wage policy -- be withdrawn?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is no.

COMMITMENT TOWARD KAON PROJECT

L. Stephens: Yesterday the Minister of Finance informed us that Ken Georgetti, along with others, was on a trip to Italy to promote the KAON project. To the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, does this mean that the province has committed its $250 million share to this project?

Hon. G. Clark: As the KAON project and negotiations around the KAON project are the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, I want to clarify some remarks yesterday for the House's information.

The trip to Europe is by Stan Hagen, Eric Denhoff, Tricianne Burke-Smith, Erich Vogt and Ken Georgetti. At the request of the federal government, the province agreed to participate in this effort to secure commitments from other countries around the world. The costs for Mr. Georgetti are paid for by the federal government and not by the provincial government. The

[ Page 5588 ]

only provincial government contribution is Eric Denhoff, who is the lead negotiator for the KAON project.

To date we have a formal commitment from Germany to participate in the KAON project. We are very close to achieving some commitments from other European countries. This is a pan-British Columbian initiative, an important one started by the previous administration. We're working very hard to try to secure this world-class facility here and to get our share of federal government funding for science and technology, which has not been the case historically in British Columbia.

L. Stephens: The Minister of Finance did not answer the question: did the province commit to its share?

And to the Minister of Advanced Education, what special qualifications does Mr. Georgetti have to advocate a high-technology physics project to foreign investors?

The Speaker: Before the ministers answer, the Chair heard two questions to two different ministers. To whom is the question directed?

L. Stephens: To the Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. G. Clark: I assume that question is to the minister responsible. The province has committed some of the capital costs to the completion of the project -- up to one-third of the capital costs. Just on the eve of the election, as a matter of fact, there was an announcement about a commitment of up to one-third of the capital costs. The remaining one-third of the capital costs is to come from international partners.

We have a tentative commitment from the United States for $100 million; we have a firm commitment from Germany. We need commitments from Japan and some other countries, and as well we need some commitments and cost-sharing with respect to operating costs, which we believe are federal responsibilities. That has yet to be negotiated.

I want members to know that it is important in these kinds of initiatives, particularly when you're travelling internationally, for us to show to the world the face of the leader of the labour movement, then the president of the business council, the leaders in the science community in British Columbia, and a world-class scientist like Erich Vogt, together with the federal government represented by Mr. Stan Hagen, and the provincial government represented by Eric Denhoff.

If we are to secure international commitments, that kind of Pan-Canadian and Pan-British Columbian perspective is important. Frankly, it is very disturbing that we are seeing for the first time in this House the opposition party oppose this kind of initiative on the part of British Columbians. They should reconsider their position.

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Prior to calling second reading of Bill 3, I should advise members and the Speaker that Labour and Consumer Affairs estimates will be taking place in Committee A.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.

BUILD BC ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

L. Hanson: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I think that the first line of the reason that was extended for the amendment, which reads, "...all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations...." is really the key to this amendment.

There is nothing in Bill 3, B.C. 21, that could not be done within the authorities of the existing ministries. One of the main purposes of Bill 3 is to coordinate economic development and job creation. When we look at the text of the bill, we see that coordinating the government's activities to achieve overall economic development and job creation goals is one of the purposes. Another purpose is to ensure that all regions of the province benefit from the economic expansion and diversification.

It goes on to say that it is there to encourage public and private sector investment and job creation activities in an innovative manner. I submit that all of those responsibilities already rest with a variety of established ministries.

We look at the bill again and it says the minister is the chair of the committee -- the Minister of Finance, I assume, because it is his bill. Then we look at what the committee may do. The committee is going to provide advice to the executive council respecting appropriate regional and sectoral employment equity and training goals for government spending. I don't know what that doesn't cover, because it probably would be easier to state in the bill the things that committee can't do than the things it can do -- because it can do almost anything. It can develop new initiatives that fulfil the purposes of the act.

It can carry out other functions that may possibly be assigned to it by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In other words, if the cabinet decides that another function should be assigned to this Crown corporation, it is simply a matter of passing an order-in-council and it will happen.

Some of the things that the bill suggests it can spend money on are community-level capital projects, and employment and job-training initiatives. I don't know where the Ministry for Advanced Education is, but I guess they're not doing their job very well. It will spend money on enhancement of resource initiatives and infrastructure initiatives.

It goes on to talk about the authority that is being created in the area of transportation: "The purpose of the authority is to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation

[ Page 5589 ]

infrastructure throughout British Columbia...." Here's a real dandy that's added to that: it's purpose is "to do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize" -- another blank

cheque.

When we look at the powers and capacity of this authority, one

section says that subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, it can provide financial assistance by way of grant, loan or guarantee. I thought that that rested with Treasury Board, the government itself, or at the very least, with the Ministry of Economic Development.

Again, when we look at the bill and at the powers and capacity of the new authority, it finishes up with this statement: it can also "do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize" -- another blank cheque.

Under

section 21, "Tolls and charges," it says: "Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the authority may establish a system of tolls or charges to be paid to the authority in respect of the use of a highway, bridge, structure or other property of the authority." Again it is not coming back to the Legislature. There is no discussion on where those tolls may be applied, just that the authority is there if the cabinet can put those in place.

Then we look at another

section of the bill, under "Limit of outstanding debt": "The outstanding debt of the authority arising from borrowings, as calculated under subsection (2), must not exceed the amount established for the purpose of this

section by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." Again, the only authority needed to set borrowing limits for this new wonder-of-all-wonders Crown corporation is the executive council, not the Legislature.

I have listened to the glowing remarks from members of the opposition who have spoken in opposition to Bill 3, but I also listened with some interest to the glowing remarks from the government benches. If we were to believe half of the things that this bill is going to do for British Columbia, we could close the rest down -- and this will make British Columbia a utopia like we have never known.

It's going to create jobs; it's going to take over the responsibility of reforestation from the Forests ministry; it's going to build our schools -- we're not going to have any more portable classrooms; it's going to build our hospitals, build all our public buildings and build our highways; and it's going to train our people so that they can take their place in British Columbia and enjoy the benefits of this great province. The list goes on and on.

I was just reminded that the Minister of Labour -- in a very emotional speech the other day -- suggested he was going to be able to build ships in Esquimalt as a result of this wonderful B.C. 21 bill.

When you think about all of these things, the question has to come to your mind: why do we need this Crown corporation? What is the reason behind it? There isn't anything that this bill can do that we aren't able to do with the existing ministries. Maybe the ministers in charge of all of those ministries are not doing a good job. Maybe the problem is that they haven't been living up to their mandated responsibilities. Maybe that's why we need this new Crown corporation which is going to do everything for everyone.

If we're going to reduce the responsibilities of the various ministries by giving the authority to this Crown corporation, I suspect that a reasonable, thinking person might suggest that we don't need as many ministries. Maybe the Premier's intention with this bill is to come up with five or six ministries -- because with the responsibilities that will be left with those ministries, that's probably about all we'd need.

I suppose the other approach that could be taken is that if there is a question of the abilities of the various ministers to perform their functions, maybe the Premier should look at replacing some of those ministers. Maybe some of them should be taken out; there should be a cabinet shuffle, and we'll put some of the backbenchers in. When you see what is happening across the way, there certainly are a number of members that would enjoy having the responsibility of a ministerial position.

I think it's pretty obvious that a number of the fellows and ladies on the substitute bench would just love to get into the inner sanctum. But the people of British Columbia are asking: why do we need a super-Crown corporation to do things that are already the responsibility of the various ministries?

In speaking on the amendment to the motion, the second part of that stresses the need for public consultation -- for the public to have an opportunity to understand this bill before it becomes law. Maybe the reason we have to have this bill is that the individual who appears, from many perspectives, to be the power behind the throne -- the person who is really running government -- feels a little insecure. Maybe through being in charge of the Crown corporations secretariat, he has a confidence problem in that he doesn't feel that he really has the power he covets.

Maybe the reason is that he would like to have more. Maybe the control of B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit, ICBC, the Assessment Authority of B.C., BCBC, the Lottery Corporation, the Pavilion Corporation, the B.C. Trade Development Corporation and the PNE is not enough. Maybe he needs this new entity, which is going to have its fingers in every pie -- that used to be the pie of various ministries -- to give him the confidence that he truly runs the government of British Columbia. Maybe there is another reason.

Maybe we have run out of spaces to place all the NDP supporters from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario, and even a few home-grown ones, at the public trough. Maybe there are not enough spaces left.

[3:00]

When it is convenient, this government points to what is happening in other provinces. Well, I have some information, particularly about highways and capitalization initiatives. I see that the Minister of Highways has joined us, and I am sure that he will find this very illuminating. The capitalization of highway construction projects is not done in Alberta; it is funded out of the annual budget. It is not done in that great socialist province of Saskatchewan; they fund it out of their annual budget. It is not done in Manitoba; they

[ Page 5590 ]

fund it out of the annual budget. And believe it or not, Ontario, which has a socialist government just as we do here in British Columbia, funds highway construction projects out of their annual budget. But because of their political bent and because they think in a similar way to this government, they are exploring the concept of transportation capital corporations, just as in British Columbia, so that the costs of building those highways will be off the books.

Quebec funds its highway construction projects from the annual budget. Prince Edward Island funds their projects from the annual budget. Nova Scotia does their funding from their annual budget. By gosh, now here's one: New Brunswick capitalizes highway construction over a period of years. But they don't do it through a Crown corporation; they do it up front. One of the motivations behind this bill, as we see it, is not to do it up front.

After all is said and done, I suspect that the real reason is simply an attempt by this government to hide from B.C. citizens the true deficit and the amount of borrowing this government has to do, caused by the deals they have made to help their labour union allies and fund the numerous patronage appointments. I suspect that this government may also be getting concerned about British Columbia's credit rating. When we've just seen what happened to Canada and their credit rating, I suspect that this government has good reason to be concerned. I think all British Columbians should be concerned.

But even though in B.C. 21 -- Bill 3 -- they have tried to muddy the waters by assigning a whole bunch of duplications that are now the responsibilities of other ministries under the title of B.C. 21, I don't think even that is going to accomplish the desired effect. I think that the financiers and the people who loan money worldwide are much too wise to fall for this hocus-pocus, this smoke-and-mirrors game that is being played by this government.

This government campaigned loud and long on the policy that if they were elected, they would provide fair, open and honest government. For a government that promised an end to favours for political friends, for a government that promised that they would not spend more than you, the taxpayer, can afford, this bill shows that not one word of that election rhetoric was honest or was meant. This bill is a deliberate attempt to deceive British Columbians. That's why I support the amendment that's before us.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Hon. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

C. Tanner: I'm speaking on the amendment. To remind the House and everybody else who might be listening, I'd like to just read a couple of paragraphs of the amendment: "That all the words after 'that' be deleted," followed by "...all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations...."

That, in a nutshell, is the reason why I'm supporting this amendment. I think the public wants to know -- certainly this side of the House wants to know -- why this government wants to change courses. Why does this government want to suddenly start financing by this method, in a Crown corporation, when in fact they have three or four departments which in the past 100 years have managed to raise the money and spend the money? And now, for some reason unbeknownst to us -- unbeknownst, I think, even to their own backbenchers -- the cabinet has decided that they want to create another Crown corporation.

There can only be one of three reasons, as far as I can see. One is that they don't respect the bureaucracy and the departments which are presently fulfilling this function within the government as we know it.

As the previous speaker from this side of the House just said, no other government in Canada does it this way. We're doing something different. Can it be that this cabinet, these people who are trying to find their way into government, these people who are just learning the job after a 17-year hiatus, are doing this because they don't respect the system that we've had in government, right across Canada in all governments, all these number of years? They have no respect for the system, so they're going to create a new one.

Or could it be that they've got something to hide? Could it be that they want to do something here that they can't do within the departments? We on this side of the House are not clear as to what the motive is for what they're attempting to do. Is it something they don't want us to see?

A Crown corporation does not operate the same way as a government department. It does not have to present estimates; it does not have to come to this House and say: "This is what we want to spend you money on, John Q. Public." It operates like any other private corporation and reports back to the House when the actions have been completed. That is not the way that we finance public projects in this country -- in any of the provinces or in the federal government. Why does this government want to invent a new system?

Perhaps there's a third reason, and this is what I suspect they're up to. It's not that they don't respect the departments that presently exist; it's not that they've got something to hide; it's because they want to help their friends. They want to spend money in a different way than they want us to see. They want to do something which is not above board. I think they're hiding behind a Crown corporation to do so.

When the government stands up and so proudly boasts about this new Crown corporation it's going to create, let's assume that there is some logic in what they're going to do that is not apparent to us. The natural question that follows then is: how do Crown corporations operate? What's the success of Crown corporations in this country, the ones in British Columbia in particular?

[ Page 5591 ]

If we read from the quarterly report that the Ministry of Finance puts out, it reports the operating highlights of the Crown corporations for the past nine months and the past year since this government's been in charge of them. It starts off:

"The unaudited operating results of Crown corporations and agencies for their most recent reporting period are presented in this section.

"British Columbia B.C. Ferry Corporation reported a net loss of $7 million for the nine months ended December 31....

"During the first nine months of 1992-93, operating income of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority was $210 million, compared to $235 million for the same period last year. Domestic revenues increased 4 percent, while operating expenses increased 13 percent and finance charges increased 2 percent."

We've got a good record here of two out of two so far.

I quote again from the financial information put together by the Ministry of Finance:

"Net income of the British Columbia Railway Company" -- another Crown corporation -- "for the year ended December 31, 1992, was $51 million, down $5 million from last year. Operating revenues increased 1.1 percent and operating expenses increased 3 percent.

"The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia" -- this is an example of Crown corporations in operation, and this government wants to create another one -- "reported a net loss -- last year, in only nine months of operating -- of $64 million...compared to a net loss of $98 million last year."

Hey, we've got an improvement here. They didn't lose quite as much this year as they did the previous year.

Here we've got the Insurance Corporation of B.C., the British Columbia Railway Company, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and the B.C. Ferry Corporation -- all great Crown corporations and all losing money.

For the year ended December 31, 1992, the B.C. Housing Management Commission increased expenditures 22 percent, to $104 million. Another Crown corporation. But let me not fool the House. There are Crown corporations that make money -- you bet. The net income of the British Columbia liquor distribution branch for the 40 weeks that ended January 2, 1993, was $413 million -- up 12 percent. Aren't we proud of the liquor control branch? If I had a monopoly of the product, I could make a profit too. So wherever there is competition, they blow it; wherever they've got complete, utter and thorough control, they can make a profit.

But there is another one. I've got to tell you about another Crown agency, the British Columbia Lottery Corporation. They made some money last year: $177 million in the first nine months. So when we have a Crown corporation that has a monopoly and no competition, when they don't have to operate like any other private corporation, when they have all the product and all the market, they can make some money. The Lottery Corporation made money, the liquor distribution branch made money, but every other Crown corporation lost money. Madam Speaker, you've got to ask: why would they want to create another loss?

[3:15]

Madam Speaker, it's been brought to my attention that we don't have a quorum. Would you like me to continue?

The Speaker: The hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that there is no quorum. I will ring the division bells for a quorum.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: I call the committee back to order. There appears to be a quorum, and I would ask the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands to please continue.

C. Tanner: To bring to the members' attention where I left off, I know every member in the House was absolutely fascinated by my explanation that Crown corporations haven't been incredibly successful unless the government happens to have a monopoly. We wonder why the government would choose this method to fund, supposedly, the hospitals, the aircraft carriers -- or whatever it is they are going to build in Esquimalt -- the hospitals, schools and highways of this province. We wonder why they would change from what has been the norm in this country, wherever you go in any province in Canada.

Why would they make this horrendous wrench to the left and find a completely new way of funding, unless they had an ulterior motive? I also illustrated the fact that Crown corporations haven't necessarily proven very successful; in fact, they seem to be quite a liability.

I will not let that subject go without pointing out to the House that all the debt incurred in those Crown corporations ultimately is the debt of the people of this province -- ultimately of this government and future governments and of future children and taxpayers in this province. Because the debt is in a Crown corporation doesn't in any way negate the fact that eventually the people of this province have to put their names on the line for that debt -- however it's incurred, whether it's incurred directly by the government or in a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the second part of the amendment reads: "...there has been no public consultation with the taxpayers of the province as to their desire to set up a separate spending authority outside of legislative purview." But I suspect that it's even worse than that. I think we've seen, in the last two or three days, the creation in this House of another party. I was labouring under the misapprehension that we had the government, the NDP; we had a few ragtags and bobtails over here, the third party; we had a very loyal opposition here; and that was it, with a couple of independents thrown in.

A new party has been created in this province, and I guess we should celebrate. The party is called the cabinet. We've got a line somewhere down the middle on that side, and the people on one side are called the cabinet, and the people on the other side and halfway down are called back benches.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I should remind you that we are debating the reasoned amendment...

[ Page 5592 ]

C. Tanner: I'm getting to it.

Deputy Speaker: ...on Bill 3, and I would ask that the hon. member relate his remarks to the motion.

C. Tanner: You've inadvertently emphasized the point I want to make. Thank you. The point I'm making is that the way those people in the back benches speak about this bill is different from the way the people in the party called the cabinet speak about it.

Let me give you a couple of illustrations. The member for Cariboo North, talking about the bill earlier in the debate, said: "I hope the Minister of Finance will make sure that the fair wage policy is included in the work that gets done." We surely understand that somewhere down the line -- in their caucus or convention or party philosophy, or maybe by note in this House -- they've talked to each other.

What this member is asking of the cabinet party is something we've had for some time, and what they're suggesting is that the regional development that the government intends under this legislation will occur, according to these members, if small local contractors agree to pay wages that will result in bankruptcy. The fair wage policy is a formula for disaster for any small contractor. One assumes, from what the members have been telling us, that they are going to be building schools and hospitals, building boats in Esquimalt, and building highways all over the place.

All of these things are going to be done, one hopes, by small contractors employing people so that we can get the public who are out of work back to work. But if we do it at a request to the Finance minister by a member of the NDP back bench from Cariboo North, he's going to bankrupt the contractors of this country. He's going to leave them in such a state that they won't be able to hire anybody; they won't get any work at all.

Perhaps I can quote another one of the.... Whoops, he's not a backbencher. Apparently even the cabinet is divided.

N. Lortie: That's three parties.

C. Tanner: There are so many parties over there that you can hardly keep track of them all.

The member for Saanich South said: "We do have a need for government to show a leadership role with respect to employment creation." The NDP does not see private initiative as the engine of economic growth. Apparently they feel that if they create this new Crown corporation, if they create an entirely new financial arrangement, if they create some way to raise funds -- which they couldn't do last year within government -- in secret, all of the problems of the world are going to be solved. Member after member on that side of the House stood up and said: "We're going to have hospitals in my constituency.

We're going to have roads in my constituency. We're going to have schools in my constituency."

Where were they last year? Where is the money coming from under this brilliant new piece of legislation? Where is the money coming from which wasn't there last year, and where is it going to come from in the future? From tolls on some highways and roads, which might raise a few million dollars? Or the 1 cent gasoline tax? Come on. Everybody knows that 1 cent on gasoline raises about $30 million a year, and they're going to do all this with the new corporation that they're creating?

Could it be, Mr. Speaker, that, unlike hospitals, unlike school boards, unlike hospital boards and unlike municipalities, this Crown corporation won't have limits on its spending? It won't have any limits on how it spends the money that it raises in some fashion unbeknown to us. Could it be that the very restrictions that we impose on those other elected and important boards in this province -- schools, hospitals and municipalities....

That Premier, when he's in the House, so proudly stands up and proclaims: "When I was the mayor of Vancouver, we never went over budget." Well, of course they didn't go over budget, because there are restrictions imposed on municipal governments by this very provincial government. The hospitals, school boards and municipalities of this province are creatures of this government. The exception to spending public money in this province is Crown corporations. I've illustrated time and again that a Crown corporation, generally speaking, will either lose money or make money only when they've got a monopoly.

We've had no decent reply yet. Why, I ask, does the government side think they need a Crown corporation?

One of the most shocking things I've heard in the year and a half that I've been in this House is the Minister of Finance yesterday standing up here and berating this side of the House and saying that if we didn't pass this bill very quickly he couldn't get a bunch of people out in the woods planting trees. Has anybody ever heard such nonsense? Silviculture won't work unless we plant this new Crown corporations bill? Come on, who does he think he's talking to? What promises is he making that he can't fulfil? What's he saying to these people who are out of work and looking for employment?

Does he honestly think that they've got to have the passage of this bill before they can get those people to work? That is not true.

They've got all three departments in which they can do those sorts of programs. Why don't they get on and do it? If you believe what you hear from some of these members on the back benches of this hidden party in the woods, this party that doesn't belong to this cabinet, they're creating utopia with this bill. Hallelujah! All our problems are resolved. We've got B.C. 21 -- Bilk B.C., as my friend from North Vancouver-Seymour said. He had it right on. We're going to stick it to the public. We're not going to tell them how we're going to do it. We're not going to tell them how we raise the money.

We're not going to tell them how we spend the money. But you trust us, friends, we'll look after it for you. Well, utopia is not here today. You do it the same way you've done it for the last 100 years in this province and in all other provinces in Canada -- through the bureaucracy that we've got.

D. Jarvis: Point of order. If the Minister of Advanced Education -- I realize he doesn't know too

[ Page 5593 ]

much about the procedures of this House, from what he did yesterday -- insists on making disparaging remarks to the speaker, I think he should be sitting in his own chair, should he not? Or is he being moved up to the front benches?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. For all members, standing order 36 specifically refers to the matter of how to be recognized. Hon. members, I am sure, are apprised of the standing orders and should keep them in mind.

J. Tyabji: On a new point of order, hon. Speaker.... Actually, it's not relevant anymore because we've just gone up by one, but I was going to draw attention to the fact that the Liberal opposition is carrying the day in the House, as we're bordering right below a quorum.

C. Tanner: In deference to my friend down the road here, I appreciate the fact that the Speaker pretended not to know his designation too, because I forgot it. Thank you very much.

There is one final point I'd like to make -- apart from the fact that the Crown corporation business is a sham, apart from the fact that the back bench doesn't know what the cabinet is up to, apart from the fact that other elected money raisers and money spenders in this province have restrictions on how they spend their money, apart from the fact that the opposition has tried time and time again to get some reasonable explanation out of this minister, and apart from the fact that the Minister of Finance comes up with facetious replies to legitimate questions.

The business associations of this province are writing to us in droves. They're saying: "Why do they have to do it this way? Why don't they do it the way that we understand, the way that it's been done for years and years before?" Why does the business world not understand this if the Minister of Finance does? Why is it that everybody else is wrong except the Minister of Finance? Could it be that our Minister of Finance has come back from New York with a pocketful of dollars, and there are some conditions as to when he's got to spend them -- some timing conditions?

Could it be that by April l that money is no longer available, and if it doesn't get spent we're no longer able to use it? Could it be that the Minister of Finance is deceiving this House, and is not telling the whole story? I leave that question open.

[3:30]

L. Reid: I rise today to support the amendment. I believe it's a reasoned amendment. I believe it's time that we took a serious look at where this government is headed, and why this government believes that there should not be accountability for all British Columbians.

If I might speak to the amendment in more detail, we're having extreme difficulty understanding why we would wish to put ministerial accountability at arm's length. That, indeed, is what this Build B.C., Blackjack 21, asks us to do. Certainly number one in our reasoned amendment is that all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations. Fundamentally, we believe that the current mechanisms in place can perform the tasks of Bill 3, the Build BC Act. We're not clear why an overlay is necessary to the enterprise.

We see this very much as an additional layer of bureaucracy that will be put in place, that will once again allow the members of this government, the members of this cabinet, to step away from their responsibilities to British Columbians.

Number two is that there has been no public consultation with the taxpayers of the province as to their desire to set up a separate spending authority outside legislative purview. Responsibility and accountability to the British Columbia taxpayer is the issue of the day and one that my colleagues and I in the official opposition have canvassed in detail and will continue to canvass. There is no justification in my mind for doing anything other than being accountable to the taxpayer. It continues to amaze me that we have members of this assembly who can stand up and justify creating an arm's-length entity to somehow remove themselves from accountability.

We had the Minister of Labour yesterday talk about fairness to all British Columbians. This legislation is not fairness to all British Columbians. It's a legacy of debt. It allows this government to legitimately create a mechanism of debt. What a legacy for us to be handing down to future generations! You will certainly not see such a legacy supported by the official opposition in this province.

Yesterday the Minister of Labour said: "Bill 3 stands for all British Columbians." What stands them up -- bankruptcy? Stands them up in higher mortgage rates? It's not an appropriate document in my view, because it doesn't address who pays for this debt. Is it a debt we're taking on for all time? I would suggest that it is. I would suggest that if we allow in any way, shape or form for accountability to be removed from ministers of the Crown, we are indeed creating a legacy that we will not be proud of. In this province we have a parliamentary and democratic system of government.

We have a system where we believe in direct accountability. Today we have British Columbians calling for direct participatory democracy. They want to have some say in the issues that are advanced and want to know how the issues are going to go forward. This will not, in any way, shape or form, refine or enhance the process.

If this were truly responsible government, we would not be talking about mortgaging our future, and for me, that is the issue under Bill 3, the Build BC Act. I see it as a gamble that will not pay off for British Columbians. In fact, they're being asked to play a huge game with their own money, without any accountability. For me, it's almost as if you received a financial statement that only had the anecdotal comment written in. The numbers would be missing; the bottom line would be missing.

That's an issue for British Columbians and for this government, because the majority of British Columbians do not feel that the NDP government are the finest money managers they've ever seen. They don't believe there's tremendous understanding on behalf of tax policy in this province, and they're not convinced that removing spending authority from legislative purview is the way to go.

[ Page 5594 ]

The official opposition in the province shares that sentiment. In the midst of chaos over taxation, in the midst of a tax revolt, why in the world would this government believe that British Columbians are going to say: "Yes, let's remove accountability from our government"? We have many British Columbians who want exactly the opposite. They want increased accountability and responsibility on behalf of their members, and they certainly expect it from the executive council in the government of British Columbia. It's a privilege to be able to offer wisdom and insight from a cabinet post.

We expect that from the people we pay to be in those positions -- and we pay them a good sum of money to effect decent decisions for the people of British Columbia. I have no idea why they're choosing not to deliver a service that they are currently being paid to. I, for one, cannot justify the fact that they would remove themselves from the responsibility for which they are being paid.

Any attempt by this government to support Bill 3 and Build B.C. is another opportunity to reinforce double taxation in this province. We're going to see the taxpayer paying for the minister to do the job as well as for this new agency to do the very same job. It's a dilemma. Obviously we don't need both entities. So which one are we going to dissect out of the system? Which one are we going to calve off and allow to do something else? I would never favour any increased bureaucracy in the province of British Columbia. I think we've seen many newly created positions from this administration over the last number of months. I'm not interested in seeing another one.

On a daily basis the Minister of Finance says we cannot afford increased taxation and additional positions. If that is indeed the case, why are we proceeding with a new entity which is going to be looking at a new infrastructure and new people who will be receiving salaries? If we can't afford it, we should not be proceeding; if we can, the Minister of Finance is misleading this House. There is no opportunity here to play both sides of the fence. Either you stand for increased fiscal management or you stand for increased bureaucracy. There are only two options, and this government must stand up and say which one they are willing to support.

I strongly believe that this piece of legislation -- Bill 3, Build B.C. -- will increase the debt load in this province. In my travels around the province I have not found a single person who is interested in increased debt or increased taxation. I reiterate: we have individuals in the ministry portfolios who can do the job of Build B.C., of Bill 3. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that those individuals are currently not doing their jobs, and the question British Columbians should be asking is: why? Why are we justifying a ministerial portfolio at the taxpayers' expense for a job that's not being done?

If that's not the case, I would encourage and urge them to go out and do the job -- not stand up in the House and say: "I'm not able to do my job. I need the creation of this entity to go forward."

I'm not interested in creating another entity. No matter which way the official opposition takes this, it is another layer of bureaucracy. It will result in increased taxation and double taxation. Taxpayers in this province will be paying twice for the creation of roads and for silviculture programs. Those are expenditures funded under the budget, and they should remain as line items in the budget. To remove legislative purview of financial expenditure has no value in the eyes of the official opposition. Our role is to provide checks and balances in this system.

Our role is to ensure that the dollars are spent in a fiscally appropriate manner. If there is no opportunity to discuss expenditure in this House, there is no way for any checks and balances to be put in place. That is a significant issue, and it is probably the cornerstone of this piece of legislation. If you take away the role of the opposition in terms of accountability, you have taken away a significant piece of legislative democracy. You have taken away the role of a parliamentarian within the province of British Columbia.

If this government wants to stand up and say: "Well, we're moving away from democracy and heading into some other form of government," fine, stand up and say that. But don't cloud the issues by saying: "No, no, we're truly here to support democracy. We're going to be undemocratic and unparliamentary, but we don't want you to be aware of that." I think that's what this government is saying to British Columbians.

This piece of legislation is selling a bill of goods to British Columbians. There's no way this legislation is going to enhance the process, to refine and assist the delivery of those services to British Columbians and the taxpayers of this province. There's absolutely no way that is going to happen under this legislation. It's neat, clean and undemocratic. I can't justify a piece of undemocratic legislation coming forward in a House that pretends to stand for democracy. At the end of the day, that is the issue -- a separate spending authority, no legislative purview of expenditure and no guarantee that this will not increase the level of taxation and debt shared by British Columbians.

Again, I support the amendment strongly. It's time some reason was introduced into this debate and into this piece of legislation, because it frankly does not carry any sober second thought before us today. I supported the amendment for a six-month hoist because I firmly support the notion that we need some public consultation. Again, this government rose up in record numbers and said: "No public consultation. We're frankly not interested in asking British Columbians what they think about a piece of legislation that will incur greater debt and not provide enhanced service." There's no question that this government was not interested in public consultation.

Last night this government was brought to task for not being interested in public consultation. It's a litany of the same behaviours. And in my view, British Columbians will rise up as these behaviours touch their pocketbook at an increasing rate. There simply are not the dollars out there to pay double for the same service. As to why there is any legitimacy in doing that, I've yet to hear a member on the government bench suggest this is the way to provide greater accountability. I don't believe anyone has ever spoken to the accountability question from the government side of the House. I don't

[ Page 5595 ]

believe anyone has ever spoken to the enhanced service component of this particular piece of legislation. It's a tremendous issue. We've had members in this House stand up and talk about job creation. We've be asking them about that for many months. They know that they do not have a strong job creation platform for this province.

My comment today is that this is not the platform. If this is all British Columbians have to look forward to, it is time to call the election, because this is not a reasonable job creation program for the province. We have been waiting for 18 months -- a year and a half -- for this government to come forward with a stimulating job creation program. The hon. minister would say that this is it. I can only say that you have to do better. British Columbians are calling upon you, on a daily basis, to do better and to be innovative and creative, not less accountable. There is a tremendous difference, and you are missing the point on a regular basis.

C. Serwa: They just don't get it.

L. Reid: I couldn't agree more.

This is not about decreased accountability; it is about a call for job stimulation and job creation. If this is all there is, British Columbians will continue to wonder about this government and to be disenchanted with it, because they have not delivered on the promises they said they would deliver on. Frankly, I think it's time governments in this country actually provided some kind of program, which they said they would do prior to election.

[3:45]

We have the 48-point platform, but we are not making tremendous strides on that. I don't believe that the platform said we should remove taxation from the purview of the people or remove accountability from the Legislature.

I intensely resent that this is somehow being held out as a panacea for job creation, because it's not a panacea. It's not even close to being a reasonable piece of legislation. It is not legislation that the official opposition can support, because it does not provide accountability in this chamber for the taxpayer. Frankly, this is the chamber that they have already paid for once. They have paid for the decisions that will be reached by the members of this cabinet and government. Why are we asking them to pay again? Why are we asking them to fund -- against their knowledge and, more than likely, against their will -- another layer of bureaucracy?

This is the government that said that when they came to power, they would streamline government and reduce government expenditure and duplication. This bill would duplicate services. We have ministers in positions today who can do all the items reflected in this piece of legislation, yet ministers -- and I am sure members of the government benches will do so later today -- leap up and say that this is vital to their future. Maybe so, but it's not so vital to the future of this province that taxpayers should be asked to pay again. It doesn't make sense.

At the end of the day, it is a really simple argument: this does not make sense. There are no guarantees or assurances. There is absolutely no certainty that this will improve service delivery. At the end of the day, I believe that all British Columbians are interested in is improved service delivery and getting good value for their dollars. They have paid the dollars, and they now have every right to expect decent service. This will not provide it.

My hon. colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour referred to Build B.C. as Bilk B.C. You have to give the gentleman credit. He is right on, in that the title Bilk B.C. honestly reflects this particular piece of legislation. It is an opportunity to take dollars willy-nilly out of the taxpayer's pocket and put it into a system that does not have accountability. There will be no opportunity for the taxpayers in this province to come back and scrutinize those expenditures with due diligence, line by line. Those expenditures will float off in the mist and will not come back to this House for consultation.

I can't say that I am surprised at this juncture. In my view this cabinet, this government, does not understand due process, does not understand consultation. Certainly in my work as Health critic, I can find you many, many thousands of people in this province who believe that NDP stands for No Due Process. They won't get an argument from me, because again we have individuals who will leap up and defend no due process. The only process British Columbians have at their disposal for appropriate taxation is the scrutiny from this House, the budget estimates process in this province.

We are currently in budget estimates for the Ministry of Health and for the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Forests has just been concluded, I believe. That is the only option British Columbians have to participate in this exercise. There is no scrutiny of Crown corporations in this province. There is no real responsibility tied to creating another Crown corporation, another entity, another layer of bureaucracy.

I can't support it. I think it's an opportunity to masquerade debt. I think it's another opportunity to have a double set of books when you're doing the accounting: this is what we're responsible for; this is what we've spent that we're not responsible for. I can't justify that. Frankly, hon. Speaker, I'd be surprised if we could find many British Columbians who would say: "Yes, tax me twice for the same job, and I will not have any opportunity to find out where my dollars went."

An Hon. Member: Incompetent business people.

L. Reid: Is it, as my hon. colleague suggests, incompetence? Do these individuals simply not understand the bottom line? Are we missing small business people in the government benches? Do we not understand how to raise funds, how to look at dollars and actually keep some taxation dollars in the pockets of British Columbians? Maybe it's time to share the wealth. That's certainly the position this government took when they were elected. They were going to share the wealth. They didn't stand up on all those podiums

[ Page 5596 ]

across this province and say they were going to take every last cent to create a new bureaucracy in Victoria. They said exactly the opposite. They said they were going to streamline the process, they were going to reduce duplication. I think they even said they were going to eliminate duplication and increase efficiency.

What's wrong with ministerial responsibility? I have no issue with that. I think that's why these individuals were appointed to those positions, because the minister -- the first minister, if you will; the Premier of this province -- upon election of the NDP government had the ability to choose the best people for the particular portfolios. These are the choices he made. We have to accept that. That is his role, his right, as the Premier. Having made these choices, these individuals must deliver some accountability to the taxpayers in this province. My issue is the taxpayer. My issue is the bottom line.

There must be some accountability. To do anything else is taking taxpayers on a walk through the park: "Look at us, we're doing a great job. We can show all these things. We can put all this great propaganda at your door, but at the end of the day, we're never going to provide you with the numbers. We're not going to tell you what it actually cost. We're going to have one set of books over here, and one set of books over there."

That's a problem for me, because I think the increasing growth of Crown corporations will have an impact on the economy, but I'm not convinced that it will be a positive impact. In fact, I suggest that reduced accountability and the increase in Crown corporations will have a very negative impact on our economy. Our known numbers will be reduced. We will have fewer options to actually scrutinize any kind of process.

Time for some reflection, because the points that the official opposition has raised and will continue to raise look at the basic tenets of this amendment. I will speak to the amendment in terms of the necessity to create another spending authority. I've heard no one on the government side of the House justify that. I'm not clear why they would want another spending authority. It seems to me they're having many problems getting a handle on the one they've got.

Let's take the Minister of Finance as an example. Certainly when you have someone in his position saying that the new agreement for health care workers would cost $50 million, and you have the employer groups saying it would cost as much as $529 million -- fully ten times as much -- I would say that's a classic example of this government not getting a handle on the numbers. If they're having that much difficulty with one set of books, what do we have to look forward to when they acquire a second set of books, when they are running parallel accounts that are not scrutinized by the public? Those are significant issues, hon. Speaker.

I could never support the creation of a second taxation vehicle. That, I believe, is how British Columbians will come to view these Crown corporations: a second opportunity to tax the public, without restraint. British Columbians have told this Minister of Finance and this government on a repeated basis that there are no more dollars, that they simply cannot afford increased taxation. What has been the government's response? "We won't call it taxation. We'll call it creation of a new Crown corporation that will be funded from the tax base." Hon.

Speaker, I ask you: who is going to pay, and how much are they going to pay? At the end of the day, it's the taxpayers, and they're going to pay a tremendous amount. They're going to pay a great deal of money without any kind of appeal process. It's a huge problem.

The theme running through this discussion over the last number of days has been: who is in charge? If indeed we're removing ministerial responsibility from our ministers, who is in charge? Are we going to be deleting ministries? I've not heard that. However, the Premier is away at the moment.

Maybe he will come back and say: "I'm prepared to downsize my cabinet by nine positions, because I want to put those dollars towards this Crown corporation." If he came back and said that, the official opposition would have to take a look at that, because he would have had to come to grips with the issue and said: "You're right, it's not fair to doubly tax British Columbians to perform the same job." Can you imagine a little reason on that side of the House? Frankly, I would be impressed if he came back and said that it wasn't fair to expect British Columbians to pay twice. I don't think that's going to happen.

They've certainly had limited sympathy with the taxpayer in this province.

I would ask: what is the urgency for this piece of legislation? It's not good legislation; it's not particularly well-written legislation. It has an insidious theme, a theme of removing accountability at every turn. So what's the urgency? Why would we want to get it in place so quickly that it would call for night sittings, that it would call for legislation by exhaustion on behalf of this government? And let me tell you, hon. Speaker, we've seen this tack before. We've seen bad legislation railroaded through this House.

If that's the behaviour that bad legislation calls for, we can only assume that this is very bad legislation. So again, what is the urgency? Why are we proceeding at breakneck speed for Bill 3 -- Build B.C.? Why indeed, if this is innocuous legislation, would we have to sit during the night to debate this? My take on that is that this government wishes to push this through so that as few British Columbians as possible truly come to understand the insidious nature of this piece of legislation.

If they were truly proud of this, let's get that glossy package together and get it on every doorstep in British Columbia. Let's see this government truly sell this piece of legislation -- because I don't think it's possible. I can tell you, we've had no success with the neutral viewer taking a look at this and saying: "That's exactly what British Columbia needs." Nobody I have spoken to has said that. I would venture a guess that few people on this side of the House, if any, have found a lot of support for Bill 3, the Build BC Act.

And let me be so bold to use the words of my colleague: we have found no one who is willing to support this piece of legislation, because they believe they have already paid for this service once. They expect their Minister of Transportation to build roads and their Minister of Labour to come up with a job creation plan -- not an arm's-length Crown corporation, hon. Speaker. It's a

[ Page 5597 ]

huge issue. My colleagues, over the last number of days, have touched on the slush fund. This will probably be the grandest slush fund of them all. Historically, we've seen, some pretty major slush funds in this province, where ministers might as well have called them pre-election funds. I'm not interested in another one that is going to return decisions in time for the next election that are not part of a plan, a process or a ministerial package that flows from this government to the people of the province for approval.

[4:00]

This government is not seeking the approval of the taxpayers in this province. I believe they are saying: "You're not going to like this, so we're not going to ask you to accept it in terms of review and estimates debate. We're simply going to put it out there to do its work. It's basically going to do our work, the work of government, and we're not going to review it publicly." That is an option under this particular piece of legislation, and it is not an option that the official opposition can support. It's not prudent legislation; it's not reasonable legislation; it's not legislation for the 1990s.

At the end of the day, I believe British Columbians are looking for accountable and democratic government, and they're looking for that approach to be facilitated by first-class parliamentarians. I await this government becoming first-class parliamentarians.

C. Serwa: Just before I start speaking on the amendments with respect to Bill 3, I want to make it abundantly clear to you, hon. Speaker, that although I may seem to stray far afield sometimes in my discourse at the present time, be assured that every element of my speech will be relating to the elements, and in the fullness of time you will see clearly how it all comes together at the end.

The Speaker: I'm trusting you, hon. member.

C. Serwa: For the benefit of those who are paying attention to this particular debate through the media, I would like to re-emphasize the amendments that were tabled yesterday by the hon. member of the official opposition. The first part was: "all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations." I will be speaking on that.

The second one is: "there has been no public consultation with the taxpayers of the province as to their desire to set up a separate spending authority outside of legislative purview." The third one is: "this bill will increase the amount of debt held by the province and will negatively impact on the ability of future generations to control their economic destiny."

Hon. Speaker, I will be speaking in support of this reasoned amendment for a wide variety of reasons. Of all of the bills that I have seen brought forward in the Legislature, this is perhaps the most repugnant. It makes no rational sense for this bill to come forward to this particular Legislature. Government members are trying to sell what I consider to be a bill of goods. They seem to believe -- and in all honesty and fairness, I think they sincerely believe it -- that it will create a miracle of economic recovery and an abundance of jobs throughout the province.

They have been schooled and drilled and have endeavoured to sell that perspective to members in this Legislature and to the public at large. Virtually every action that the government has taken has been contrary to the expressed intentions of this bill.

It's a pleasure to see the Minister of Social Services in this Legislature, because she has been foremost among government ministers who have gone out of their way to try to create a dependent society in British Columbia consisting of employable men and women. And certainly, with her independent living initiative, they are now taking teenagers away from their homes. But the efforts of the Minister of Social Services -- and it's part and parcel of this broad question in job creation -- have not been very positive in the way of creating jobs.

Under the former administration that particular ministry created a lot of jobs. You could call them a half a step from the GAIN program to full work. The Ministry of Social Services had done a superlative job in that particular area.

With the current minister and with the philosophy of the current government, what we have done is walk away from any opportunity or responsibility to create jobs through the Ministry of Social Services. We've seen that ministry increase by some $900 million in expenditures, not in job creation projects. We have seen that large amount spent simply in making British Columbia the destination resort for welfare recipients throughout Canada. That's totally unacceptable. What a legacy this particular Minister of Social Services and Housing will leave for the province of British Columbia -- a dependent society.

The question that we're dealing with, though, is the capitalization of large capital assets. Obviously, the budget of the province has grown dramatically over the past several years, and we're faced with some sort of dilemma. The Minister of Finance wishes clearly to hide the actual deficit of his socialist government, and so they've devised a scheme where they can kill two birds with one stone. They can disguise and hide -- or endeavour to -- a growing deficit. He proudly proclaims that the current year will be $1.5 billion.

The reality is that we will be hiding another $1.5 billion behind this initiative, which will, pyramided onto last year, provide again a breaking of new barriers. We thought that the four-minute mile a number of years ago in Vancouver was really something, but it's really nothing compared to the ability of this current government to continue to break and set new records in deficit spending.

Why is it reasonable to capitalize assets? Is there a market for those assets? We're trying to draw some sort of parallel here to what we do in the real world, in the business sector. We can look at amortizing something -- let's say a road -- over 40 years. But can we sell that road? Does it actually have a tangible value? Does it increase some sort of revenue capability directly or indirectly? Or does it simply facilitate transportation with more lanes? We really have to look at that.

There are already mechanisms through all of the line ministries to attend to all of the concerns that have been

[ Page 5598 ]

brought forward with this Bill 3, which we aptly name "Bilk B.C." Fundamentally, it's the type of bill that, were it perpetrated outside of this Legislature, would clearly be identified as a scam.

What is the end result of capitalizing items such as roads and the transportation system? And why are we opposed? This is not really a partisan political issue; it's simply an economic issue. Why are we opposed so adamantly to long-term capitalization and amortization of projects? And 40 years, as I've said, is not unreasonable when it comes to roads. It's a matter of cost. If we spend $1.5 billion a year for the next five years, the reality is that in 40 years we will have to repay $30.8 billion to look after a $7.5 billion debt that we acquired building transportation infrastructure and schools -- and all the other commodities the current government put into this particular package.

But what does that really mean? Not only are we going to bind and limit the opportunities of the people that follow us for the next 40 years -- and that's over a generation; that's into the second generation, if we take an average generation of 30 years -- but we're going to dramatically limit their opportunity. We're going to buy today and limit their opportunities dramatically.

I don't feel that it's right to take $30.8 billion, pay it out as interest payments and provide nothing in the way of goods and services for that $30.8 billion. We will only have $7.5 billion worth of assets -- which will be depreciating over that 40-year amortization period, which we will have to rebuild -- but we will spend $30.8 billion over and above the $7.5 billion in order to acquire them.

I don't think that the taxpaying citizen of this province can be excited or enamored with this type of project. I don't know anyone who really believes that we have some sort of inherent right to live higher on the hog than we deserve. Our standard of living is something that we have to earn. It's not a gift carried by those who preceded us and who worked hard, who through their toil and labour worked to build this province for our benefit so we could utilize it not only to satisfy needs but all sorts of unrealistic wants. I don't know anyone in my community who feels it's appropriate to do that. We have to earn our living by productivity, and we have to justify it.

For 125 years, British Columbians have worked generally on a pay-as-you-go policy. It has worked. We've had roads and bridges and job-training schemes. We have built schools, hospitals and law courts. We've done everything that Bill 3, B.C. 21 is purporting to do. What was wrong with that? Was it unrealistic or unreasonable?

We're the beneficiaries of individuals who worked hard -- by the sweat of their brow -- to build this province to what it is today. What right have we to blow our children's and our grandchildren's legacy to a bright, positive, optimistic future, simply by excessive wants right now? It doesn't make any sense to me; I don't think it makes any sense to you, hon. Speaker; and I know darned well it doesn't make any sense to the people of British Columbia.

It is perceived as what it simply is: a bill to hide a growing deficit of the current government. It's a bill that enables unemployed party hacks -- if there are any left in the rest of Canada -- to come to a cushy, well-paid job in British Columbia. It's absolute certainty of good employment, wondrous working conditions and very little in the way of actual work or responsibility, but it has a tremendous pay and benefits package and, I'm sure, a severance package which will cost the next government dearly.

I don't think those are good enough reasons for Bill 3, and it's certainly not compatible with the motion put forward by the hon. member of the opposition. So we have to think about that. Is the aim to create jobs? Is that now the ambition of this current government? It is the only reason that I sought election as an MLA. I recognized the economic as well as social devastation from unemployment. But where was the commitment of this government in the past year and a half to create jobs? And what an abysmal record they have of creating jobs. They haven't even attempted to create an environment of opportunity where jobs could be created.

As a matter of fact, in their very first budget they took away jobs from young people going to schools and universities. They abandoned the Environment Youth Corps program, a program into which we had injected approximately $10 million on an annual basis -- a good first-time opportunity for young people to acquire work-related experience and to fit into other jobs in the private sector. They threw that one out the window.

Again, in stark contrast to their commitment to our university students prior to becoming government, the next program they threw out the window -- one which created a lot of jobs -- was the subsidy program we had with the private sector to create summer employment for students going to universities. They threw that one out the window as well.

So where did this newfound commitment to create jobs come from? It certainly didn't come from the Ministry of Social Services. That ministry is aggressively campaigning to enable people and holding classes to teach people how to access the system -- not to help them find full-time jobs, not to help them in a retraining process, not to help them with their career. So I see that creating jobs is really a red herring.

[4:15]

How will this strengthen the economy? I don't see how it will strengthen the economy at all. I see how it will help the pockets of some individuals involved in it. I see all sorts of opportunities for doing things behind the closed doors of a Crown corporation -- not accountable to the public, only accountable to cabinet. I have very little faith in that level of accountability. This bill will allow the government to evade any type of accountability or responsibility or to avoid having any form of discipline exercised on their expenditures. That's what it will also enable.

It amounts to a horrendous tax bill. The public had given you a substantial amount of time, but you certainly caught the public's eye with your last budget, which was a tax, tax, tax budget. Now, for the first time ever, we have all sorts of groups -- unconnected politically, having never participated in any sort of a demonstration before in their life -- come together in

[ Page 5599 ]

various communities to voice their strong opposition. Those groups consist of professionals, labourers, elderly people and the very young -- a broad cross-section that never exhibited any strong opposition to the government before in their lives.

The loss of accountability is a very serious issue. Because we can defer payment, we're going to make lot of decisions that are not really going to be acceptable. We are going to wind up trying to satisfy short-term interests and hurt people over the very long term. I think the government has a much greater responsibility than that, but perhaps this is one of the reasons the government wants to move in this direction with Bill 3. It's wrong, it won't create jobs and it will not strengthen the economy; it will only help the government by hiding ever-increasing deficits.

The public is not ignorant of what is happening. The public is far better informed and aware than they ever were, through recognition of what transpired in the last budget. And I always have to refer to the words of Bob Williams, when he said: "If you think we were radical from '72 to '75, just wait until next time." So the moderate, reasoned, balanced, fair and businesslike approach that was promoted has dissolved into something that is quite dramatically different. It bothers me very greatly. It wasn't simply the loss of one or two election promises; it was the loss of a whole slate of election promises.

It was popular politics played at its very shallowest form. The losers will be all of us in politics. The loser in this will be the credibility of government, and that affects the credibility of all of us. The ultimate losers in this exercise, of course, are the people we're here to represent -- who we are committed generally to represent.

It's not fair and balanced. Did it take courage to bring in this type of bill? No, quite the contrary. I don't think it took any courage whatsoever. It's a devious type of bill, designed for reasons other than the obvious ones put forward here. The Premier's announcement stated: "In essence, B.C. 21 is an expression of our government's commitment to do business in a new way, to make the best use of tax dollars today for the future prosperity of our province." There is absolutely no way that those words relate to Bill 3, because they're completely incorrect. First of all, we're not using today's tax dollars.

We're foisting this off onto others over 40 years. What we're going to do is allow line ministries to defer anything that is in the way of capital, even the kitchen sink, into this particular Bill 3, and say what a fine job we're doing.

But the government is absolutely abdicating its clear-cut responsibility by transmitting responsibilities from line ministries into a Crown corporation which is not accountable. I suppose that in the end the government is going to say, "Well, don't blame us; they've done it," and point to the new Crown corporation. Talk about a waste of money. A government is elected to manage the fiscal affairs and provide goods and services for people in the province. They are abdicating that responsibility by trying to transfer it onto some sort of an organization, committee, society or retired home for politically correct individuals. They're abdicating it badly. British Columbians aren't fooled by that.

You talk about forestry initiatives and silviculture. We've planted over three billion trees now in British Columbia. We have outstanding silviculture initiatives and programs handled by the Ministry of Forests and its expertise and ability. If there is any interest in job creation, I could think of no better opportunity than to give a number of the individuals who are presently on GAIN, and who are capable and want to work, the opportunity to work in silviculture. It's a healthy environment. The pride and self-esteem of individuals comes back very dramatically and very quickly with that.

They find other jobs in the private sector workforce. You don't have to create another Crown corporation to provide those jobs. Those jobs are available. A superlative job has been accomplished by the Ministry of Forests in the past five to ten years in that particular field.

We hear a great deal of Ms. Maloney, who has recently been appointed a deputy minister in the Attorney General's ministry. I think perhaps she, with her statements on wealth and her anger, envy and greed with respect to those that she perceives as wealthy, is clear-cut evidence of the radical direction that this current government has taken. When we notice that this Bill 3 will provide for self-liquidating funds, and when I look at Ms. Maloney's statements with respect to her ideas on taxing the wealthy.... It will be a tax on seniors. It will be a tax on everyone.

As a matter of fact, she is saying that everyone should be taxed an additional 4 percent a year, and whether they are making any income or are on fixed income or whatever, all of their assets should be put together.

I am sure that she has the ear of government, but she is an example of one of those individuals who has always relied heavily on the public purse to keep her, and she has moved very quickly into the area of the public trough. Who is going to pay for the public trough that so many have nuzzled up to? The taxpayer of British Columbia. Who better at extracting the source of that funding than the current Minister of Finance, who is extracting more and more taxes and imposing new taxes and higher tax rates for spending. The other day, the minister spoke briefly on this.

He said: "We need the money." The Government House Leader, the Minister of Labour, said: "We want to make things happen now. Why should we wait six months because of the hoist motion?"

In the first year of this government, they wasted several billion dollars on initiatives which were neither necessary nor appropriate. They were simply political payoffs to the union sectors. You can look at the fixed-wage policy, which is costing $200 million a year in the province.

Hon. R. Blencoe: That's rubbish.

C. Serwa: Ah, the Minister of Municipal Affairs says: "Rubbish." Do you know how they evaded that? It was a very clever scheme. They escalated the estimate costs so that the tender bids came in under the estimates. It's a very easy thing to actually accomplish.

[ Page 5600 ]

Rubbish! It's costing the people of the province $200 million a year.

In that same budget, we did a number of things. Right off the bat, the current government repealed several bills -- the Taxpayers Protection Act, for one. It put a limit on government spending. It was a reasonable, responsible type of a bill, which they could have well utilized. They also repealed another bill that put a cap on public sector wage increases. How much did that cost, hon. Minister of Finance? It cost the British Columbia taxpayer $200 million, $300 million, $400 million -- substantial, hon. Speaker.

The hiring of almost 2,000 new employees -- certainly over that last year and the intentions this year, well over 2,000 -- will cost approximately another $1 billion. Does the public out there need or want more government, or does the public want a leaner, meaner government that makes decisions and gets off the backs of the private sector and of the citizen who is working out there with no guarantee of a job for life, no cushy package of all sorts of health plans, pensions or security? The private sector out there is a different world than the public sector that the government has sold out the people of British Columbia to.

The other day the Minister of Finance said: "It's much like putting a mortgage on a house. You all understand that. All of the people in the province really understand that very few British Columbians can go out and simply put the money down for a new house. We buy a mortgage." But that's not even a fair comparison. You're taking something that we all acknowledge and that we all do, but we only go out and buy one house. We know what our income is. We have an idea of the security of our job; we know what it will be for the next number of years, and we make a commitment.

So we buy one house, we put the down payment on it and we work towards paying that house. But we don't buy one house this year, another the next year and another the next year all on the same income that we have. It's not possible. That's the problem with this particular concept. There's no relationship -- none whatsoever. I couldn't think of a poorer example than Bill 3 and the actual purchase of a house. There's no relation whatsoever.

There will be no increase in income. To get an increase in income, you will have to do what the Minister of Finance has done: increase tax rates, impose new taxes on a defenseless society. As a matter of fact, because we're not delivering goods and services to people for those dollars, there's a great deal of mismanagement, and it's an unfair form of looting from society. So that comparison is not valid whatsoever.

The Minister of Finance also spoke of the pressure on this current government. There is no pressure on this government for massive capital spending, outside of the ability to pay-as-you-go. And why isn't there? You remember well the devastation that occurred in the early 1980s, where the economy was hurt. Individuals and businesses were going bankrupt throughout British Columbia. Everyone out there was hurting. There was a restraint package brought in. Government expenditures had to be cut down.

We stand on the shoulders of giants who made those decisions, and the strength of our present economy, even to this day, was the result of a very courageous and brave decision made by a former Premier, Bill Bennett.

[4:30]

From 1986 to 1991 there was accelerated spending because of the services and the capital structures that people required. We built more schools, more hospitals, more court-houses and more roads and highways, all of the things that people needed, and that's why the accelerated spending from '86 to '91. But those matters have been attended to. In the period of the last government, there was a difference in the deficit from the start to finish of that government of $1.48 billion. In the very last year of our government, $1.4 billion came as a direct result of a cutdown in federal transfer payments to British Columbia.

So the minister's argument that we have to spend because we need more infrastructure is not appropriate. People are responsible. We don't have to spend in those areas. What we have to do, obviously, is look after health care, education and social services. But most of all we have to take other tacks and other initiatives that are responsible. This is a very irresponsible act.

The current government seems to believe that you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the member, but his time has lapsed.

J. Dalton: I'm rising to support the reasoned amendment that the opposition has put forward. There are certainly many aspects of this bill which trouble the opposition and obviously trouble the third party as well, and I will be covering some of these.

The first point I want to raise is in the form of a question: why the rush? Why is there such a panic to get this bill through the House this week? It's not just that the government wants to deal with this on second reading in principle, but we're also informed that it is their desire that this bill go through committee stage, third reading and, presumably, get royal assent by the end of the week. I'm going to offer my opinion as to why the government is indeed in such a rush. The Finance minister was away for a week scouting around the money markets as you....

An Hon. Member: Skulking around.

J. Dalton: Well, scouting around, skulking around, whichever you want to attribute to that minister.

He returned from the money markets in New York and Toronto, and wherever else he happened to touch base, looking unusually smug. I happened to see the minister last Friday, the day he was returning to Victoria, and I put a simple question to him. I said: "Did you bring back lots of money?" He just smiled in his knowing way. I suggest that the rush we now find ourselves in to put this bill through the House is because there is a financial game plan in mind, and this bill is part of that. This bill will dictate the direction in

[ Page 5601 ]

which this government is unfortunately going to take this province. They need the bill in place now in order to carry out that program and that process.

I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that it does disturb us in the opposition that a bill.... Last week we were told there was no great panic; put it on the back burner, and the bill will eventually come back on the order paper. Now we find we are having evening sittings. Perhaps -- heaven forbid -- we'll have more before this bill is finished. We find ourselves with a government that is trying to diffuse the work of the House by calling estimates in Committee A when the House is dealing with second reading of a bill. We spoke against that process the other day.

Also, last evening the Government House Leader tried to call other estimates in Committee A, which of course is unprecedented in this House.

I'm bringing out these points because there's clearly a government agenda here that is not being disclosed. I think it has to be pointed out when we speak to this reasoned amendment that there is obviously some hidden information. It would be very useful to know why we should be debating this at length at this time. On top of that, it is well documented by way of the comments of the official opposition that we are very troubled by the tenor of this bill and by the direction in which it is going to take the province.

That's just as important as any hidden agenda this government may have -- which, of course, would disturb anyone. I want to draw the House's attention to the question of why we are suddenly flurrying and scurrying around, dealing with a piece of legislation which, on first flush, does not seem to warrant the undue consideration it is now attracting.

I think it's also noteworthy that at this time, after six weeks of this session, the government has only placed ten bills on the order paper. This clearly is on the top of that ten. The government has been very slow out of the gate this session in getting legislation on the order paper, but they certainly have not been slow in putting Bill 3 on the front burner -- as I described earlier -- in order for the heat to be put up to get this bill put through.

Let's get to the reasoned amendment itself. There are three aspects to it -- all of which I'm going to speak to and all of which are things in the bill that we in the opposition clearly have to speak against. This bill is bringing in a completely unacceptable process of government spending. Just as important as that -- if not more important -- it's also introducing a government diversion of accountable spending, and I emphasize "accountable spending." We will find the spirit of that in one aspect of the reasoned amendment we put forward.

Let's think about the issue of accountability. Accountability is probably the most important thing that we in the opposition exercise vis-�-vis the operation of government. Accountability arises out of the examination of ministerial spending. Of course, ministerial spending is examined through the budget process and the debate on the budget, which we have concluded, and through the estimates, which we are currently examining. We've concluded two ministries, and others are ongoing.

It is through the estimates process and the budget debate that we discover the proper vehicles to examine the spending of this, just as with any government. As I say, we have concluded the budget; we are now into the estimates. It's the ministerial estimates that draw to the attention of this House and, more importantly, to the attention of the taxpayers of this province where the government is placing its priorities and how it's spending its money. I shouldn't say government money, because it's our money, the people's money -- but let's call it the government money for now.

It's through the line-by-line examination in the estimates that we discover this process and that we have some assurance through this process, even though government spending may not be the way we in the opposition would like it, that the spending is accounted for.

Now what are we doing? We are creating through Bill 3 a separate vehicle -- in fact, probably two or three vehicles -- that is going to take it away from the opportunity of ministerial examination through the estimates to a Crown corporation, this rather exotic creature entitled the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future, and to the special account that's created in this legislation.

These things certainly are of major concern to the people of this province, who have made it very clear through meetings, rallies and protests of one form or another that they are exceedingly unhappy with the escalation in government spending and the escalation in taxes. Later on I'm going to comment on some of the new taxes and revenue producers that are found in Bill 3. These are the reasons, among others, why we have put this reasoned amendment forward: so that this bill as it is currently structured will not now be read a second time but will be reconsidered.

Let's come back for a moment to the question of accountability. Through the process of what happens in this House -- and I should refer, of course, to the fact that we have estimates in the other committee room -- and through the other committee, that legislative accountability occurs. It's through line-by-line questioning of how the minister will expend his or her budget for the upcoming year that the people of this province will have some assurance and some knowledge of how their taxes will be spent and indeed have been spent -- with the scrutiny of direct questioning in this Legislature.

Bill 3 does not allow that process to take place. Bill 3 is diverting away from ministerial responsibility. I would refer to the first

part in the reasoned amendment of the opposition put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale. That provision is that all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations. That is the point that I am speaking to. Bill 3 diverts away from that very basic concept and is an unacceptable process.

Let's examine some other aspects of this bill that are troubling to the opposition. Too often the government expresses the attitude that public money is actually government money. In fact, an example comes to mind.

[ Page 5602 ]

Last year I saw some correspondence from the Minister of Government Services regarding community grants. In that correspondence she clearly laid it out that she was looking into the distribution of "government money." That is a falsehood. It is not government money that she or any other minister is referring to. We're talking about the people's money, and we're talking about the accountability process of how the people's money is spent.

I hope this government is aware that when they put budgets together and start playing around with the budgetary process, or things such as this smoke-and-mirrors Bill 3, the government is losing track of the reason we're all elected, which is to be accountable and responsible to the taxpayers of this province. Bill 3 is clearly taking away that responsibility.

The government goes on to tell us that they, in their magnanimous way, will dole out this so-called government money -- which, as I say, is actually public money -- in a way that they see fit. What are we going to see with Bill 3? The government will divert public money away from ministries into committees and corporations. The nominal responsibilities of such ministers will continue -- with the related costs that go with that -- and there will be duplicated responsibilities occurring through Bill 3. Again, coming back to the reasoned amendment, all current ministry operations can perform these functions, not what we see in Bill 3.

Bill 3 is creating new spending authorities, which this province certainly does not need at this time. What this province needs -- and clearly the people have demonstrated that through their outrage and protests -- is some downsizing of government, not playing around with a piece of legislation such as this one, in creating more spending authority and less accountable spending authority. We do not need new authorities to spend unaccounted dollars. And I would emphasize the point that the surrounding bureaucracies spend even more unaccounted dollars.

[4:45]

Let me now get into the essence of Bill 3. The Committee on Building British Columbia's Future -- that has a very glorious title to it -- is a creation of cabinet. In fact, it's noteworthy that the Minister of Finance will chair this committee. I suppose anyone looking at this at first blush would say: "How can anyone speak against the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future?" Clearly the people of this province will have to be happy with that. But when the people of the province realize what's behind this aspect, like creating more bureaucracy and more expense....

For example, there's a provision that members of this great futuristic committee can be paid an allowance -- and no doubt will be -- and can recover all reasonable travel and other expenses. More added bureaucracy and expense. We don't see any evidence through Bill 3 of downsizing government. What we see is very real evidence of creating more unaccountable bureaucracy through the cabinet and the legislators in this House having no opportunity to put the spending of this committee and the other things created in Bill 3 to the public process.

Let's think further about this Committee on Building British Columbia's Future. I would give a word of advice to the government, if they'd care to listen: if this government is looking for a way to build the future of this province, I submit they can do that by encouraging economic growth. Build B.C. is creating a government process of economic growth. This government seems to have the attitude that if it steps in and borrows untold millions or billions of dollars, creating all sorts of future debt for the next generations, that they're doing this province a favour.

I suggest that there's no favours being created in the process that we see in Bill 3. It's anything but. What this province certainly does not need is more future debt heaped on top of debt, and all the ancillary taxes and things which we find later on in this bill in order to pay for the debt servicing, which is another very important financial aspect of this bill.

Let us think further about the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future. This committee will no doubt require bureaucratic support, so it is not just the members of the committee who w