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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 12

[ Page 5655 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

R. Kasper: In the galleries here we have a constituent from the Malahat-Juan de Fuca area. His name is Mr. Rob Wilson. He is the president of the Port Renfrew Community Association, and he is also a recipient of the Canada 125 award. Will the House please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my great pleasure today to welcome to the House 15 members of the National Aboriginal Veterans' Association, including the president, Sam Sinclair; the executive director, Gavin Rhodes; the vice-president, Randy Ester-Gage; the secretary, Ken B. Harris; and the treasurer, Claude Petit. The contribution of aboriginal veterans has not been fully recognized by Canadians, and it's a tremendous contribution. The veterans' association has taken on the task of reminding all Canadians of that contribution. I would ask the House to join me in making them very welcome.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two contingents from my riding, one being the district real estate board: Garry King, Liz Tutt and Sharon Labiuk. Would the House make them most welcome.

J. MacPhail: I am delighted today to report that throughout the buildings there are people who are very valuable to this province. They're the constituency assistants of the government caucus. They are hard at work, so I'm sure they're not in the gallery, but they may be in throughout the day. Would the House please make them welcome when they arrive.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to introduce today 34 grade 6 students from Langley Central Fundamental Elementary School with their teacher Mr. Hillson. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I know that many members would like to get up and introduce members of the real estate board, so I'd like to do it on behalf of the government. There are many members in the gallery today who are members of the real estate board -- the member from North Van, of course, as well -- and I ask all members to make these citizens welcome.

M. Lord: It's my pleasure to welcome three constituents from Comox Valley here today: Shirley, Diana and Marian Bell. These women have a keen interest in the political affairs of our province, and are enjoying a visit to the Legislature and to our capital city today. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

R. Chisholm: I would like to introduce to the Legislature: Joelle Logan from Fraser Valley College; Lynn Swinson, a constituent of mine; and my wife, Janet Chisholm. Would you make them most welcome.

P. Dueck: I, too, would like to welcome the real estate people that are here today, especially the one from my constituency....

Interjection.

P. Dueck: Why not? This gentleman sells real estate for Clearbrook Realty, of which -- a little bit of advertising -- in my former life I was the owner and manager. But anyway, would the House please make Duane Bates welcome.

M. Farnworth: This is a commercial of sorts as well. In the House today we have, from Terry Fox Senior Secondary School, a group of some 45 students and a number of teachers, including Mr. Don Van Os, who is the coach of the senior boys' triple-A basketball team from Port Coquitlam, which won the provincial high school championship earlier this year. The students are also accompanied by teachers Bill Mullan, Jo Ann Ward and Francois Jacques. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: Today we have in the gallery some special guests from the city of Nanaimo. Would the House please welcome Mr. Don Banting, Phillip Connelly, Ruth Margolis, Jane Gittens and Jesse Roane, who are members of the Nanaimo Democratic Action Group.

E. Barnes: I'd ask the House to join me in making welcome someone that I met many years ago, who now is greyer than I am. He was only a teenager at the time, and much younger than myself, but we used to play basketball against each other, and he was also a very active member in the community. He has worked for the federal government and for all kinds of organizations. Today -- at the age of about what, 25? -- he's going back to university, to take law at UBC. I'd like all of the House to make Paul Winn welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 18 proposes a number of amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act and to the British Columbia Transit Act. The bill establishes a municipal transit tax on gasoline and diesel fuel purchased in the Victoria regional transit service area. In addition, several housekeeping and administrative measures are proposed in the bill.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 18 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.

[ Page 5656 ]

VEHICLE TRANSFER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

G. Farrell-Collins presented a bill intituled Vehicle Transfer Consumer Protection Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure the Minister of Consumer Services isaware of this issue and of the need for legislation in this area. Quite clearly, a good portion of his time, his ministry's time, and certainly of my time as a constituent representative, deals with this type of issue. There certainly is a need that greater assurances be given to both the consumer and the seller of these products about the record that goes with the vehicle. This package would try to include a number of things, and of course, all these items are up for discussion.

It would include the mileage, previous owner's accident record and lien record, which would give people purchasing used vehicles in this province a bit of assurance about the product they were purchasing, and would give the seller a bit of assurance about the product they were selling.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill M217 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

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Labour. We sit today on the verge of the collapse of his committee, struck to review the Employment Standards Act, over an issue with which I'm sure he's familiar: the patronage appointment of Mr. Hans Brown to do a job that the committee itself was prescribed to do. In the interests of keeping the review of employment standards on track and the consultative process a healthy one, will he rescind the appointment of Hans Brown?

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to the question is no. The hon. member suggests in his question that the review is on the threshold of collapse. He hasn't done his homework. He hasn't checked on the facts. He hasn't talked to the people involved in the review. I take this opportunity to advise members of the House that I had occasion, during the lunch hour, to discuss the issue with some of those involved in the review. I'm pleased to advise all members that the review is proceeding, and proceeding well.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I, too, had occasion this afternoon to discuss the very same issue with those very same people, and I'm quite familiar with what the minister has been telling them. It's quite clear that the confidence of the business community in the review of the Employment Standards Act has failed. Will this minister finally do the right thing and show some good judgment by repealing that blatant patronage appointment?

Hon. M. Sihota: If there's an absence of confidence in this province, it's in the Liberal Party.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The absence of confidence in this province is clearly against this government and this minister. That's why the public is shouting for the recall of the minister, the Premier and the government. Will the minister finally show some good judgment, put his friendship with Hans Brown aside, rescind the $30,000 appointment and let the province get back to work?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to remind the hon. member that the first thing the Liberal opposition did after the 1991 election campaign was to hire the former Liberal candidate in Oak Bay, Paul McKivett. The second thing they did was to hire the former Liberal campaign manager in West Vancouver....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I know it upsets them, but let's put the record straight. In terms of Jim Bennett, they reached into Mr. Chretien's office in communications and tried to pluck somebody from there to work for the Liberal caucus.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the minister is just winding up his reply.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to know that this ministry has hired someone of the calibre of Hans Brown, who has tremendous experience with the labour movement throughout this province and brings his expertise to public service.

EFFECT OF BUDGET ON AUTO INDUSTRY

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The budget that called for higher sales taxes on automobiles, new cars and trucks, projects that those increases, along with the elimination of the sales tax trade-in credit, will increase government revenues by $56 million. I assume that projection also includes an increase in automobile and truck sales. Can the minister tell us how large an increase in sales his budget projects?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to engage in debate with the member, because I know he is very knowledgeable in this sector. Today I discussed with the automotive dealers' association the formation of a technical working group to look at some of these questions. I'd be delighted if the member opposite, with

[ Page 5657 ]

his expertise, could join with the technical group in a review of this question. I'm sure we can give the member all the information he would like.

J. Weisgerber: If the minister has met with the dealers, he knows that since the budget was introduced, dealers are reporting a 40 to 50 percent decrease in sales. Has the minister calculated the loss of revenue that those sales trends will cause his government, or is he so ideologically bound to punish automobile dealers that he doesn't care about the loss of revenue?

Hon. G. Clark: In the first quarter of this year, prior to the budget, automobile sales were down about 20 percent across the province. So there has been some decline in automobile sales for some time. We don't have any data yet, but obviously we're monitoring it. I have full faith in the staff of the Ministry of Finance, in terms of their projections. We are going to be monitoring the situation very carefully and reviewing all of the data around this question. As I said earlier, I'd be delighted to share any of that information with the member opposite.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: I suppose the government's under-mining of consumer confidence goes back prior to the budget. In any event, this government has engaged in a vendetta against automobile dealers. Doesn't the minister understand that the people he's hurting are not only the car industry, but everyone in British Columbia who owns or purchases a car? And doesn't he further understand that when the government attacks the automobile industry, it hurts the people who work in the industry -- the commission salesmen, the mechanics, the clerks and everybody in the dealership? Or doesn't this government care about jobs?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to answer that question, because British Columbia has two and a half times the employment growth of the rest of the country. It has three times the GDP growth of the rest of the country. It has twice the population growth of the rest of the country. Consumer confidence is up. Retail sales are up in British Columbia. We're doing better than any province in the country when it comes to the economy.

R. Chisholm: This question goes to the Minister of Economic Development. You've imposed double and even quadruple taxation. Auto sales are down by 40 percent subsequently, and so are your revenues. To pay for your extravagant budget, 1,300 people are expected to be laid off. Has the minister taken into account how he has decimated this industry and how he will increase the social welfare rolls and cause untold personal costs with his ill-conceived, unjust tax grab?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was a little hard to follow the thread in that, but I think I have to say that anybody laid off in any industry, especially in those industries that are so aggressive, as the automobile industry is.... I'm sure those people will be able to find employment if there's some dislocation.

I think what the opposition fails to see is that retail sales are more than double what they are in the rest of Canada and will remain that way. In terms of consumer confidence, it seems to me that if people don't spend it on one thing they're going to spend it on another, and there's an equal generation of jobs.

R. Chisholm: Supplemental to the same minister. Is this minister really saying that this tax -- the Maloney tax, I might add -- which really kills consumer demand, destroys jobs, destroys business and reduces the revenue to government, is a good idea?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I won't let that member put those words in my mouth. What I can say in response is simply that the B.C. economy is the best in the country. We have to remember that, and as soon as the opposition says that this is the best place to invest, with the second-lowest taxes in Canada, then they will do their part to restore consumer confidence as we pull out of this recession.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: I'm glad the minister thinks a $26 billion debt is a good economy.

There is a rumour of a meeting today of the minister, the government and the car dealers. Is the minister meeting with them to back down, or is he just wasting their time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not aware of a meeting; they haven't invited me to a meeting. But I'd be happy to meet with them if they ask my office for a meeting.

INVESTMENT IN PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANIES

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the government announced that they had rejected the recommendation of the commissioner on resources and environment, Stephen Owen, and instead appointed Justice Seaton to carry out a public inquiry into the government's purchase of shares in MacMillan Bloedel. Can the Minister of Finance tell the House today whether or not the government has ordered agencies of the provincial government to refrain from any further investments in British Columbia companies while this inquiry is being conducted?

Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely not, hon. Speaker. I'm surprised that the member would show so little confidence in British Columbia business. He suggests that it's all right to invest in companies in New York, London or Europe but not in blue-chip companies in British Columbia. We certainly reject that.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

[ Page 5658 ]

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that answer. The government's program of increasing intervention in the private sector of British Columbia has now caused a likely conflict of interest. Clearly this government cannot own part of a private enterprise while it regulates the activities of that enterprise.

Given that, and that it is obvious that the government must be very careful in its investment decisions, can the Minister of Finance tell us whether or not Treasury Board, which he chairs, has developed any guidelines for such investments pursuant to the British Columbia Endowment Fund Act or the Financial Administration Act? And if so, would he be prepared to table those guidelines in this House?

Hon. G. Clark: The government and the Ministry of Finance have a legal obligation to maximize the returns for their shareholders -- the taxpayers of British Columbia -- or for the pension funds and the pensioners. The program of diversification started under the previous administration. There has been no change in the rules governing diversification with respect to that, except that in the Endowment Fund we do have a B.C. focus to try to develop British Columbia in a non-subsidized way. We are not doing anything which I think would jeopardize that, in terms of state intervention. This is prudent use of taxpayers' money to build the province and to make healthy returns for the taxpayer.

The rate of return in the Ministry of Finance this year is somewhere over 12 percent. That's good news for the taxpayers and for the people of British Columbia. And I'm delighted with the performance of the Ministry of Finance staff.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: I asked the minister for guidelines for investment. Clearly he has no guidelines. This is the same minister who, during second reading debate on the bill last year, boasted that he was proud that he was going to use the public sector creatively. "Creatively" was the word that he used. Now this minister's creativity has gotten the government into hot water.

Can the minister tell the House today whether this government -- as well as its growing Crown corporations -- will cease and desist from any further intervention into the private sector of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: This is not intervention. These are private fund managers investing in B.C. companies. This is professional Finance ministry staff and professional staff in the private sector from Dominion Securities. Before we took office, the government owned over 1 percent of MacMillan Bloedel through professional fund managers. That has continued. We have made very good returns for the taxpayer, and that reduces taxes and reduces the deficit in British Columbia.

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Finance about the terms of reference for the Seaton commission inquiry. Has he examined

section 68 of the Securities Act as to whether insider-trading laws were violated by the B.C. Endowment Fund?

The Speaker: I regret that I must interrupt the member. Because that matter has gone to an inquiry, the particulars of that inquiry are not now able to be discussed in question period. If the question is a general one that does not consider the inquiry specifically, which is sub judice because of the inquiry, then I will allow a general question.

W. Hurd: Does the Finance minister agree that

section 68 of the Securities Act regarding insider trading needs to be examined in light of this government's determination to invest public sector money in private sector ventures?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, members opposite should think about the consequences of what they are saying. Every province in Canada, through their pension funds and public management of funds, invests in equity participation -- every single one of them. It is good business sense; it is good for the public interest.

If members opposite are saying -- contrary to what has existed in this province under the previous administration, contrary to every other government in Canada -- that the investments of the Ministry of Finance should only be in money markets, it would reduce the rate of return for the taxpayer, it would increase the unfunded liability....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Thank you, hon. minister. The bell signals the end of question period.

Hon. G. Clark: It's tempting to continue, but I won't.

I have the honour to transmit herewith the annual report of the auditor general.

Presenting Reports

M. Farnworth: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology on the matter of the North American free trade agreement.

[2:30]

I would like to add that this report is the basis of a second round of hearings that will be held in the province. I'd also like to thank the committee and my co-Chair for the work they've done. We've had a considerable number of hearings take place, and this will continue the process that the House set out for us before.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[ Page 5659 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, we will be continuing estimates debate for the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services in Committee A this afternoon.

With that said, I call second reading debate on Bill 3.

BUILD BC ACT

(continued)

The Speaker: Before proceeding with second reading debate on the amendment, the Chair has now had an opportunity to examine the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 3, moved by the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands shortly before the House adjourned at noon today.

Sir Erskine May's twentieth edition of Parliamentary Practice states at page 531: "An amendment, urging the setting up of a select committee to consider the subject matter of a bill, might be moved and carried, if the House were averse from giving the bill itself a second reading and so conceding its principle." The propriety of this type of amendment at the second reading of a bill is further conceded in Beauchesne's Rules and Forms, page 200. This House has also accepted such amendments in the course of second reading debate on various bills.

The essence of this amendment is an expression of the House that it is, in the words of Sir Erskine May: "...averse from giving the bill itself a second reading and so conceding its principle."

The amendment submitted to the Chair by the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands reads as follows: "All of the words after 'that' be deleted, and be followed by: 'Bill 3 now be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services'." It seems to the Chair that the motion itself contains clearly contradictory principles, which may or may not have been intentional.

It requests, on the one hand, that the bill be now read a second time; and on the other hand, that the subject matter of the bill be referred to a committee. Under these circumstances, the Chair has no choice but to rule this amendment, as presently worded, out of order. We are now back on the main motion, which is second reading of the bill. We can continue debate on that matter.

A point of order by the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands.

C. Tanner: While I'm sure you have made the correct ruling -- and I'm not questioning that -- it is very obvious that it is a typographical error. It should have read: "not now." Would the Chair therefore accept that motion from one of our other members?

The Speaker: On the point of order, Government House Leader.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is seeking advice from the Chair in terms of what, tactically, he ought to do next. That's certainly improper. If the opposition caucus has made an error or brought forward an amendment that's inconsistent with the rules, then they have to live with the consequences if they are wrong.

The Speaker: I have heard two submissions on the point of order and, quite clearly, the Chair doesn't have the flexibility to do what is requested. But we can continue debate on second reading of the bill at this time.

I recognize the hon. member for Chilliwack on second reading.

R. Chisholm: No, hon. Speaker, I'm speaking on the main motion.

The Speaker: Just to clarify for members, we are on second reading of Bill 3, which is the main motion.

R. Chisholm: It's very unfortunate that we have typos that people take advantage of, but seeing as we have to speak, we'll talk about this Bilk B.C. fund. Unfortunately, the members are leaving so they don't have to listen to us.

B.C. 21 allows the government to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to Crown corporations. This policy allows the government to skirt the normal legislative process by funnelling money into political blacktop projects. B.C. 21 states that it's going to have $100 million in the Transportation Financing Authority. It's going to artificially reduce the 1993-94 deficit. Unfortunately, this fund won't be counted in our deficit. Only $100 million in B.C. 21 spending will actually appear on the books this year as an appropriation to the Build B.C. special account.

Another $80 million is in borrowing power for the Transportation Financing Authority, which will show up as part of the province's accumulated debt -- which, I might add, will be reported apart from the annual deficit. In other words, this Legislature will not know what the debt of this Crown corporation will be. Another $166 million will be borrowed for the education institutions building authority, $93 million for the Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority, and $281 million for the School Districts Capital Financing Authority.

All of this money will be borrowed this year, but not included in the deficit.

The fact is, the total accumulated debt of our government, Crown corporations and agencies will increase this year from $23.2 billion to $26.3 billion, and that does not include the $4 billion worth of pensions. This is a 32 percent increase since 1991, when this government took office. This is the largest debt increase in the entire history of the province. You should be ashamed of that, hon. members. The minister claims that much of this accumulated debt is secured. This argument is sheer nonsense. When was the last time hon. members saw a highway sold off to back up a debt?

When did they see this particular building mortgaged to back up a debt? When will we see this building sold to pay off a debt? It doesn't happen.

The plain truth is that the NDP is running up debt at a historically fast pace, and no amount of creative accounting can hide that fact. This government believes

[ Page 5660 ]

in higher taxes, bigger spending and more debt -- just the opposite of their election platform, I might add. I'd like to quote from a newspaper called the Taxpayer. The Taxpayer, of course, is a critique of this Legislative Assembly and assemblies across the country. It states:

"British Columbia has the fastest growing debt in Canada, according to a recent report published by Statistics Canada. The study revealed that between 1981 and 1991, B.C.'s per capita gross debt -- which includes liabilities -- increased by a shocking 569 percent" -- not something to be proud of -- "rising from $1,144 to $7,657 for every man, woman and child. In 1981, B.C.'s per capita debt was 43 percent of the average of all the provinces, but by 1991 it had increased to 98 percent. With the exception of the Yukon, the fastest growing per capita debts are found in western Canada, with British Columbia leading the pack at 569 percent...."

If I was part of this government or the former government, I'd hang my head in shame. With the so-called economy that we do have, according to the minister, there's no way we should be in this position, because we have a growing economy, he says, a vibrant economy. Unfortunately, the statistics do not back him up.

According to this paper, we have $16.191 billion in government revenue. That sounds like an awful lot of money, but when you take a look at the expenditure, we're spending $17.98 billion. That makes a larger deficit. It states that in that revenue we pay $19,228 per four-member family per year. The equivalent costs in our family on $17 billion is $21,355. Each family is paying $7,050 to bolster our medicare system, and that's $587 for a family of four for every four-month period, and that's each and every individual. It states that our education is costing each and every member of the family $355, to a tune of $4,263. In social services it's $2,808 -- for every family, $234.

What I'm driving at here is that when we turn around and look at the wealth-generating industries, we are going to see a disparity. Unfortunately, in agriculture each and every family subsidizes to the tune of $111; that's $9 per member of the family. In economic development and trade it's $110, in tourism it's $72 and mining -- unfortunately the minister is not here -- gets a whopping $51 a year. These are the ministries that generate wealth to pay for our social services, and it's very obvious where the disparity is.

If you take a look at all of our wealth-generating industries, we spend approximately $1.2 billion. Yet we have a budget of $17.98 billion. It's rather obvious who's paying the way here. It happens to be the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is basically taxed out. We have to start investing in our wealth generators, and this bill does not do that.

When we take a look at this deficit, and we take a look at our budget, we are paying out $795 million in interest payments alone, and with this bill we are going to increase that debt. Of course, once we increase that debt, we are going to have to pay more interest. So that's going to increase. Just think of what we could do with a billion dollars if we had a balanced budget. A billion dollars would go a long way in this province; it would solve an awful lot of our problems.

When I take a look at this bill, and I debate it here in the House, I find that it has a lot of problems. I'm going to talk about a few of them, and I'm going to go through a few clauses. What we've got to put in perspective is that this is a Crown corporation. This is not government; this is business. Crown corporations should not be entitled to tax. If we want to call it a toll, or anything we want -- a licence, a fee -- it is still a tax. The only organization that is allowed to tax is a government, not a Crown corporation.

Unfortunately, we have too many Crown corporations around this province that are taxing. B.C. Ferries raising their rates -- guess what: it's a tax. What's happening on Saturday? All the truckers are going to block them. It's a tax, whether you like it or not.

F. Garden: It's a cost.

R. Chisholm: If it was a cost, hon. member, nobody would have a complaint, but unfortunately, we seem to put a little bit of profit into these costs.

Take a look at some of these clauses. Clauses 9 to 11 establish the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, with a board chaired by the Minister of Transportation. The purpose of that authority is to plan, acquire, construct or improve transportation infrastructure in British Columbia. I thought that was the job of the Minister of Transportation and the ministry. Why do we need a Crown corporation to do their job? This is just more bureaucracy, and it's costing us far too much. The province cannot afford this extravagance.

[2:45]

We then take a look at clause 12, the powers and capacity of the authority. It gets a little shocking here. Under

section 12(4)(

a) it says it's to plan, build and improve transportation infrastructure. I've already talked about that. That's the job of a line ministry. Under subsection (4)(

b) it says: "...acquire property by expropriation or otherwise." That's kind of a scary thought. We now have a Crown corporation being allowed to expropriate. I thought this was a government responsibility. Why don't we let the 7-Eleven, the corner store, expropriate? That's the next step.

Under subsection (4)(E), it says: "...provide financial assistance by way of grant, loan or guarantee." I certainly hope patronage doesn't come into play in this one, but obviously it's an open door. Subsection (4)(

g) says: "...create subsidiary corporations to carry out the purposes of this Act." Not only do we have this Crown corporation, but it can give birth to other corporations. It's just going to grow and become an empire. The last thing we need is a Crown corporation that is bigger than the government -- and it could end up that way. This is a $100 million BS fund, but could become a $1 billion BS fund. This is the NDP's superversion of the former government's way of extorting money.

Clauses 13 to 15 define the powers of the board of directors. It defines the officers and employees who may be hired by the chief executive officer, whose office is established under this section. These employees will have the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, and the Pension (Public Service) Act is also applicable. In other words, we're talking about civil servants. I'd like members on the other side to explain what the

[ Page 5661 ]

difference is. What is the difference between an individual in the ministry who has the same benefits and an individual in this Crown corporation? There's absolutely no difference.

Clause 18 defines the financial administration of the authority. The books of the authority will be open for inspection by the minister or his designate. It doesn't say by the Legislature; it says by the minister or his designate. When do they report to the Legislature? Who makes them accountable -- the cabinet, and the cabinet alone? Then the public of British Columbia and the Legislature will never know what is owed behind closed doors. We had enough closed-door situations during the last regime. It's time that stopped. Here the door is open to do it again.

The authority will have to provide Treasury Board with a business plan with respect to projects to be undertaken, which will include: "(

a) revenue, expenditure, borrowing and lending proposals, (

b) statements of assets, and (

c) such other information as Treasury Board may require." Clause 18(10) states that the report of the authority for the fiscal year must be laid before the Legislature by the minister as soon as practicable. The problem here is that they too are also allowed to advise the Legislature, as we're going to see just a little further on. So who is running this thing -- Treasury Board or the Crown corporation? If they're advising Treasure Board, then who's in charge?

Clause 19 provides for authority revenues from the gasoline tax. When were they allowed to increase taxes? I thought that was a government responsibility. But it goes on to say that this will allow for, at most, a 1-cent-per-litre gasoline levy to be directed to the authority. This is where it gets shocking: this

section will also allow for an additional levy to be directed to the authority in any area of British Columbia, and for prescribing the amount of tax to be collected under

section 11.1 of the Motor Fuel Tax Act. We now have this Crown corporation taxing the people of British Columbia. Since when has a Crown corporation been allowed that kind of authority?

The authority will also collect the net revenue from the tax revenue collected under

section 2.5 of the Social Service Tax Act; that's the $1.50 on car rentals. Again, they're collecting taxes.

Clause 21 allows for tolls or charges to be paid for any use of any property of the authority. Again we're into it. Bill 3 is horrendous in what can be done with it.

Clause 22 is really spiteful: the authority, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, may invest or loan money of the authority which isn't required for the immediate purposes of the authority. In other words....

The Speaker: I do regret that I'm interrupting the member, but I need to remind the member that although I've given him quite a bit of flexibility, discussion of individual clauses of the bill must be left until committee. Second reading debate must be on the general principles and purpose of the bill.

Please continue, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm not actually reading from the bill. These are some of my thoughts prior to the bill. It's not the way it is written.

Anyway, the authority will approve of the Minister of Finance.... He's allowed to take their money and invest it. He's allowed to do whatever he wants with any overages that they have. This is an awful lot of leeway. When does he account for this?

Clause 23 sets out that this agency can borrow. It can borrow whatever amounts of money it should desire, and it may issue securities. In other words, whoever is in charge of this Crown corporation and taking direction from the cabinet may go out and borrow $1.5 billion on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the population of B.C. -- in other words, add it to our debt. Where does this stop? There are no checks on this. It never comes to the Legislature. It doesn't have to be reported in the deficit. Where are the controls? It can advise the Treasury Board. There is something blatantly wrong with this bill. We are going in the wrong direction.

I want to quote a former member of this Legislature from the party that's the government at this point in time. It was the hon. Mr. Stupich. He talked about the BS fund -- now we have a superversion of the BS fund -- and he had some very strong things to say about it. "We're opposed to this kind of smokescreen, this kind of delusion. We're opposed to this concept of setting up a BS fund that will be used simply to pull the wool over the voters' eyes and be used simply for political election purposes." This bill runs afoul of that statement.

He also said: "...BS fund will not be represented by anything in the way of assets." He said: "...they will determine in advance what they want the deficit or the surplus to be when it's all over.... They can arrive at any figure at the bottom of the statement. That's exactly what's it's going to be used for."

How can this government, in all conscience, turn around and produce exactly the same bill as the former government, only enhanced and made even more devastating for the province? They told the former government what they thought of the BS fund; it was very obvious. How can this government do exactly the same thing, only make it bigger and better for their purposes? It's not bigger and better for the province. The people of the province are being devastated by this kind of politics, and we don't need it anymore.

I'm going to quote another member. This is going back a few years, but he's still in this Legislature. He'll probably recognize the words" "...resource revenue stabilization fund...that particular fund had the same motive precisely." These are all words from those people over there. It makes one wonder how in the last session they could say these words, and in this session they can turn around and refute them.

I want to quote now from an unbiased agency -- nobody from within this organization. It's the Vancouver Board of Trade, and they're asking what the rush is in handling this Bill 3. Send it to committee. Let it be debated. Let the public have a look at it. Let the board of trade have a look at it. Let all of these agencies have a look at it. What is the rush? Those are the questions they're asking. They made another couple of

[ Page 5662 ]

comments: "Bill 3 appears to be an attempt to create economic activity with the taxpayers' own money. It will create no new jobs and no new business for the province." That's a quote from their document. Obviously they're not very enthused about this bill. "Bill 3 will create more bureaucracy, which means additional public sector workers and additional patronage appointments. What does it do that cannot be done by existing ministries?" They're exactly the same questions I've been asking in the last three or four days. These people are coming to the same conclusion.

They go on to say: "Generating revenue in creative new ways is just another means of extending taxation. Bill 3 offers no assurance that the funds will be carefully spent" -- and I re-emphasize that -- "with open competition for contracts. Will it provide more openings for government patronage?" That's a good question, with the track record of this government. "Bill 3 appears to be a sleight-of-hand move to remove some expenditures from the government's accounting mainstream, thereby obscuring even further the province's true fiscal picture." It's exactly what I've been saying.

We won't know what we owe. We know right now that it's going to be around $30 billion. If they want to say that that's pensions, or if they want to say that that's Crown corporations, it's immaterial. It is debt. We have to service debt. That means we have to pay interest. That is money that we can ill afford to pay. We are mortgaging our children's future.

It's time this kind of politics stopped. It's time we got control of it. It's time we tried to get back to a balanced budget. We can't tax our way out of it, and we can't take Bill 3 and think that that's going to do it. As a matter of fact, all it's going to do is add debt to debt, and then there's no control. And then where do we get the actual figures of what we owe? If they don't report to the Legislature, who is going to have the answers for the people of British Columbia? Who is going to have the answers for the opposition? Who is going to have the answers for the next government?

They go on to say: "Bill 3 opens the door for massive government intervention in the economy -- the opposite of what is required to generate economic growth." As a matter of fact, that's very true. Government expenditure does not generate economic growth. All we do is build bureaucracies. Yes, we employ a certain percentage, but small business and economic development employ a lot more. For every job we produce in the bureaucracy, they produce dozens out in the economy. It's time we realized that's where we have to generate investment, that's where we have to generate interest, that's where we've got to make us flourish -- and that's what will pay our bills.

"What we really need is for the government to create a better climate for investment. We need to encourage private sector investors to invest money and create jobs in British Columbia," says McLean, the head of the Vancouver Board of Trade. He is saying exactly what I'm saying: we need to generate interest in our economy, but we don't do it by building a bureaucracy. We don't do it by going behind closed doors. We don't do it with Bill 3. We do it by taking profits that we see with B.C.

Hydro and maybe lessening the cost of electricity for some business that wants to invest in British Columbia, and they will create the jobs. There are many ways of making money if we are wise enough, frugal enough and prudent enough to do it, but we don't seem to have this ability in this legislative chamber.

If you want to improve the environment, what do you do? You take the automobile and put ethanol into it. We have all of our grain growers bankrupt in the prairie region. We put an ethanol plant up there. We take all of the grain that they can possibly produce and put it into our gasoline -- which, by the way, will reduce pollution coming out of the automobile by 20 percent. We give them cheap power to bring in this plant. All of a sudden, our grain growers are back to work; we're not subsidizing them anymore.

This is how we generate wealth, and we turn around and put that wealth into paying off this debt. Eventually we will see the light at the end of the tunnel. But the way we're going right now, we're just going to see a bigger black hole. Unfortunately, this is not the answer with Bill 3. Bill 3 isn't making that kind of investment.

[3:00]

Hon. Speaker, at this time I would like to submit an amendment to the motion. The amendment is moved by myself and seconded by the member from Vancouver. It reads: "That all the words after 'that' be deleted and be followed by 'Bill 3 not now be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services'."

The Speaker: Continue debate on the amendment while the Chair considers the amendment.

On the amendment.

R. Chisholm: Every major business association has spoken against this bill. Can every one of them be wrong and this government be right? I find that highly doubtful. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce is against this bill outright; the Vancouver Board of Trade, the British Columbia manufacturers' association, the Retail Merchants' Association and the bankers' association are all against this bill. If they are all against this bill -- and this happens to be the mainframe of all the business in British Columbia -- there's got to be something wrong.

Why don't we take this bill and put it into a standing committee? Why don't we talk about this thing? What is this government scared of? Are they afraid of talking to a few businessmen? Are they afraid of getting a balanced decision on this thing? Why are they ramming it through? Have they got an agenda of their own? Is the money already mortgaged? Have they signed the documents in New York, or something foolish like that? Unfortunately, hon. Speaker, it's beginning to look that way.

Why all the resistance from the employers of British Columbia? The answer is simple: this bill is about debt; it's about hidden debt and hidden taxes. We've had enough hidden taxes; we've had enough hidden debt. We need to know honestly what we owe, and we need to address it. We need to get control of our debt; we

[ Page 5663 ]

need to buy it down. We can't do it by taxation alone. We have to invest; we have to cut back on bureaucracies, which we're enhancing with this bill. We're making bigger bureaucracies. We have to cut them back, not make them bigger.

It's incredible that today, as we debate this bill, the peripatetic Premier is trying to sell business in Asia when his entire business community back home is telling him he's going in the wrong direction. The wrong-way Premier was quoted in yesterday's paper as saying that the government supplies the juice, the clout and the credibility for business. That's what he's telling the people in Asia.

What does the Premier mean by "juice"? Hon. Speaker, the only juice between the business community and the Premier is what's left after he squeezes the business community dry.

N. Lortie: We heard that already.

R. Chisholm: And you need to hear it again, hon. member, because you weren't listening last time. I notice your lips are moving this time. Maybe you're reading the bill, because you're going to have to answer questions from your constituents.

Hon. Speaker, I apologize for my outbreak there, but anyway it wasn't very necessary. Some of these members don't realize that when the public realizes what they've been duped with, they are going to have to answer questions in their constituencies: "Why did you allow this to happen? How dare you? It's not your money; it's our money. You are just entrusted with it to use in our best interest." Bill 3 does not do that for the people of British Columbia.

What clout is the Premier talking about? After the clout administered by the capital business tax, business doesn't want to be clouted anymore by this government. It has been clouted enough. As a matter of fact, half the businesses are leaving or closing up. They've had enough; they're going south.

An Hon. Member: What does it have to do with this bill?

R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, what it has to do with this bill is that this bill is just another form of this taxation. It's another form through which people are going to take their good tax money, and it's going into this black hole this government is producing. It's high time it stopped.

Does the Premier really believe that he and his colleagues provide credibility to business? We have companies in this province that have been world traders for decades. They must be relieved to learn that they will finally acquire credibility thanks to our Premier, now known throughout Asia as Dr. Juice. The opposition has some juicy tidbits to share with our business ambassador when he finds his luggage and returns home. He has no credibility with business. In fact, his credibility is receding with a dwindling roster of NDP supporters. The bald truth is: when this Premier claims to be giving credibility to business, he's speaking off the top of his head.

Hon. Speaker, we have problems in this province. It's time for us to take our heads out of the sand and realize that those have to be addressed. It is not time to create another bureaucracy, another Crown corporation. It's time to make smaller and more efficient the bureaucracy we already have. It's time to do what the people put us here to do: govern the province to the best of our ability. I don't believe the people of British Columbia believe this is the best of our ability. As a matter of fact, I think they find it downright deceitful, and it's time that stopped.

I have a few quotes from members on the opposite side, and I did a little research so I could respond to these quotes. I'll respond especially to the hon. member for Cariboo North, who said that Build B.C. is going to "kick-start the economy of British Columbia." The Finance minister has been bragging about B.C. having the best economy in the land. If he is right, why does it need to be kick-started? Obviously, if we have to go out and use the rhetoric they're using, there is something wrong here.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings had some interesting things to say too. I said we're mortgaging the future of our kids. She said: "...the future of our kids is actually at stake in this province." That is not a defence of Bill 3 so much as it is an admission that the NDP have already mortgaged the future of the next generation. There are no truer words spoken. With the $30 billion debt, which we can only pay back at $1 billion or $2 billion a year, it's going to be around for 15 years, and we'll be going through a couple of generations.

Some people have to look beyond their nose and realize that the hole we're digging is one we're not going to get out of very easily. We have to put the brakes on now.

The same member said: "...the opposition focuses on money. That's all they can see." A good response for you, hon. member. The millions of taxpayers in British Columbia also focus on money and do not want schemes such as Build B.C. that will spend money they can't see. They don't mind giving us the money if we tell them what we're doing with it. They don't mind us having the money as long as we show them what we've done with it and they can see the benefits they're getting from their tax dollars. With this bill, they won't be able to. It is hidden, and it is deceitful.

The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds said: "...I don't see anything wrong with borrowing money, providing there is a provision to generate cash to amortize these loans." The provision to generate cash to which the member refers will take the form of legislated tolls, which are really taxes to be imposed on the people of the province. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money if the borrower makes the payments. In this case, the borrowing will be done behind closed doors, by an NDP cabinet, and the taxpayer will be stuck with double taxation to pay the bill.

You take a look at some of these statements and it makes you wonder where the members came up with their ideas. Take the member for Skeena: "Is the opposition opposed to...programs to ensure that people on income assistance receive the opportunities?" My response to that is that we have record numbers of

[ Page 5664 ]

people on income assistance because of the economic policies of this government.

F. Garden: Come on! That's nonsense.

R. Chisholm: The Build B.C. fiasco will add to debt and thus decrease employment opportunities. If it's nonsense, hon. Speaker, time will tell, won't it?

We have a couple of quotes from the hon. member from the Kootenays, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The only thing she's got left to do is hang out the shingle saying "Bankrupt," and we're all through, because all of the mines have moved out of this province. She says you've got to compare that method of financing, which many municipalities and private companies use.... Well, comparing the borrowing programs of Build B.C. to those of private companies demonstrates just how little the NDP understands the market system.

One thing the NDP doesn't understand is that private companies can be sold or foreclosed if they can't pay their debts. This does not apply in this chamber. It does not apply to government ministries, and it's high time the members realized that. That's a basic principle of business.

In another statement -- I might add, brilliant statement that this member made -- she said: "Believe me, the accountability is very rigorous." She said that they have to go to Treasury Board for their funding.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Since she is not part of the inner circle of the cabinet, the minister might not realize that Treasury Board essentially involves an all-in-cabinet discussion; therefore borrowing and spending decisions will not be subject to public scrutiny or accountability -- not, I might add, accountability in this chamber.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: No, hon. member, some of them were different quotes.

N. Lortie: It's the exact the same speech.

R. Chisholm: It makes you wonder, hon. Speaker -- these backbenchers over there, with their lips flapping and nothing coming out. But no doubt they have been convinced by this government's spin doctors that this bill will save their political posteriors when the government faces election. It was promised as a slush fund which would provide them with endless ribbon-cutting opportunities in their constituencies. After years of lying in state in the back benches, it would actually create the illusion that they did something in Victoria other than flap their gums. Now they realize that explaining this to their constituency might not be so easy.

On that note I'll sit down, and I will talk again on the next amendment. But I do wish that the backbenchers of the government side would read the bill, discuss the bill among themselves, and then they might make an intelligent decision.

V. Anderson: As we look at Bill 3 and consider it, there's a great concern that comes to mind for the multiplicity of financial arrangements that this government is trying to put before the people of British Columbia. As we've discussed in this House a number of times, we have had the budget that was brought before this Legislature by the government some weeks ago. The estimates that come from that budget are now being considered in the various committees of the Legislature.

What we did not have brought before us was Bill B.C., as I would call it -- B-i-l-l -- because this Build B.C., as it's called in the bill, is going to end up billing B.C. a very large sum of money. It has brought a special financial account into being -- if it is passed -- and that financial account is outside the control of the Legislature.

It begins, in this day of deficits and money shortage, with $100 million. But having brought together the $100 million, it is also open to be extended by other funds that are gradually added to it.

Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: I believe that we do not have a quorum, and I would like more members to hear the wise words of this hon. member.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara may continue. I believe we have a quorum now.

[3:15]

V. Anderson: In looking at this brand-new financial account that is being brought forth by this Build B.C., we find here another item which is outside the general control of the Legislature. We find that the committee which is to manage this special account is a minister who is not named, plus "other members." So we are not even sure who is managing this special account. We look at the possible opportunities in which this account might be expended, and it is wide-open. There is no limitation to it; in fact, the wording is simply "without limitation," and then it gives only some suggestions.

What we have here is a wide-open budget -- what I call the B budget -- which gives this government the opportunity to replace the programs of the other ministries -- to replace the programs of Aboriginal Affairs, Advanced Education, Agriculture, Attorney-General and Economic Development. Indeed, the ministers and their backbenchers have indicated that in almost every area of government they will be undertaking projects outside the original budget, in a budget which is not accountable to the people.

This cannot be accounted for properly within our system of government, and it is something that must be challenged and that we must ask this government to reconsider. That is why it is important that this go out to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services -- so that they can look at this budget B in a much larger context. Not only do we have budget B, but also what I would call

[ Page 5665 ]

budget C -- and that's the creation of the new corporation. Within that corporation there are the small budgets -- one, two, three, four and five.

How many others would this bill allow? It does allow for the opportunity to extend almost indefinitely the kinds of organizations and opportunities that this government would wish to make to put forth their concerns. With this enlarging bureaucracy and opportunity for committees that is now before them -- corporation after corporation within corporations -- there is a great concern among the people of this province.

We also see that it is controlled by a very few people. When you come to budget C,

whereas there are only five members on the board of this budget, only three need to be there for a quorum and only two need to be there to make decisions of this board. But further than that, the decisions of this board can be passed on to an individual member. All the power and authority of this board can be delegated to one person to exercise the full undertaking of this new corporation. It's a concern that this government is taking this direction to pass over this kind of authority, unspecified as it is, because really, as we look at the purposes, we are not given exact directions. We are only given hints and possible directions as to how this money may be spent.

We talk about the finances which are a part of the Transportation Financing Authority, and we find out that this money comes from income from the gas tax, tolls and unspecified taxes. The amount of these taxes is again increasing at an untold rate, and the accountability of either the income or the outgo is not seen here within this bill. I'm sure that residents throughout the province are concerned. They cannot operate their own housekeeping budgets in this kind of way, and so they expect the same kind of accountability from their government.

We've had concern in health, education and social services about the increasing expenditure which this government is placing upon us. Here we have another bill which promises to increase, again, the amount of the expenditures of this government, and to do it through taxes, tolls and borrowing.

There is no indication in this bill, as it's presented here, that there is going to be any regular income which is not a burden upon the taxpayers. If we were finding through this bill that there would be an increase of private business and companies coming into this province so that the income of the province would be increased and more people would be put to work and, in essence, there would be a return to the government to pay off even the outstanding debt, much less the debt they're adding, then perhaps we could give some sympathy to this undertaking.

But there is nothing here to indicate there will be any increase in income to the province. There is nothing here to indicate that there will be any increase in jobs by the private sector or in opportunity for our youth, seniors and those in their middle years who are finding it harder and harder to maintain their employment, and when they lose it, to find new employment.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena rises on a matter....

A. Cowie: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, we don't seem to have a quorum. There's only one member from the government present.

Deputy Speaker: There doesn't seem to be a quorum. I'll ring the bells.

There is a quorum now, hon. member. You may continue.

V. Anderson: We seem to have a difficult day keeping our quorum here, hon. Speaker. Perhaps that's an indication of the interest in this particular bill. Perhaps it's also an indication that the future does not look too bright, either for the bill or for the government that's sponsoring it.

One of the realities we have here is an increase, if not in government, then in the number of members who will be employed if this bill goes into reality, because a number of people will be employed in order to make this particular bill a functioning part of our undertaking. There is a concern about the costs that will be added to the government debt as a result of undertaking this bill and the bureaucracy that will be put into place. It is a concern that we place before the government, and I wish they would seriously consider our request to return it a committee so that it can be fully considered.

A. Cowie: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and support this amendment. This is an ideological bill, which should mainly be fought outside this Legislature. It should really be thoroughly examined by the public and by organizations, in order to get their opinion. In fact, this afternoon there was a meeting of the committee that this bill should be referred to, the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. That committee met, and only 15 minutes ago elected a chair.

So the committee is ready to go, and the bill could be referred to it this afternoon, if government members were only willing to accept that it requires the maximum amount of public participation.

A bank organization recently made a statement about this Bill 3. I'll just read a few phrases of what was said:

"With its spending rate at twice the rate of inflation, the B.C. government is sending the worst possible message to individuals, business and the international finance community. Bill 3 establishes a new Crown corporation with unlimited spending and borrowing authority, and it will also attract new administration costs, a CEO and numerous staff at even more cost. Of serious concern is that this new authority can take on long-term debt with expenditures which should be provided through the annual budgetary process."

In other words, what this banker -- and this banking organization -- is saying is that he wants this bill, and the funding that would result from it, examined in the normal process, not by a special select corporation that is really made up of cabinet ministers who deal with these matters secretly.

A retail merchant also had a great deal of concern. Just a couple of lines from those comments: "Our members are deeply concerned about the high level of

[ Page 5666 ]

taxation and government debt. Bill 3 gives the NDP sweeping powers to borrow money, with little accountability to the taxpayers." That's what our retail industry, as a whole, thinks about this bill.

I have numerous quotes from a mining company executive and from business associations. A manufacturer is also concerned. This manufacturer says: "On an examination of the bill, there are no functions that cannot be handled by existing ministries." Time and time again, the message is: do it in the normal way that business is conducted. Don't start any special funding or a special organization. The government's favourite accounting firm, Peat Marwick, suggested no special accounts such as should this be created.

The manufacturer also asked: "Will the Ministries of Transportation, Economic Development and Advanced Education and the Ministry Responsible for Human Rights have their funding reduced proportionately to the moneys accruing to this new authority?" In other words, what are we going to do with the staff which, it would appear, this government certainly doesn't want to reduce? What are they going to do with the staff who are currently dealing with these sorts of things? Surely the staff of the normal ministries must be worried about this new corporation.

We also heard government members say that this is just a private enterprise means of raising funds, and they are adopting a more free enterprise, middle-of-the-road approach. It seems to me everybody is moving toward the middle these days -- or trying to. People with a middle approach -- who support the Liberals or support people to the right -- are all saying that they wouldn't borrow money like this, and they wouldn't go out and invest it the way it would appear that this government is going to.

[3:30]

I look around at the proportion and where the members in the Legislature are from, and I think: my goodness, what's going to happen? Is the member for Delta North going to get a special fund that he can spend in North Delta? He's already got a brand-new bridge, and he doesn't want to build a new racetrack, which everybody seems to want. So I guess he's out. Somehow or other they are going to control the member for Delta North. At least, they are going to control that.

In the Cariboo, there aren't many.... People are moving away from the Cariboo anyway. They can't keep businesses going, so we won't have to spend the money up there. But we look around this House and there are members who will, of course, be lobbying for funds.

The Minister of Finance wants to build a great big PNE -- a new spectacular PNE, with lots of carousels; a Tivoli-type atmosphere that wouldn't even work out there. You'd have to put that in downtown Vancouver at False Creek if you were going to make it work. Yet he, along with Bob Williams, wants to build it on the PNE grounds. He wants to build commercial facilities. Here's the funding that will be available for the Minister of Finance to get that project going, in spite of the fact that the neighbours and all of the people around the PNE do not want it. They want a park with very minimal facilities.

They've been promised that for over 20 or 30 years. And now that the city is getting the property back -- or should be getting the property back -- and we can get on with building a park, this government wants to move very quickly, wants to borrow these funds, and then shove it into there without examining that process through this House and through the normal procedure.

As I mentioned the other day, there are projects which are quite legitimate. I think the Island Highway is a legitimate highway, but I don't think there should be tolls on it. Other people in the province have gotten major highway improvements without paying tolls. Why? Simply because this highway has been neglected by the previous government, and for the last year and a half has been neglected by this government, should those people now have to pay tolls to build it? They should be borrowing and going through the normal process.

I can understand the gas tax, and I approve of that. They say that the gas tax is going to be only 1 cent, but I'll tell you, this government and this corporation -- which we'll have absolutely no control over -- probably within two or three years, will need 5 cents, not 1 cent. And it will be completely out of control.

I can see even the Minister of Municipal Affairs.... He's had prepared for him by an independent -- largely independent, anyway -- group of consultants a very good book on what to do with social housing. I was reading through that book yesterday in preparation for estimates, and I could agree with most of the recommendations in that report. But I doubt whether the minister is going to have enough guts to implement them. But there are some measures that he could use this funding for, and I would like to see him, at least, use it for them.

But I would like to have a say in how the funding should be used, just in the normal process going through this House. I won't have that opportunity at all. I also think that some limit should be put on it, because the minister can simply go out and build a favourite project for one of his favourite members, and we will have no control. In many of these recommendations, all that the minister has to do is turn this matter over to the private industry, and they could solve the problem.

If we were to build many more suites or increase densities in established communities where there already is servicing, we wouldn't need money like this. All we really need is a bit of courage. All that the minister would need is courage to try to convince municipalities of the reasons for doing that. I am sure the minister could do that very easily if he just had the courage.

F. Garden: You can't pave a highway with courage; you need money.

A. Cowie: The hon. member for Cariboo North says you can't pave the highways with courage. I agree, but you could get other people to do things, and that takes courage. Then they might build the highways -- private roads, at least -- and then they might build the houses. At least housing can be done with courage.

Interjection.

[ Page 5667 ]

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member for Cariboo North.

A. Cowie: Well, I am glad to see the hon. member for Cariboo North get excited.

Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member would please address the Chair, it would be of great assistance.

A. Cowie: Thank you, hon. Chair. I spent a whole two years up in the Cariboo, way out in the Chilcotin, riding a horse and just getting to know the people in general. I went through Wells Gray Park and all that beautiful area that the member represents. I even spent several days in Horsefly. That's a really exciting community that the member represents. In Horsefly they need a new community hall, and I would suspect that the member might be lobbying for that from these funds. In fact, when I was there they didn't even have any seats; they had stumps.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Please address the Chair. The Chair hopes that there will be no need to intervene a third time.

A. Cowie: I appreciate that. Thank you, hon. Chair. I will try to control myself. I just got excited about the member's concerns in the Cariboo. They do need help up there. So there you go. This member is already lobbying for these funds. He must have the ear of the corporation already. I wish him the very best. So right here in the House, so soon, we can actually make a few decisions like that.

The government obviously depends on this funding. The minister has been to New York, and is reported in Ottawa and Toronto. I would think indications are that he has the funding in place. We were told this bill was in no great hurry and that we were going to take lots of time with it. Then the minister arrives back, and bang, we've got to get this bill through. We've got to get it through right away so we can go out and spend that money in these ridings where people need to have things done, so they can get a little support.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: There will be no money spent in my riding; I'm assured of that.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: Promises. The members have promised that maybe some money might be spent in my riding. Well, I hope so.

The thing that irritates me most about this is that I would like to see the budgets established in our ministries. I would like to see Highways establish the budget they need. I would like to see the list of the projects and then proceed. I won't have the opportunity to do that. I won't have any opportunity to debate the issue, and the public won't have any debate as part of this bill, either. However, I suppose that in three or four years' time we will be able to examine what this corporation has done.

I suppose the timing is very important because some of these projects will take two or three years, and the work will be done on time, I guess, for the next election. So you can see why they want the money now and why it's urgent: so that they can get it done on time, three years from now, for the next election.

And, of course, they can hide the debt. The debt will keep going up. It will not be shown every year as a deficit; it can be hidden. That really concerns the business community, which wants to get debt under control. In fact, that's what the argument has been doing in Ontario in the last couple of days, where the government of Premier Rae has taken a very Liberal approach, a very good approach, to try to control funds. The federal Finance critic is arguing with the Premier of Ontario, saying that he shouldn't take that approach. In fact, there seems to be a complete split in the NDP over this issue.

The member from the Kamloops area, Nelson Riis, says that the critic, whom he works with in Ottawa, is not speaking for his caucus.

So this great argument is going on. As I said earlier, this bill is ideological. I can see parts of the NDP government splitting over this. It could even happen in this Legislature. Some people on the government side appear to be fiscally responsible, or they would like to be fiscally responsible -- in their own words, they are acting in a more private enterprise way -- and I have no doubt that they will be tight with their budgets. There are others who want to spend. I suspect that the trend that's starting in Ontario will drift out to B.C. We're going to see, probably in the next little while, cracks developing in the government over issues like this.

I feel that I don't really have to go on at great lengths on this. I think I've made myself absolutely clear. We're going to borrow $1 billion, we're going into higher deficit, and we aren't going to have control of this money. That's what disturbs me. I think I've put this very clearly. In saying that, I will ask the members to support the amendment so that we can get on with things in the regular manner.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to stand and speak in support of the amendment. I think it is appropriate for us to seriously consider referring this proposal to a select standing committee of the Legislature. There is a real opportunity for the government and the opposition members to take the Build BC Act and explain to British Columbians what the government is seeking to achieve by creating this Crown corporation. If that happens, I think it will become obvious that Build B.C. is in fact designed as a way of creating and adding debt, and adding it off the government's balance sheet.

It's pretty clear that if we took this Build B.C. idea and travelled around British Columbia, it would be overwhelmingly rejected.

If British Columbians had an opportunity to tell the government directly how they feel about a plan that would see government start to finance highway construction over 30 or 40 or 50 years, it's quite clear to me that the plan would be overwhelmingly rejected. British Columbians don't want to see more government debt -- quite the opposite. The rallies that have been

[ Page 5668 ]

held around this province have one focus: they want to see lower taxes. But they also are deeply concerned with the growing debt. Build B.C. will add debt, carrying charges and finance charges. It will reduce the ability of governments to provide services in future, because it's going to lock governments into debt obligations.

I am absolutely convinced that referring this to a legislative committee would achieve what we in both parties of the opposition are seeking -- and that's the defeat of the legislation. I am absolutely convinced that if taken to the people, Build B.C., Bill 3, would be overwhelmingly rejected. So it is without any hesitation that I stand up and support this amendment. I support the referral of this bill to a committee.

[3:45]

Earlier today we had an interim report from the select standing committee examining the North American free trade agreement. I have absolutely no doubt that Audrey McLaughlin is deeply appreciative of the government's contribution to her somewhat feeble campaign. I'm sure she appreciates very much the support the B.C. NDP is trying to give to her sagging campaign.

So if we are prepared to spend the taxpayer's dollar travelling around British Columbia on a political agenda for the federal NDP, there should be no hesitation about referring a real concern, a concern that affects the people of British Columbia, to a select standing committee of this House.

It would seem much more appropriate for a select standing committee to travel around British Columbia at taxpayers' expense discussing a plan for the capitalization of highway construction than talking about the North American free trade agreement -- which clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, clearly is a decision that's already been made, clearly is an issue for the upcoming federal election and clearly is an issue very much peripheral to what we in this Legislature are charged to do on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

There can be no doubt about the appropriateness of looking at this idea of Build B.C. -- or, as it has so aptly been called, Bilk B.C. There is no defensible rationale for the capitalization of highway construction. As you would know, Mr. Speaker, we have for many years in British Columbia built highways. As a matter of fact, the previous government was often accused of being a blacktop government: building too many highways, too many roads, too many lanes; making too attractive a transportation system in British Columbia.

What is important to understand is that those highways -- this tremendous transportation and highway network that we have in British Columbia -- was financed out of current revenue, current expenditures. There was no capitalization.

An Hon. Member: Coquihalla.

J. Weisgerber: The member talks about the Coquihalla, one of the best highways ever built in British Columbia, a highway that's opened up the interior of B.C., a highway that services Kelowna, Kamloops and the Okanagan and has expanded our whole provincial economy -- a tremendous road, a road that every British Columbian should be proud of and is proud of. I certainly take an enormous amount of pride in the Coquihalla Highway. And if this government had a whit of vision -- this government that has racked up a $6 billion debt but hasn't built one kilometre of road not started by Social Credit governments -- then he would have something to talk about.

This government wants to spend $100 million on highway construction. And members will look back at previous budgets -- 1990, 1989, etc. -- where we were spending $500 million a year out of current revenues on highway construction. This government tells us that we have to push through a bill to create a capital corporation to spend $100 million on highway construction. What a sad commentary on the fiscal management of this province! What an embarrassment to a government that today is spending $900 million more of the taxpayers' money on welfare than when it took office!

They tell us that to find $100 million for highway construction, we've got to form a Crown corporation and finance it over 40 or 50 years. Hon. Speaker, this bill is and should be an embarrassment to the government.

I would be delighted to see this bill referred to a select standing committee and to sit on that committee. I can think of few things that would be more fun than travelling around British Columbia and hearing what British Columbians would tell the government about their plan to capitalize, to finance, the construction of highways. I believe British Columbians are far too smart and astute. They understand the business of their province far too well to be bilked into believing that somehow the government now has to play a shell game to find $100 million for highway construction.

The incredible thing is that the Minister of Highways seems quite prepared to support this and to see his budget slashed from $380 million to $180 million to $80 million. The only Minister of Highways in the history of British Columbia to applaud cuts to his budget now says that he's quite happy to turn over the responsibility for highway construction to a Crown corporation.

He's prepared to see Bob Williams decide where the roads are going to be built and what areas highway construction is going to take place in, instead of the duly elected and duly paid Minister of Transportation, who has now taken over responsibilities for apologies or something in the government, because he has no obligation to build highways. He has only an obligation as an overseer of a ministry. He has no real decisions to take, and he applauds it. That minister should be ashamed.

He should be in here demanding that highway construction be given back to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that has built roads and transportation systems in this province for 125 years.

Hon. Speaker, there is no justification for this bill or what it sets out to do: simply to hide debt. It seems most appropriate to take this little idea on a road show around British Columbia. Let's give people an opportunity. Let's invite people to come out, and tell their legislative representatives. Let's have them come out and tell a select standing committee of the

[ Page 5669 ]

Legislature what they think of a government that has raised taxes by $1 billion a year, raised taxes by $1,000 a family and added $7,000 each to the debt of each family in British Columbia in this year alone -- the same government that can't find $100 million to contribute out of current revenues to highway construction. Instead, this government wants to see the people of British Columbia saddled with a $100 million debt, financed over 40 years.

I don't have a table in front of me, but I can tell you that the calculation of the interest on that $100 million debt, financed over a 40-year term, will be incredible. We will pay that $100 million back again and again, and the money won't go to British Columbians; it will go to the bankers in New York, who the Minister of Finance was just down arranging credit with. It will go into the pockets of investors in New York, Arabia and maybe a few from Montreal and Toronto, but it won't come back to British Columbia.

If the government gets its priorities straight and finds the $100 million by cutting some of the new layers of bureaucracy or getting rid of that idiotic fixed-wage policy, it could put the money into highways and pay for them and build another $100 million worth of roads next year. But instead they want to saddle us with debt.

I have no hesitation about seeing this referred. As my colleagues have said before, the kindest thing we could do for British Columbia would be to kill this bill altogether. It's going to take us a little longer to do that if we refer it to committee. I don't have any doubt that we would accomplish that if the government dared to refer this to committee. You don't think they will, hon. Speaker, and neither do I. It's pretty obvious to me that the government is going to push this bill through.

It can't build $100 million worth of highways anymore in this province without creating a Crown corporation, setting up a new bureaucracy and finding some folks to make the decisions outside of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

I know the staff at the Ministry of Transportation and Highways well enough to know that they are capable of managing capital construction at five or 10 times the amount that's proposed here. You have to ask yourself why they would refer it to a Crown corporation and take it away from the accountability of the Legislature. Why would they take it away from the professional management of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways? Could it be that this Crown corporation would like to contribute to the political aspirations in certain areas of the province?

Is it possible that this Crown corporation is being created so that at appropriate times leading up to an election, important little pieces of highway construction can be done without having to justify it to the bureaucracy at the Ministry of Highways? The bureaucracy has priorities that are not partisan and that have been developed through regional processes and transportation advisory committees made up of non-partisan groups, in all eight regions of the province, who have identified, from one to 20, or 50, the priorities that the people in the region see for Transportation and Highways.

Is it possible that the government wants to create a Crown corporation and take these decisions out of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, because the decisions that would replace them might be more partisan than those made by the regional transportation advisory committees? I hope not, hon. Speaker.

But let's refer this bill, if the government won't withdraw it, to a select standing committee of the Legislature. Let's all take this around British Columbia. Let's explain it to the folks who are looking for highways to be built and who have already participated in the decisions, made the priorities and identified them. Let's take it around to them and say: "No, no, no. This new government wants to start over. They don't want to use the community process for establishing priorities. We want to use the Bob Williams system.

The Bob Williams Crown corporation model will decide who needs highways, where we need them and when they ought to be built." I have absolutely no doubt that the people of British Columbia, if given an opportunity, would reject this bill in a resounding way.

I close by again endorsing, in case there's any doubt, the notion to move this bill to a select standing committee of the Legislature and to its ultimate defeat.

J. Dalton: I also rise in support of the amendment. This opposition is certainly making it very clear to the government side -- which, of course, is not a good listener, as we know -- that it would have been much more preferable if this bill was hoisted, and it certainly would have been preferable if the House in its wisdom had accepted our reasoned amendment.

Now even though this perhaps is not the happiest or best approach, we are certainly going to advocate through this current amendment before us that the bill not now be read but instead be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. I'm going to suggest in my comments that this committee has the licence and certainly the capability to take a far more objective view of this bill than the government has. This bill, as we have pointed out in our arguments today, has a lot of devious approaches in it.

I'm suggesting that at least an all-party committee can step back from the smoke and mirrors that is being practised not just on this House but on the province of British Columbia, and most importantly on the taxpayers of this province.

[4:00]

It is very important that some objective viewpoint be taken on the purpose and the philosophy behind this bill. The government is not coming clean. In fact, I think it's noteworthy that the government is no longer even getting to its feet in support of this bill. I guess they are going to use their majority, in the ultimate sense, and ram this thing through, which is unfortunate. I'm suggesting that instead of the government ramming it through, let's have the parliamentary committee that is charged with the responsibility to look at such provisions as are contained in Bill 3 have that opportunity. An all-party objective viewpoint which will ascertain some of the concerns that we have.

I would like the House to pay some attention to the purposes that are stated behind this bill. We are told that the purpose of Bill 3 is to facilitate expansion and

[ Page 5670 ]

diversification of the B.C. economy. That's a nice statement. This is what is provided as one of the stated purposes of the bill. But I must confess that I don't have any particular confidence that the cabinet and Treasury Board and the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future, which is chaired by the Finance minister and by a Crown corporation which is created in

part 4 of this bill.... Quite candidly, I have no confidence that any of the stated purposes and the objectives of this bill will be met by those bodies and agencies. I think those bodies and agencies are clearly biased in their approach. Clearly this bill has a bias that this opposition is very concerned about. Again, this opposition wants the bill to be referred to committee for at least a sober second thought. Perhaps it would be a nice idea if the committee, after considering this bill, would come back with a report and say: "scrap it." Let's have that opportunity as well.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: The member for Cariboo North says: "Yes, that will be the day." Of course, it won't be the day while this government is in power.

Coming back to the question before us, referral to committee. We go again to some of the other stated purposes that are found in Bill 3. Coordinating government activities is part of the stated purpose. Again I have to point out to the House that allowing the cabinet and the cabinet process to control government activities, I guess, is self-evident. I do not think that is the approach.

If this government truly wants to initiate economic growth through this rather curious creature called Bill 3, I would suggest that it would be a meaningful approach for the parliamentary committee, the select standing committee, to re-examine that purpose. Government activities, for the wrong reasons -- such as re-election campaigns.... I would suggest that what Bill 3 really is is a long-range re-election campaign. It's underway.

As other members and I have commented previously, it is interesting that with this bill the government said: "Well, fine, we've got the debate started; now we'll put it on hold for a while." And suddenly we are in a great rush to get this through the House. Today is April 29. The end of April is, of course, tomorrow. Might we speculate, hon. members, that the Finance minister had some need to get this bill through prior to the end of April? I guess that expectation has been defeated.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: The member speaks of cooperation. I guess cooperation is a two-way street. I would have to make this observation: more and more I have the feeling and the concern that this government would shut down the opposition, that in things like Bill 3 they would like it just to be ramrodded through this House with no proper debate or deliberation, because that would suit their own agenda, their own purpose. I can assure you that the opposition certainly will not allow such a thing to happen.

Coming back to some other stated objectives that are contained in this bill, I think this one is noteworthy, and it's where this parliamentary committee could be very useful: ensuring that all regions of the province will benefit from the economic expansion. That is the stated objective of this bill. Again, I cannot see how a committee and a very unnecessary Crown corporation, with the surrounding bureaucracy.... I would suggest that that committee and that Crown corporation certainly are not going to ensure....

F. Garden: Point of order. It seems we lack a quorum, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: There does appear to be a quorum now, hon. member. You may continue.

J. Dalton: It was nice to have the opportunity to sit down and have another sip of water. But I'm certainly all geared up and ready to go, so I'm hoping that all hon. members will stay around until we complete this discussion on the amendment that is before us.

I was dealing with the regional expectations of this bill, this great economic plan of the NDP government to benefit all regions of the province -- which I assume is the bill's objective, at least on paper. I have no confidence whatsoever that Bill 3 is going to benefit all regions of this province. I have no confidence because of the direct cabinet and Treasury Board control of this, the usurping of the Highways minister's responsibilities and the diversion of those responsibilities to the new Crown corporation -- this Transportation Financing Authority.

Nobody in this House can convince me that economic and regional development is going to occur in all parts of the province through this mechanism. That's why I would argue strongly that an all-party committee of this House should have the opportunity to determine what appropriate economic expansion and diversification should occur throughout the province.

It's well documented that when a government takes over and rams through things like Bill 3, they favour their own kind. I don't think that will come as any shock to government members or members on this side. Governments do, obviously, favour their own kind. When I say their own kind, I am of course referring to the ridings represented by government members.

Let's think for a moment about highways projects, because a large part of this bill deals with the new Crown corporation that will undertake highways initiatives and projects. It doesn't take a great deal of convincing that government-controlled ridings are obviously going to benefit from that approach.

J. Beattie: What makes you say that?

J. Dalton: What makes me say that, among other things, is the fact that last year it was documented that approximately $15 million dollars was spent on various highways projects in 12 New Democrat-held ridings. Coming from a riding that is desperate for at least one.... I will not name the project, but maybe somebody from the other side would care to. But

[ Page 5671 ]

projects that have been crying out to be done, for 30 years in some cases, are still on the back burner. Yet some immortal words of the Highways minister last year had to do with bridges leading to ghost towns. If that's his sort of rationale, if that's regional diversification, and if that's the way to promote regional economic growth, I think it's a horror story, quite frankly. If that's the attitude of the Highways minister -- building bridges to ghost towns -- how are we going to make any progress with this new Transportation Financing Authority, chaired by that very same minister?

That's why I submit that this bill has to go to a select standing committee. Otherwise, we are literally spinning our wheels, and we are certainly not going to accomplish any of the stated purposes or objectives of this bill.

There is also a reference in the bill with regard to doing these things in an innovative manner. Well, that is fascinating. I cannot recall, in all of the legislation that I have looked at over my career -- both as a lawyer and as an educator in the legal world -- seeing the terminology "in an innovative manner." I have no idea what that means. I guess I could speculate that cabinet, Treasury Board and these other creatures created out of Bill 3 will be very innovative. The innovation boggles the mind.

If for no other reason, I would like this bill to go to the committee so that it can perhaps give this House some guidance as to what an innovative manner may be with regard to economic development. In the meantime, I think it has to be understood that that innovative manner is: whatever benefits NDP-held ridings will be innovative; whatever might be of benefit to the province, if it does not occur in a government-held riding, forget it, because it won't be innovative or worthy of consideration. Those are some of the concerns I have as far as the stated purposes or objectives of the bill.

I would also draw the House's attention to some of the explanations that have been offered as to why this bill should be supported and put through as legislation. There's discussion of government initiative or economic development. I am going to suggest to this House that this sort of vehicle is not the way to promote economic growth in this province. We don't need the government, through the imposition of more taxes and long-range borrowing, to tell us what economic growth and development is. What we need is a government to create a healthy economic climate, and then back off and allow the private sector to do the very things that this bill has stated it will undertake.

There's no argument, for example, that we need some highway construction in this province. The Vancouver Island Highway is crying out for improvement. There are serious transportation issues in the lower mainland. There are serious issues of transportation in every region of the province. But in this so-called economic development initiative in Bill 3, for the government to undertake these things is really false economy.

[4:15]

As one business association has raised and flagged as a concern in this bill, what Bill 3 is really doing is creating economic activity with the taxpayers' own money. That will certainly not create new jobs -- not in the proper economic sense -- and it will not create new business for this province. So I'm suggesting that these stated initiatives for economic development are going to be self-defeating. If we can't hoist it and we can't defeat it, then at least let's put this bill into committee for some proper evaluation. We find that the purposes and the rationale behind it are certainly unacceptable.

I think it would also be appropriate for the committee, on the amendment, to examine the growth in bureaucracy that's going to come out of this bill if it's put through. For example, what truly is the purpose of the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future? I think it's just a PR job that's going to cost us some money and certainly is not going to be very useful in any stated objective of economic growth.

The committee also should take a very serious look at this new Crown corporation that it has created out of the bill -- a Crown corporation which clearly is directly influenced and controlled by cabinet and which will have a bureaucracy surrounding it. It will have members who, of course, will have to be paid. It's going to adopt the attitude that if it looks good for the government point of view, it'll authorize it.

As I commented earlier today, it may not have any direct political benefit on the possible re-election campaign of this government, but I guess it never hurts to be too early in thinking about how, when you're a sinking ship, you're going to find ways to plug the hole and refloat. I would have to say, given the surrounding controversy of the budget and things like Bill 3....

Bill 3 certainly is a very controversial piece of legislation. This government clearly is in a mode where, if they can do something through the smoke and mirrors, the con job and the diversion away from their true agenda, maybe the people of this province will be fooled or lulled into a sense of....

J. Beattie: Point of order. I'm sure that the hon. member didn't mean to suggest by his comments that there was some kind of criminal intent, some kind of act to deceive the public. I think he should withdraw the remark, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member unintentionally imputed an improper motive to any member of the House, I would ask that he withdraw.

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, I can assure all members of this House -- and I appreciate the point that the member has taken -- that I certainly in no way meant to cast any aspersion on any member, or even on the government. I'm simply pointing out, hon. Speaker, that....

Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member withdraw?

J. Dalton: I certainly do withdraw.

As a point of explanation on my previous comment, I was going to add that Bill 3 is really not what the government would have us believe, and I think that's a fair comment. Bill 3 clearly has some other agenda or

[ Page 5672 ]

purpose behind it. In one moment we were told there was no great rush to put Bill 3 through, and the next moment we're told to get it through in a great hurry. I think we have to question the motivation behind that, if nothing else.

Let me go on to another point, even though I would love to go on for hours -- and I'm sure the House would welcome that opportunity. I have to make sure that I cover some other points. There have been some very serious business concerns raised about this bill. I know the government doesn't like to hear criticism from business, because government seems to have the attitude that they're going to set their own agenda. Concerns of business and property owners -- and people's rights in general -- are not very high on the government's agenda.

We are we told -- from the business perspective -- that more bureaucracy will be created by this. The purpose of our amendment is to have the parliamentary committee re-examine the bill. The parliamentary committee can certainly take a very objective viewpoint about the creation of new bureaucracy. The taxpayers of British Columbia do not need more layers of bureaucracy and people pushing paper around to serve government purposes.

Another very important concern of business -- and this is not just a business concern, as such, but a concern of taxpayers in general -- is that more taxation is created out of Bill 3; more revenue-producers, as the government likes to call them. I would think that the committee might like to take a very serious examination of the need for a gasoline tax and a car rental tax. The committee should certainly take a long look at the part of the bill dealing with the imposition of tolls and charges.

The Highways minister made it very clear that he is quite supportive of the concept of imposing tolls on certain projects. Are we going to suggest that these tolls be imposed only in selective areas? The committee would certainly be an excellent vehicle to examine that aspect of the bill and get into some detailed examination of the appropriateness of tolls, if any. If they are deemed to be appropriate, under what circumstances would they be used? Where would they become applicable? I think this committee should examine that sort of thing.

I would also point out a couple of other concerns that business has flagged with regard to Bill 3. There's no assurance that the funds released and created out of this bill will be carefully spent -- none at all. I commented earlier about this, but I want to come back to it. Certainly the business community has no assurance whatsoever that the moneys spent out of the special account, for example, or the money's borrowed by this Crown corporation.... What assurance do we have that those moneys are going to be properly spent?

And, more importantly -- and this is probably the big concern of both the business community and people in general -- a lack of accountability will be demonstrated through the spending authority of this bill.

At the moment we are going through the estimates process, whereby each ministry is held accountable for the budget within the ministry. We will not have that opportunity when you create a Crown corporation, and when you have this curious thing called a Committee on Building British Columbia's Future. These creatures are not directly accountable to the parliamentary process that we are undertaking right now, and that has to be a major concern.

I would add one other thing about the attitude of business to this bill. Government intervention in the economy -- that's really what Bill 3 is. It's this socialist government coming along and saying that its approach to economic growth will be through government intervention. Bill 3 is clearly an imposition by the Treasury Board, by the cabinet, by this new bureaucracy, dictating how the people's money will be spent and where it will be spent. This bill will create long-term debt, long-term borrowing. Certainly this province does not need more debt.

What this province needs is more government accountability as to how the money is spent. We need to look at ways to downsize government operations -- not ways to create more bureaucracy through Crown corporations, committees, agencies; not through chairs of boards who will appoint their friends and neighbours to the board, who will all draw their expense accounts, per diems, travel allowances. Where does this end? It seems to me that we are on a treadmill to more wastage of the people's money, and that's the problem.

As we are debating this bill and putting forward the amendment that we're hoping will pass, I think it may also be of interest to the House to see some comments by government members who, prior to the last election, were sitting on this side of the House in opposition. It's interesting how attitudes change. As soon as you cross the floor, you certainly seem to have your mind crossed too; there seems to be a dramatic change in thinking. I'm going to make a couple of references to the attitude of members who are government members now.

I am convinced they would be making today the statements they once made in opposition if they were standing here opposing Bill 3. They would be standing here supporting this amendment that the opposition has put forward.

For example, in commenting back on April 27, 1990 -- that's interesting, it's three years and two days ago -- the now Minister of Education said:

"It's accountability time, and we've just listened to a rather bland speech from the member for Okanagan South about the real issues that people out there in British Columbia are talking about these days. This is probably the last time we're going to be able to look at financial accountability before an election...."

I will stop there because that's the point I want to read into the record. The now Minister of Education is talking about financial accountability, but the business community is suggesting quite the opposite is found in Bill 3: no financial accountability. I have to wonder whether the now Minister of Education would be stating those words if she were on this side of the House and, of course, not now in cabinet and, I presume, not supportive of this legislation.

Let me make reference to one other now cabinet minister who was also in opposition. This is again from the 1990 budget debate. The member in question is now the Minister of Health. The now Minister of Health made the following observation:

[ Page 5673 ]

"I am pleased to rise to take my place in the budget debate. There has been a lot of talk over the last couple of days about whether this is a balanced budget or not and whether the BS fund exists or not. The Minister of Finance tells us it exists one day; another day he tells us it doesn't."

I'm wondering if the now Minister of Health would be of the opinion that Bill 3 is comparable to the BS fund. I'm also wondering if the Minister of Finance would be prepared to stand on his feet and comment whether the BS fund has any applicability to this legislation before us.

Those are some of the concerns that I would like to express. The bill has flaws in it. The bill has a purpose and an objective that we have not been able to directly ascertain, but we do know that it has things in mind that are clearly not in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province. That is why the opposition encourages all members to seriously consider the amendment before us and at least allow it to be considered by an all-party standing committee charged with the responsibility to examine pieces of legislation such as this.

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member for Langley, I would like to ask members to join me in recognizing the presence of my riding office manager and community assistant, Miss Sharon Costello.

[4:30]

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to support the motion to refer the subject matter to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. I've had the pleasure of serving on a number of standing committee of this Legislature, and I know they do good work. The members who serve on these committees are dedicated to the work they do and represent this House in a fair and balanced manner. We've just completed the first draft of the NAFTA committee report, and we're in the process of drafting the Forests committee report.

I'm sure all members of the House will find them informative and instructional. I served on the constitution committee, which enjoyed an enormous amount of debate in this House.

This is a very important bill, and it's my belief that the people of British Columbia should have an opportunity to debate and analyze it. There are enormous opportunities for the power of the Legislature to be usurped through Crown corporations, which, along with this financing authority, have the power to borrow and spend without accountability in this House. I would urge all members to vote in favour of this motion, and I would impress upon them the desirability of making sure that the Legislature is open and accountable to all citizens of B.C.

Included in Bill 3 are other major initiatives to encourage private sector investment, such as a new British Columbia investment office to cut government red tape. All of us who have been and are in business certainly support that initiative; it's one we encourage, and we would do whatever we can to make that kind of thing happen. This particular office is not new. This is not something that will be created by Build B.C.; it's something we have now. By some reports, it's not working well. It's certainly not cutting government red tape.

I have a sad story to relate to you. It comes from a gentleman by the name of Mike Kennedy, and he relates his sad story through the Times-Colonist of Friday, April 23. It's a perfect example of a reason for referring this bill to a standing committee to allow the business community and other interested people to come forward and suggest some concrete and workable changes. Perhaps a sad story such as the one I'm about to relate to you will be a thing of the past. I know that all people who are involved in dealing with government regulation and bureaucracy would certainly applaud anything done to make sure that this is reduced to the absolute minimum.

One of the NDP election platform statements from 1991 is that small business is a vital part of B.C.'s enterprise economy, that a New Democratic government would help small and medium-sized businesses to grow, and that they would work with business to achieve regulatory reform and reduce the paperwork burden. That's excellent, hon. Speaker. And hopefully that's something that this B.C. Investment Office will do. The question is: when? It's not working now, according to this particular story. It is a true story, by the way, and it's a rather sad one. He begins:

"Once by upon a time, a company was created to do business in British Columbia. This company was intended to be for inbound and outbound B.C. travellers what the BCAA is to automobile owners.

"The company would establish an integrated, private-sector network of quality B.C. tourism-related enterprises -- such as diving, sport fishing and other special interest niche market enterprises -- to market them worldwide."

These are the kinds of industries that British Columbia needs and wants. The Premier has said on many occasions that these are the kinds of clean, green businesses that British Columbia should be attracting.

"The company would also operate a network of full-service travel agents in the province, as well as produce outbound tours and address the special interest tour market internationally. It wanted to locate its headquarters in Victoria.

"After extensively grovelling for the right to use the name 'British Columbia Travel Corporation' from the registrar of companies, the company representative was told it was too close to another name."

And here is where the whole sad tale begins.

"On asking what the other company's name was, the representative was told: 'B.C. Cruise Ship Centres.' "

And any of you who have gone to the B.C. registrar of names understands the procedure that you have to go through. It's very logical that companies that have a very similar name would be disallowed. However, in this case, "B.C. Cruise Ship Centres" bore no relationship to "B.C. Travel Corporation." The

article continues:

"When the representative had difficulty trying to fathom the connection, he was told 'that was that.' On inquiring if there was an appeal process, he was informed that he was speaking to the appeals officer. When inquiring about a higher appeal, he was told that

[ Page 5674 ]

the registrar of companies was the next level, but that the registrar did what the appeals officer recommended. Case closed.

"After a great deal of thought, another name was chosen -- Kennedy International Travel and Tour Corporation. Same drill. Rejection due to similar name. The other company name was Kennedy Tours Ltd. A variation of the name was submitted using a personal name: Michael Kennedy International Travel Corporation. Rejected. Bureaucratic capriciousness."

This, hon. member, is part of B.C. 21, Build B.C., Bill 3. This has a direct relation to this bill that will establish less government red tape. That is not happening.

"Another round of name submissions presented the names 'Travelco' and 'Universal Travel Corporation.' Three days later, rejection. Travelco needed a name in front of it, and Universal was already taken. More submissions."

Interjection.

L. Stephens: It doesn't work: government regulation. The NDP election platform said: "We will work with business to achieve regulatory reform and reduce paperwork and burden." Build B.C. says that's exactly what they'll do. That's not what you're doing.

The

article continues:

"Three days later at a meeting with the directors, one suggested that the company consider alternatives."

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. The Chair is listening with great intent to understand the connection between the debate that the hon. member is making with relation to the referral motion which is before us. I think that the member will be making that connection soon, and we are anxiously waiting for that.

L. Stephens: The referral is that this bill now be read a second time and the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. The subject matter in Bill 3 is that B.C. 21 will be complemented by other major initiatives to encourage private sector investments, such as a new British Columbia Investment Office, to cut government red tape. The British Columbia Investment Office is not new. It is there, and it doesn't work, and it is not cutting government red tape,, as this gentleman points out.

The standing committee is what we're discussing, will be discussing, should be discussing. We are encouraging it. We are trying to point out to members opposite that this is a difficult subject that many people have that is in this bill. If members opposite don't understand that, then they need to read the bill again.

So I will continue. We are now in Washington, and I will tell you that the hon. Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade goes on at great length to tell us in the House that it is far better to do business in British Columbia than it is in Washington state, and that is simply, according to this gentleman, not true.

Now, it was suggested after a meeting with their directors that they consider some alternatives to doing business in British Columbia, and Washington state was mentioned. They phoned down there at no charge, and were told that "British Columbia Travel Corporation" was available as a corporate identity, and that unless a name was exactly the same as the name requested, it could be used, and they would welcome -- welcome -- new corporate citizens. Name checks cost $30 in British Columbia for a slow check and $130 for a fast check.

The company found that it could rent retail storefront space in Bellingham with good parking access, good pedestrian traffic flow, and a high visibility for about half -- in adjusted Canadian dollars -- the rent in Victoria.

A few more calls found telephone and support services cheaper. Their business would be done on 800 lines, and in British Columbia that was quite significant.

There was also a service-oriented labour pool, a supportive and encouraging state and local government environment actively assisting in problem elimination, which is what this B.C. Investment Office that is in this Build B.C. is supposed to do. Again, I will say it is not a new office; it is one that has been there for quite some time.

So now the representative has a dilemma. The investors in the company from Canada, the U.S. and the People's Republic of China can't understand this problem. The investors in China cannot fathom a bureaucracy less effective than theirs. They can get $50,000 out of China to invest in B.C., but they can't get a name.

The

article continues:

"Finally the company got official approval on a name it really didn't want, but the time wasted is very expensive in lost income. But now there is a corporate name, the company must file for incorporation which will take about a week unless he wishes to pay extra to have it moved ahead of others. The buzz word here again is pay, pay, pay.

"Have the hurdles all been passed? Guess again! The registrar of travel companies is next in the chain. That costs $575 and takes four to five weeks. Since a requirement of the application is a business address, a location must be leased during that period to meet the requirements (big expense) because the average lessor is a business person, not a government body."

"The cost from start to finish, from incorporation filing, including state business permit covering travel agencies and local and country business permits in Bellingham, comes to about $500 Canadian. Time from start to finish, two to three weeks. British Columbia, start to finish, eight to nine weeks, cost, $3,000 minimum".

"Maybe the representative will write a letter to the appropriate government body suggesting the problem could be solved by creating another layer of regulators. The Ministry of Lunacy, Diminished Intellectual Capacity and International Business Discouragement would be a good name. If they could get it.

"A sad, true story, not a fairy tale."

[4:45]

The people of British Columbia deserve to have some input, representation and debate on Bill 3. There are many things in Bill 3 that need to be scrutinized, the least of which is the amount of debt the Crown

[ Page 5675 ]

corporations can continue to accumulate on their own, without the scrutiny of this Legislature.

I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of this motion to refer this bill to a select standing committee. I look forward to third reading, with a view to defeating this bill.

D. Jarvis: I rise again to speak on another amendment to Bill 3. This is the fourth time I have had the privilege of speaking on this bill, and I must say at this time that I am in support of this amendment. The amendment is that we refer this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. I intend to continue speaking out on this bill, because I sincerely believe that the people of this province do not appreciate how insidious this bill really is.

Before I go on, and before the rubber stamps on the back benches of this government start yelling that we on the opposition side of the House are against building roads, schools and infrastructure, let us make it perfectly clear that we are not against construction in this province. We in th