1995 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

MONDAY, MAY 1, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 11

[ Page 13815 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E. Cull: Today in the members' gallery we have some special visitors. His Excellency Jorgen M. Behnke, Ambassador of Denmark to Canada, is visiting Victoria today with his wife, Mrs. Maria Gabriele Behnke. The ambassador is accompanied by John Petersen, honorary consul of Denmark in Vancouver, and Judy Petersen. Please join me in welcoming them to the House.

D. Lovick: Seated directly behind our guests from Denmark are two other guests I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming. John Hagen, who is, of course, no stranger to these precincts, is sitting next to a gentleman by the name of Alan Whitehorn. Alan is a professor of history at Simon Fraser University who currently holds the J.S. Woodsworth Chair in Humanities. So I'd ask all my colleagues to please make them most welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Today in the legislative buildings are 70 grade 10 students from Britannia Secondary School. They are accompanied by Ms. Brown and Mr. Walker. Of course, they are from Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Would you give them a very warm welcome.

G. Janssen: Seated in the gallery today are two constituents, Bev Hovind and Anne Evans. Mrs. Hovind is the mother of Kaylee Hovind, and Ann Evans was Kaylee's personal attendant. I do believe, hon. Speaker, that the Minister of Education also has some remarks he'd like to make. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Kaylee Hovind was a hero. She was a young person who suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease whom I met about a year or a year and a half ago when she demonstrated some speech recognition software. That enabled her to speak a poem of her own creation and to have a computer do the

interpretation, the typing and then the printing on her behalf. Kaylee passed away recently. I would like the House to recognize that, and to know something of her and of the extraordinary efforts that her mother, Bev, and her personal attendant, Anne, have made over the years on her behalf. Bev will be doing a walk in mid-July to help raise funds. She'll be walking from Port Alberni over to Stanley Park, with the assistance of firefighters and, I understand, motorcycle riders. Would you join with me and with the member from Port Alberni in making Kaylee's mother and aide welcome.

A. Hagen: I want to join my hon. colleague in welcoming my husband, John Hagen, to the house. I also want to take this opportunity to say why he is here. We attended the museum's Empires Beyond the Great Wall exhibit today. I just want to take this opportunity to encourage every member and every constituent who has an opportunity to see that fine exhibit to do so. I note that one of the special things about it was to watch the children -- who are, I think, the best evaluators of an exhibit -- and their fascination with what they were seeing. It was a wonderful hour, and I commend it to all members of the assembly and to all British Columbians.

E. Conroy: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce a constituent of mine, Elaine Whitehead. Elaine also happens to be my constituency assistant; she's the glue that holds our constituency together. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I too would like to recognize a constituent and another one of those persons who makes it all happen back in the constituency office: my constituency assistant, Katrina Mudiman.

Oral Questions

REBUILDING OF PORT RENFREW BRIDGE

D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. 21. Since the collapse of the bridge linking Port Renfrew with southern Vancouver Island, residents of that community have pressed the government for a replacement. Due to constant government bungling, the San Juan River crossing is the most expensive footbridge in provincial history. Just last week residents were again told that the opening would be further delayed. Can the minister explain why, at this late date, the residents of Port Renfrew are still without a safe, reliable bridge over the San Juan River?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll take the question on notice.

COST OF CUPE INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

L. Stephens: Kelowna's Springvalley Secondary School started a volunteer-run lunch program that was successful. It made a profit, which was given back to the school to feed more children and to buy equipment. Less than six months after the program was established, CUPE filed a grievance arguing that the volunteers represented a form of contracting out.

Will the Minister of Education explain why schools receiving government program funding to feed hungry kids in programs run by parent volunteers must now hire a CUPE administrator?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The school lunch program, which is one of the finest initiatives this government has undertaken, feeds thousands of hungry children with either a breakfast program or a lunch program, thereby better preparing them for their day in school. This exceptional program is under the direction and administration of the districts. If a district is having a difficulty with respect to this program, I would expect the member would raise that with the district.

L. Stephens: The Liberals support the lunch programs, but the Liberals do not support waste. Government waste is what this is about. The NDP government hurt education when it removed it as an essential service, and now the NDP has placed absurd and costly regulations on schools that are simply trying to feed hungry children. This CUPE program is 200 percent more expensive than the volunteer program. Will the Minister of Education tell this House how many of our precious taxpayer dollars are being wasted by using CUPE administrators instead of parent volunteers to feed those hungry children in our schools -- how much money?

[ Page 13816 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member opposite has a complaint about the activities of a particular school board, she should raise that issue with the school board. We have put in place the K to 12 employers' education association to do the bargaining with the employees of the districts across the province. I would bring the House's attention back to the fact that it was this government that had the foresight to put a tremendous program in place that is much appreciated across the province.

[2:15]

PAYMENTS FOR CONSULTATION ON COLUMBIA RIVER DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS

F. Gingell: In the 1995-96 budget, the NDP have included a $250 million lump sum downstream benefits payment in general revenues. Before the release of this year's budget, the Minister of Finance sought three opinions on the propriety of including the sale, the rights of which do not even begin until 1998, as general revenue in this year's budget. Will the Minister of Finance please inform this House the total cost to the province of obtaining these opinions, both from outside consultants and within the bureaucracy?

Hon. E. Cull: As I don't have that information with me, I'll take the question on notice.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice, hon. member. The member has a new question?

PAYMENTS TO NOW COMMUNICATIONS

F. Gingell: Ron Johnson's NOW Communications seems to have received at least $20,000 for supplying a telephone number and depositing and issuing a few cheques, an amount substantially greater than B.C. Telephone or Jim Green would charge for the same service. Doesn't the Premier consider that this blatant patronage payoff breaches his number one promise that an NDP government would put an end to secret deals and special favours for political friends?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I tried to make a question out of that ideologically extreme and tainted question. What I will try and do when I go back and read Hansard is determine what the question is; until then I'll take it on notice.

FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Premier. Over this past weekend, 600 people, including the Minister of Agriculture, gathered at Williams Lake to protest the federal Liberals' gun control legislation. Just a few days before that rally the Attorney General told us in this House that this government supports Alan Rock's onerous bill. Which is it, hon. Premier: does the Minister of Agriculture represent the cabinet's position on gun control, or has the Attorney General just failed to convince him of what this government's position is?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's really hard to figure out what the Reform position is on anything. The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca said that he is in favour of the decision we made on the Kemano project; the Reform MP up there is against it. We have heard that this provincial Reformer is against the gun laws, and yet the federal Reform MP from Calgary is in favour of these gun laws. When the Reform Party makes up its mind, maybe we can have a decent debate.

In the meantime, as I have said before in this House, I want to make it crystal-clear that, with regard to a federal law, this government wants to make sure that automatic weapons and guns that are in the hands of dangerous criminals are out of the hands of those dangerous criminals and not killing innocent British Columbians. We have also said that we don't want to have the tens of thousands of law-abiding British Columbians who hunt and who shoot for competitive sport hassled by a bureaucratic, expensive, time-consuming mess of administration.

We are watching and working very carefully to make sure that genuine British Columbians, who are not criminals, are going to be able to have those guns and not be hassled by the federal government.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: It's refreshing to know that the Premier should follow and agree with Svend Robinson's position, because he is a NDP federal member. No doubt there are other MLAs in the cabinet who would like to represent their rural constituents in opposing this very, very onerous gun control legislation, which will not deal with the specific guns that the Premier mentioned in the earlier answer. If the Attorney General can't even persuade his own fellow cabinet members to follow his position and this government's position, how can the Premier hope to convince British Columbians that he is representing their best interests?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Unlike the Reform Party, we have a consistent position on Kemano: no, the Kemano completion is not going to be completed. That's clear, unlike Reform -- you've got two different positions.

Unlike Reform on gun laws, we've said very clearly.... I'll tell you, the MLAs who have pushed the hardest to make sure that the gun laws are fair to rural British Columbians are the New Democrat MLAs from the north, the interior and the Kootenays. They're going to continue to push, instead of having two different positions like Reform does.

B.C. HYDRO INTERNATIONAL'S ROLE IN YACYRETA DAM

D. Jarvis: Last week in the House the Minister of Employment and Investment stated that the cabinet will review the projects that are generated by B.C. Hydro International Ltd. He said they would ensure that they maintain standards that are acceptable to British Columbia. Considering that the chair of B.C. Hydro said last week that the joint venture with Paraguayan and Argentinean partners has already been signed, my question is: did the cabinet and this minister approve of this outrageous venture on the dam project, which the Argentinean President, as we said before, considers a monument to corruption?

Hon. G. Clark: B.C. Hydro International Ltd. is pursuing opportunities -- obviously internationally -- to export our expertise, to create jobs in British Columbia and to generate revenue back as a return on B.C. Hydro, this tremendous asset the people of British Columbia own. Memorandums of understanding are routinely signed in the course of pursuing these

[ Page 13817 ]

kinds of undertakings. Prior to any funds being committed, they have to get through the B.C. Hydro International Ltd. board, the board of directors of B.C. Hydro and, of course, the government's review of this question, including all the guidelines with respect to environmental, ethical and social screens, which cabinet will be reviewing very shortly. After they are completed, these will then have to be reviewed in that light.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: The minister is a true Pecksniffian, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago, on Earth Day, the Premier was caught with his pants down on the Three Gorges dam project in China. He has now allowed B.C. Hydro to get involved in another social and environmental nightmare, in Argentina. Can the minister tell the House on whose direction B.C. Hydro entered into this outrageous joint venture, and whose signature appears on the bottom line on behalf of B.C. Hydro, which is causing the same problems for the Argentineans as the B.C. government is causing for the Cheslatta Indians? There is a comparison here.

Hon. G. Clark: This defender of environmental values! This is the man who wants mining in the Tatshenshini park. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say recently -- I think it was at a fundraiser, with every Howe Street crony in British Columbia at the table -- that they are going to privatize B.C. Hydro. This corporation, which generates significant wealth -- $700 million in income to British Columbians -- creates thousands of jobs, is about to build the Stave Falls generating plant, a fifth unit at Revelstoke, another unit at Seven Mile....

They want to give this huge economic engine to their friends on Howe Street. Every time B.C. Hydro looks internationally so that the taxpayers can get a significant return on their investment, so that we can create more jobs in British Columbia, they stand up and criticize it; but not once will they stand up and criticize their Howe Street friends.

GIBSONS BYPASS LAND SALE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment and minister responsible for B.C. 21. It's about the Gibsons bypass, a project funded under B.C. 21. Will the minister tell us why they would sell a parcel of land -- lot 1401 -- in 1992 to Mr. James Greatbanks, who is the owner of TNL Construction, which is right in the middle of the bypass, only to have to buy the land back one year later, and why there was not, in fact, a proposition put forward to subdivide that land before the sale to this individual, who then became the successful bidder on the project?

Hon. G. Clark: If it's as the member says, it sounds like a very good question. I'll certainly look into that. We obviously are committed to completing the Gibsons bypass. I know the member has advocated that for some time. We're getting on with the job. TNL won the contract fair and square -- a low-bid process -- and we're proceeding with that. If there's any nefariousness or underhanded dealings with respect to TNL or any other company with respect to the Gibsons bypass, we'll certainly take it very seriously. I'll get back to the member on that.

PRIVACY CONCERNS ABOUT PHOTO ID SUPERCARD

L. Reid: The Ministries of Health and Social Services have been discussing the supercard, the photo ID card, since October 1993. Last week the B.C. Civil Liberties Association questioned the degree of government surveillance associated with the implementation and use of supercards. Would the Minister of Social Services disclose exactly why she chose to exclude the information and privacy commissioner from her ministry's discussions regarding implementation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're not excluded; they're included in the discussions.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Hon. D. Miller: Responding to a question taken on notice by the Premier on April 26 concerning a report on payments to the chief appeal commissioner of the WCB, the answer is as follows. The member who asked the question, I think, is more than a day late and perhaps more than a dollar short. The WCB president and CEO, Dale Parker, has informed the chair of the board of governors that Revenue Canada has recently conducted a benefits and employment income audit covering the period January 1991 to December 1994, including the contract of the chief appeal commissioner.

The audit is now in the process of completion by Revenue Canada. The board's ongoing responsibility is to ensure that proper procedures and practices are in place at the board. The president has assured the chair of the board of governors that he will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the board remains compliant with all aspects of the Income Tax Act.

REBUILDING OF PORT RENFREW BRIDGE

Hon. G. Clark: I took a question on notice a few minutes ago, and I would like to respond if I could. This is with respect to the Port Renfrew bridge. Earlier this spring a shortage of steel supplies resulted in a three-week delay. The project has also been delayed by a drafting error by the contractor's shop, which resulted in one of the structural support beams being constructed approximately eight inches too high. The projected opening date is May 13. Construction work is continuing while the support beam is being fabricated.

We've conducted, I think, a significant consultation process. We know the community frustrations. We ask them to bear with us for another ten days. I'm advised that at that time, on May 13, it will open. Hopefully, they'll be happy with the final product.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, for the purposes of, hopefully, concluding the estimates of the Ministry of Education. Thereafter, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and

[ Page 13818 ]

Parks, and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism. In the House, I call second reading, continued debate, on Bill 2.

[2:30]

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1995

(second reading continued)

C. Serwa: It is a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995. It is a rather interesting bill in that I don't believe it has anything in the way of philosophy or much in the way of principles in it. Normally, a bill like this would be handled under sort of a miscellaneous statutes act. It would seem, certainly from having listened to a great deal of the debate on this particular bill, that there has been a considerable amount of latitude given to the bill. As a matter of fact, much of the debate has been very similar to the debate on the budget speech itself.

In saying that, and expecting a similar amount of latitude, we are going to have to look at the bill, question the reasons behind this bill and what it is striving to do. Obviously, seeking the sources of revenue is always a very, very important aspect of this particular government. They have increased taxation in the province of B.C. dramatically over the four budgets they have tendered, directly and indirectly, in both particular fields. They have been very effective at that and even more effective at spending those revenues -- and more, and more, and more.

Over the past few years we've heard a great deal of response to questioning, and statements from government ministers. Members on the government's side were questioning members on this side: "Is this a spend-more day or a save-more day?" as if the concern that we might have for highways and transportation-type projects or other capital projects, be they law courts or public health facilities or other necessary facilities such as schools in our constituencies, somehow constitutes part of this growing deficit.

When we look at what the government has done, we are going to have to understand that in the first two and three budgets of this current government it really ran away with itself -- not in the expenses for capital-type projects, because that was farthest from their minds. In the early budgets, where Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources -- which provides, creates and builds wealth in the province -- was reduced.... That budget was cut by 41 percent. It was obviously not a priority of this government.

Economic Development, which certainly provided a great deal of the environment that promoted small business and industry in the province, was impacted by a cut of 51 percent. Agriculture and Fisheries, a true creator of wealth in British Columbia, had its budget reduced by 16 percent. And here we have a government which has promoted the concept of agriculture and economic viability. But it's simply a promotion in words, obviously not in deeds. Transportation and Highways was reduced by 15 percent.

The reason I'm bringing these figures in is to remind the public out there -- who are going to make a decision very soon through an election, not only in Abbotsford but in the provincial election within the year, probably next spring -- so that they are able to assess and understand where the priorities of this government have been.

They cut down the sustainable environment fund, which was created by the former Social Credit government to enable research and development and to finance all sorts of environmentally wise projects. The recycling of used tires was one of those that was very favourable and received high recognition, and has become a very successful industry, producing all sorts of materials from that recycled automobile tire. The battery recycling process was another positive one. The revenue from those has financed additional work that has benefited the environment. But fundamentally, that fund was cut by 42 percent by the current government.

What did happen with the current government was that shortly after they became government they took away several things. They repealed the Taxpayer Protection Act which, for the first time, put fairly significant restrictions on the financial activities and responsibilities of government. They were clearly spelled out. And while they had voted for that act when they were in opposition, they repealed it immediately they became government. Fairness to taxpayers is what has to be what government is all about.

The other element they negated very quickly and repealed was the Compensation Fairness Commission. That was structured by the former government to get a handle on wage increases that were going into the public sector, so that there was a relationship with what the private sector was settling and what the taxpayer could afford. Again, that bill was repealed. So we have some of the fiscal control measures that were repealed by the current government, and they started shovelling money off the back of that truck.

In the four years that they have been government they have increased the public sector employees -- full-time-equivalents -- by approximately 4,000. When they reduced the controls in public sector wage increases, they had successful contracts negotiated with their favourable negotiators which exceeded three times the inflation rate. That was dramatically higher than the private sector was able to settle for and certainly much higher than the taxpayer was able to afford. They have really run away with themselves on that. They have fundamentally spent billions of dollars, with not only the increase in public sector staff but also the increase in public sector wages.

It doesn't matter what area you run into, whether it's the BCTF, the public sector employees, the direct provincial employees or the indirect provincial employees, we have paid more and more of our money -- not for delivering programs, not for providing goods for people in the province, but simply for providing higher wages. In education, they keep talking about the student and the needs of the student, but the focus of the BCTF has not been the student or the learner in the system at all. The focus of the BCTF has been wages and working conditions for teachers in the system, and they have become an increasingly heavy cost.

Compensation fairness had certainly restricted settlements to what was deemed fair and reasonable in line with other settlements. When these people became government they negated that, and school districts that had settled at 9 percent and higher in wage increases -- believing that the compensation fairness commissioner would reduce them to approximately 4 percent or perhaps 4.5 percent, which was happening in the province -- found that they had to pay the settled rate whether it was 9 percent or 11 percent. In large school districts like Surrey, this cost the school board a lot of

[ Page 13819 ]

money. The government then failed to provide the extra money that they had settled in those districts, and the school districts themselves were forced to reduce various programs for students to try to find the wage package.

The point I'm trying to make is that this government in its earlier years had negated public interest to a great extent. Now that we're coming closer to an election, we find that they're talking about infrastructure and supporting mining. The hon. minister is talking about supporting small business. Well, it's fine to talk about it, but words are cheap, because there is an overabundant supply of words. The public out there has to be concerned with looking at the deeds, and the deeds of this government have been anything but looking after small business or the mining sector.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: By far, by far. Well, the inertia of good Social Credit government carries on quite a ways.

This government has lost its focus. It has never had a focus of representing the general interest in the province, and that comes through time and time again. It's abundantly clear that their responsibility is to focus on the special interest groups and make certain that they're fat and sassy. I guess they've done that, because while the union cry is to redistribute the wealth of the rich, powerful and privileged in society in British Columbia, the unions themselves under this government have become the rich, the powerful and the privileged.

Look at the construction industry, and look at the stranglehold that the construction trades unions have on this particular government. What has it amounted to? We had projected that the so-called fair-wage policy, which was really a fixed-wage policy, would cost several hundred million dollars.

The sometimes quotable and sometimes altogether too forthright Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks told us in this Legislature about the construction of his house, and in a self-righteous manner he told us that while he had a non-union contractor build his new home, he was paying wages under the so-called fair-wage policy. When questioned in this Legislature, he was asked if it cost more, and he said it did. He said it cost a lot more, and that's what we always said on the opposition side when that package was brought in.

We said it would cost the people of the province more than $200 million for that fair-wage policy, and it's impacting negatively the ability to complete the Island Highway project simply because of the accelerated costs. What the government has done through a form of duress or arm-twisting, if you will, is to say to the Vancouver Island Highway contractors: "If you play ball with us, we'll play ball with you. After all, you'll make more money, our people will get looked after, and only the taxpayer will be injured."

And that's what's happened. Everything was done quite well. Principles were probably not only compromised but bent, and I don't understand this type of principle. Nevertheless, the costs have run away with the Island Highway project, and they've run away with public-funded projects throughout the province. The government is trying to be more and more intrusive, to help their friends and supporters in the construction trade unions and, in fact, in all unions. So that's where the money has gone.

Before we've received them, we have squandered away already the downstream benefits from the Columbia Basin. Again, the cheap-shot, pork-barrel philosophy is trying to save the skin of six members in a designated area of the Columbia River Basin, which may or may not have any relevance to any injury or impact or, as they say, historical injustice that took place in the Columbia River Basin.

Nobody is going to blow by me the fact that a Cranbrook or a Fernie or a Rossland somehow was negatively impacted, but they're all beneficiaries of this pork-barrel act that the government is trying to push through this Legislature. I oppose that. I think British Columbia is for British Columbians. When the provincial government is looking at things, they should be looking at the broad scope of their provincial responsibility rather than at the traditional pork-barrel approach this current government is taking.

So they're squandering all sorts of money, when the minister has said in the budget that there is a tax freeze, that there are no new taxes.

[2:45]

We just heard the statement in question period from the Employment minister on the fact that B.C. Hydro is now apparently contributing some $700 million to the provincial coffers. In the last several years B.C. Hydro -- which is really not a taxing authority, but it dominates the power industry in the province -- has increased their power rates by 22 percent in order to provide more revenue for the current provincial government. I don't care who collects the taxes or under what name those taxes are collected, they still impact John Q. Public. They impact not only John Q.

Public, but also the people whom these individuals in government pretend -- and I say pretend realistically -- to support: the less advantaged, the poor people, the working poor in the province. A larger and larger percentage of their disposable income is directed towards Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro. So there we go. There is the ripoff of the provincial taxpayer, but we do it a bit at arm's length and call it something different. I can't call it anything different than, at the very kindest, indirect taxation.

A portion of the Columbia River Basin money has gone into general revenue. It's really not general revenue. It's an extraordinary sum that has come to the province through the vision and foresight of former Social Credit Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and it belongs to the entire province. It could have been spent wisely rather than bailing out these people from the debt that they've accumulated in the province.

In the four budgets, they've gone from about $17.5 billion to almost $30 billion, and the direct provincial debt has gone from about $4.7 billion to about $10 million -- and they say they've got a hand on fiscal responsibility. I don't know who they're fooling other than themselves and their friends. But they're shovelling it out of the back of the truck, and as the minister says: "That's the bottom line: fool our friends and we've got it made.

They'll support us, and we'll be successful in the next election." I think the public is going to be very, very interested at the time of the next election, wondering where the billions have been spent.

Were those 4,000 employees who went into the public sector needed? In many cases those are very, very partisan employees who were hired. They are New Democratic card-carrying individuals who have gone into the system. Why into the system? Why not just at the deputy minister level? Because the current government wants to make certain that nobody says a discouraging word within the system. They are virtually like thought police -- like the book that came out

[ Page 13820 ]

some time ago. They are fundamentally thought police to keep control over the system, but that didn't work well enough. Those thought police and the disgruntled career civil servants are having a great deal of difficulty with this current government and the overpowering type of control that they're putting on. They've hired a special investigator to work. That is really very interesting. Not only do they have this special investigator to snoop through the ministries, not only the Ministry of Finance -- he was hired long before the budget leak....

The reality was they recognized that tampering with the civil service in the manner in which they were was not a very positive act. They were trying to control it more dramatically, so they hired a special investigator to put fear into the hearts of individuals who have devoted their lives and their careers to the public sector in British Columbia -- again, thought control. From this side of the House, it's certainly found reprehensible, although very, very compatible with this form of socialist government.

The reality is, further to this, that they're wanting senior people in the Ministry of Finance to take lie detector tests, questioning their honesty, integrity and commitment, which is an absolute insult to the career professional in the public service of any government. We have a lot of very fine people working in the civil service. When we look at where billions have been spent and wasted, this is where they have been spent -- as I said earlier -- not in the delivery of goods and materials to British Columbians who need and want those goods.

This bill...the Corporation Capital Tax Act. Well, this is really very interesting. We're looking again at how we treat some segments. We're taxing assets, they say, but really we're taxing debt as well as equity in the corporate capital tax. Who is exempted from this? Union funds, naturally. They're very strong, influential funds in the province, and certainly, I believe, across Canada, where all sorts of authority has been conveyed to the union to tax millions of people without really any representation.

They have become very large and -- because of their friends, the political arm of the union -- very influential. The problem with that influence is that it's not broad spectrum. They really don't care about anybody or anything else; they're only concerned about their own special single interest. From the union standpoint, I applaud them. That's what they're there for: to represent their people to the very best of their ability.

I certainly do not applaud the current government. They have prostituted themselves to that special interest group because of the type of funding and financing they get through an ongoing process -- and certainly the arming with people during the election process. I think that's, again, very wrong. What we have seen is that that cosy relationship between the union arm and the socialist government here has perverted government over the general interest in the province of British Columbia. No amount of words is going to negate that. The actions and deeds of this government have simply continued to confirm that.

This government will be long gone at the next election call. The Premier had better comply with building code requirements that extend to all public places in British Columbia and put panic hardware on the doors of this Legislature, because come the next election, panic hardware is what you're going to need for yourself and your cohorts -- your political lackeys -- to get out of this building.

I am not in favour of any aspect of this Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995, any more than I'm in favour of the budget that was presented in this Legislature. It takes all sorts of latitudes, has no historic basis in the calculation of its figures, distorts the deficit by eliminating the deficit and moving it directly onto debt and saying: "That's really nothing." What it really means is that in spite of low interest rates, the fastest-growing expense of this current government is the amount required to pay interest on that debt, and we have relatively low or modest interest rates at the present time.

I think that the public is going to be horrified with what international interest rates will do to the amount that we will be paying in the future with respect to interest on our debt.

Just to reiterate, the net result of that is the reduction in goods and services and delivery of programs that are required by the public to this government or the successive government. There's going to be an awful lot of work to do for the next government to bail this government out. I would suggest that it is not going to be done in one term. The legacy of this horrendous debt load -- by doubling the gross provincial debt, which this current government has done -- is going to take many years of reduction.

While they make light of what is happening in Alberta, I can tell you that Canadians are mindful that prudent restraint is the only way to move towards the future. Even the socialist countries such as Sweden and New Zealand have seen the light.

This government continues to talk about medicare, and how medicare will be lost if a Liberal government is voted in. I'll tell you, I'd suggest that this government has created the environment where we will be losing medicare, and they are privy to information that the rest of us perhaps don't know at the present time. They are putting on a brave face, and they are trying to act the same way, but they have actually jeopardized medicare. They've jeopardized medicare by the increase in costs through the agreement -- the accord -- that they structured with the health labour unions.

They're learning lessons, but I'm afraid that by the time they've learned all the lessons it will be much too late. British Columbia taxpayers will ultimately be responsible for their lackadaisical approach and their focus on special interest groups. They will bear the brunt of that, and the public will remember.

G. Wilson: I rise with respect to Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995. Often you will get a bill that, in effect, represents the nuts and bolts of what we do. Often people don't take a lot of time to read through them, but tend just to look at a bill such as this, which is made up of a whole series of amendments to a whole group of different acts. They don't really take the time to understand and to be cognizant of the impact this is going to have on the life of every British Columbian.

There is no better example of a bill that is going to affect every British Columbian than a bill such as Bill 2. What this does is tend to amend -- and some are positive amendments, I would have to say; they're not all negative amendments -- various acts with respect to tax collection; with respect to payments of fees, and service to government; with respect to the homeowner grant; with respect to the School Act, which is amended; with respect to the Property Transfer Tax Act, which is amended; and with respect to the question on mine reclamation trusts, which is amended. All of these have very significant impacts on British Columbians.

[ Page 13821 ]

I would suggest that in this bill, recognizing that we're talking about the principle of this, which is very hard to do, because this is very much a nuts and bolts bill.... These nuts and bolts are very important, because clearly, whether or not this whole economy holds together is determined by these very nuts and bolts.

Let me say that the mining reclamation trust tax and tax credit system that are being presented here are going to have a very significant and very dramatic effect on a lot of people who are currently involved, or were involved, with respect to past mining operations and reclamation accounts that are now held by way of trust. The formula that is shown to us here -- the formula that talks about the amount that you have to pay being equal to the trust tax, times the beneficiary's income, divided by the trust income -- is going to provide a significant figure for some people.

If you look at the overall cost, recognizing that this government has not exactly undertaken to make mining a particularly viable operation in this province to begin with, you're going to find that fewer and fewer people are going to look toward that industry as something that would be provided any incentive to proceed from this government.

Similarly, I think it is important for us to take just a moment to look at the amendments to

section 134 of the School Act that are brought in by this particular bill and that address grants in lieu of taxes. The fact is that on or before February 1 of each year, commensurate with this act, the municipalities.... Those grants in lieu of taxes that are provided to municipalities through the municipal grant act or through the Auditor General Act are going to be payable to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations on or before February 1 of each year.

What we had hoped to see, and what would have been much more welcome in this House from the Progressive Democratic Alliance point of view, was an amendment to the manner by which the grant-in-lieu process occurs to provide for a proposition of long-term financing of schools. I recognize that there is a technical reason for this to be brought in now, and I'm not necessarily critical of what is being intended here. But I think we have to get out of this mind-set that there is going to be the proposition of grant in lieu.

We need to move away from education as an isolated tax on property and toward a broader base and a much more representative system of taxation, so we can put the needed dollars into education in a more equitable and better-distributed way. We would have liked to have seen this government move toward that.

Since we have been in this House, members of the Alliance have been calling on this government to move toward multiple-year funding. We are asking them to move toward four-year-based financing of our educational system. We have asked the government to look toward taxation reform that would accommodate the proposition of that four-year-based financing. I understand that the Ministry of Finance is currently investigating the proposition of multiple-year financing of schools, and I welcome that. Maybe we are finally being heard; maybe some serious consideration is finally being given to that proposition.

That would be a welcome event. But it isn't going to work if we simply tinker with the car instead of redesigning the engine to make sure we have a more effective means of financing education.

[3:00]

I know that the whole proposition of school financing is critically important to British Columbians. I can tell you that, having just spent a weekend campaigning in the Abbotsford by-election for the Alliance candidate, Cathy Goodfellow, who is herself on the school board and knows only too well how Abbotsford has been among the lowest of any of the municipalities in receiving moneys from the government. She would like to see the kind of amendments I've just been talking about. They would very much like to know that the government has a view toward a more equitable system of tax collection and distribution.

The tinkering that Bill 2 would provide for really tells us that this is going to be more of the same. They really aren't interested in a fundamental change to the manner by which education is financed; they are simply more interested in making sure that the Ministry of Finance has a greater degree of control and authority over it. That will be the result of the legislation that we see in front of us now.

I wanted to reserve my strongest and most critical comments on this particular bill for

section 2, the Ferry Corporation Act. This government is now going to allow the capacity of borrowing for the B.C. Ferry Corporation to once again rise, from $460 million to $730 million.

We have been very critical of this government where necessary, and we have been very supportive of this government when it has a good idea. We have said that the shifting of debt out of the operating budget of government into the Crown corporations or Crown agencies and then trying to pretend that somehow there is a balanced budget doesn't fool anybody. Nobody believes that we have our debt under control. Even the debt management plan the government has put forward with respect to this budget only deals with the $10 billion in direct government spending; it doesn't deal with the corporate debt load at all.

This act is saying that we are going to empower the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, a corporation that should be mandated to provide the cheapest, most cost-effective and most efficient means of moving people from A to B.... It is now mandated to become a borrowing agency of government and to embark upon a brand-new, very expensive and foolhardy project about which there is a high degree of skepticism: we're going to start to try to build high-speed, aluminum catamaran ferries for export.

Hon. Speaker, I have to tell you that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is running a debt now. I believe the debt load in this last fiscal year was about $8 million more than they anticipated. So now they're running close to $38 million -- almost $40 million -- in debt, simply in their annual operating deficit. Their long-term debt, which they originally had been given empowerment to borrow, has risen from $200 million, around the time that this government came into power, up to $460 million. They're now shifting it up to $730 million worth of borrowed capital.

That is all going to have to be paid back. Somebody somewhere -- some taxpayer -- sooner or later is going to have to pick up the tab on that. It's all very well to be building the superferries, which I ride all the time, and many others do, and we enjoy it. But don't believe for a second that they pay for themselves or that they're not costly. They are. They're extremely expensive -- a very expensive proposition indeed.

If we are going to make the B.C. Ferry Corporation a natural extension of the highway, which.... I come from a riding that is dependent on the ferry. The people of the Sunshine Coast and Powell River can.... And it is mainland. I have to stress this over and over again: from Gibsons north to

[ Page 13822 ]

Powell River and to Lund is all mainland. It's not an island. Therefore it is an extension of the highway. We depend upon no less than five different ferries in order for us to be able to adequately travel to and from the cities, to do our commerce, to visit with relatives or to go to hospitals for hospital care. For a whole myriad of commercial and social and recreational uses, we have to use that B.C. ferry.

We see the debt rise -- $38 million in operating deficit. We see that we've got a $730 million borrowing capacity. Yet I don't see anything in the stakeholders' meetings that's discussing how B.C. Ferries is going to better service the Sunshine Coast. Sure, we got the so-called triangle run or L run between Langdale and Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo, put in a manner whereby.... The way that it was recruited, in terms of employment, it hires out of Nanaimo, not out of the local economy.

There's nothing tangible in the long-term planning. And we're highly skeptical that we ought to be doing high-speed, aluminum catamaran ferries. Indeed, the whole proposition of this $800 million project, which is going to upgrade two terminals and bring in these two aluminum ferries, is something that many marine engineers say is foolhardy. Why are we giving this corporation the capacity to borrow $730 million, virtually unaccounted?

F. Gingell: Because Sam Bawlf wants it.

G. Wilson: The member for Delta South says: "Because Sam Bawlf wants it." I think he's right. I think he's exactly right, because what do we know about this project? Why should we be so critical of the government? We know that this so-called high-speed catamaran project was launched originally in 1989 and was further advanced in 1990 under the former Social Credit government -- although most of them sit as Reformers now.

We know that in 1991, after this government came to power, there was a proposition whereby Mr. Bawlf -- who held the distribution rights for Cancat and for Incat technology out of Australia, in cooperation with the Nichols Bros. in Washington -- promoted B.C. Ferry Corporation to move along this path. B.C. Ferry Corporation turned it down. They looked at the project, assessed it and said this is not a good deal for British Columbia. This is too risky a proposition, because this size of the vessels has never been built anywhere. Aluminum is a very soft metal.

We didn't have any capacity to build them here, because our shipyards were geared up to take tensile-steel, single-hull vessels and not aluminum catamarans. It's very hard to weld it. We have a lot of debris in the water, and if they travel at high speed, it could cost us a lot of money.

But somewhere along the line, things changed. We don't know.... We have a freedom-of-information inquiry out to try and find it, which is taking a great deal of time. We're being stalled constantly on this question. Somewhere between 1991 and the announcement that came out in 1994, we know that Mr. Bawlf was hired through the Ministry of Employment and Investment and became a principal adviser to the B.C. Ferry Corporation on how we should move. Lo and behold, what do we find?

We find that the very same proposition that was being put forward by Incat, Cancat and Nichols Bros. in 1990 is now being advanced and promoted. We are now going to grant to the B.C. Ferry Corporation the opportunity to borrow $730 million so that we can start to build this ferry.

We have to ask ourselves a question about this. It's a question I've been asking. If Cancat, which was Mr. Bawlf's company, owned the sole distribution rights for that technology in British Columbia back in 1990, when did he give them up? How much did he get for them? Who bought them? Where did those distribution rights go? Incat is the parent company, and in all of the correspondence.... We have it documented in writing from the B.C. Ferry Corporation that there was meeting after meeting, with Mr. Hercus and Mr. Bawlf at Incat and Cancat promoting this technology.

Somewhere along the line, he gets hired by the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and he becomes an adviser to the company. The very technology that he at one time held the sole distribution rights for becomes part of the economy of British Columbia in terms of the direction of B.C. Ferries, to the tune of $730 million, or a good proportion of that. My understanding is that the aluminum catamarans are only going to be about $240 million of that $730 million. The rest is going to have to go into terminal upgrading so that we can accommodate these new vessels.

There are a lot of questions to be asked about this. You ask yourself: how much more could we do connecting coastal British Columbia with this kind of money if we put that investment into less fancy, less glorified, less high-tech kinds of vessels? The B.C. Ferry Corporation isn't supposed to be here to try and promote aluminum catamaran technology for export. That's not their mandate. Their mandate is to move British Columbians from point A to point B as quickly, as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible. That's what it's there to do. It's an extension of the highways.

Yet we're told by the Minister of Employment and Investment, and we've seen in this little act -- tucked in here under

section 2 of this nuts-and-bolts piece of legislation -- that we're now going to empower that corporation to borrow $730 million on behalf of British Columbians. What happens if it doesn't work?

The question I asked when I released this information way back in February, when we had the documentation with respect to what was taking place.... Indeed, even last year, before the announcement was made.... We know that the public relations spin doctors had been hired by B.C. Ferry Corporation in advance of the announcement. In fact, they already had the announcement worked through their public relations officers -- and we have it all documented -- even before they made the announcement. The question is: why would we want to go into this technology?

Why would they not hire, lease or rent -- or whatever -- an aluminum catamaran from an operating service in Europe or in Australia, where some of these smaller versions of these vessels are currently operating? Why won't you bring one here and check it out? See if it works. Give it a two-year trial run. Train your people on it. See if in fact it's worth taking this out and putting this kind of money into this service.

If you were going to actually bring it out and test it, we would have some knowledge as to whether or not this was suitable for B.C. waters, and the dispute.... Believe me, there is a big debate right now with respect to whether or not we should be going toward aluminum catamaran ferries, and from people who are far more knowledgable in marine engineering than I am. We would know whether, in fact, it was a wise decision or not. We wouldn't need to borrow $730 million. We wouldn't be ploughing $200 million into the development of the services for our new upgrading of the shipbuilding industry so that we can work in aluminum.

[ Page 13823 ]

We also could have made an independent decision. I really question, as we move toward this proposition in

section 2 for the borrowing of $730 million.... We would have made an independent assessment. All of the people who sat on the board that advised the B.C. Ferry Corporation with respect to the fast ferries were proponents of aluminum fast ferries around the world somewhere. Nobody who sat on that board was a proponent of a single-hull, tensile-steel vessel. We had people who were sent from the Ferry Corporation to seek "independent advice from Nichols Bros. in Washington." Nichols Bros. was part of the Sam Bawlf-Stuart Hercus-Incat, Cancat presentation to the B.C. Ferry Corporation in 1990 and 1991.

They're part of the company. This isn't independent advice; they're all part of the same group. The material that we have that was presented, which at was soundly rejected by the management of the B.C. Ferry Corporation when the former government, the Socreds, wanted to put in this kind of spending.... The same material -- identical -- is now being advanced and promoted by this government.

I would ask those who are interested to contact me; I'll send them copies. We have it all; we have the documentation. Exactly the same material that was rejected in 1990-91 is now being promoted and presented, and we're going to borrow $730 million to put it in place. The real question is: if Mr. Bawlf held the sole distribution rights for Cancat technology in 1990, which he did -- he is still the only principal of Cancat, which is still registered -- when did he give them up? How could he be hired by the Ministry of Employment and seconded to B.C. Ferries to give advice on this subject if, in fact, he was already locked into the promotion of that very technology?

These questions have not been answered. They've been sloughed off by the Minister of Employment and Investment; they've been sloughed off by the Minister of Finance. Yet we're asked today to approve a bill that's going to allow that corporation to borrow $730 million on behalf of all the taxpayers of British Columbia. My suggestion....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: And the minister says, "Wow," as he comes to this side of the House. My guess is that he's trying to refamiliarize himself with the opposition benches because that may well be where he'll be after the next election. But who should speculate on that? We'll let the voters of the province decide.

[3:15]

The minister has to explain what's going on here, because this corporation is not a corporation that has a mandate to get involved in expensive and rather experimental technology. What if these things don't work? We build these expensive aluminum catamaran ferries, and..... I'm hearing from the president of B.C. Ferry Corporation -- whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for; he's a man of great integrity who has done well for the province in a whole variety of different services within the civil service; he's a career civil servant, and I don't try to impugn his integrity in any way at all....

But we read that people who board these ferries are going to have to wear seatbelts because the rock on it is so high that you need to belt yourself in; in rough weather you have to lash down and harness every vehicle. What are the costs of this? Why would we not bring one from where they're in service today and try it out? Surely that sounds like a more sensible plan than, by passing this bill, simply giving the B.C. Ferry Corporation the opportunity to borrow $730 million.

Let me say this: the B.C. Ferry Corporation embarked upon what I think is a most worthwhile project -- the stakeholder committee process for all of coastal British Columbia. I've already said that Powell River-Sunshine Coast depends upon the ferries. We wanted that stakeholders' committee because it meant that our livelihood and our ability to travel from our communities to others in the province would be provided with input from us in terms of how this B.C. Ferries service should function.

We were given assurances when this process commenced that the capital financing plan would not be advanced before the stakeholder committees had met, determined their functional designs, decided what they wanted in terms of service and looked at what they wanted in terms of the ongoing timetabling and sailing schedules; and then it would be implemented in response to the concerns that came from the community. If that's the case, why are we now empowering B.C. Ferry Corporation to borrow $730 million before those stakeholder processes have even begun?

How much of this money is already committed? How much of this is actually after the fact? This announcement was made last year; the ten-year capital plan was embarked on in 1991. The decision to make aluminum catamarans, which is going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in unproven technology, was taken in 1992. It wasn't announced until 1994, but it was taken in 1992. We've got the documentation to prove it. There has been no formal public debate on this question; you can tell by the numbers who are here today to debate this most important Bill 2. You can tell that there seems to be no interest.

The reason is that the people of British Columbia don't know that what we're about to do when we pass this bill is further shackle them into long-term debt to the tune of $730 million in a completely unproven, experimental technology. It's ridiculous, and I see the member from Delta agreeing. He knows because he also comes from a community that depends heavily on the ferries. His own riding is right there where the ferry terminals are, and I know he's been a very vocal and articulate voice on this question in the past.

This is no longer an issue that needs to be pushed under the rug. This has to come forward for the people of British Columbia to understand fully and to comprehend, so that they know what it is their government is about to embark on in terms of long-term borrowing and debt. If we talk about the reduction of long-term debt, tax reform and all those things that are covered in other sections of this bill, then we have to get serious about the big-ticket numbers, the big items. I don't think we should have the borrowing power of B.C.

Ferry Corporation expanded to $730 million without a good deal more research and effort provided to explain why we're embarking on this highly questionable experimental technology called aluminum catamarans.

The minister has to tell us the answers to two very simple questions for which I have failed to get any satisfactory answers. When were the distribution rights of Cancat for Incat technology given up? When were they relinquished? To whom were they relinquished, and how much money was paid in the relinquishment of them? Nobody gives away a multimillion dollar deal right on the brink of it becoming a reality. That's just too much for the comprehensive mind to believe. So when were they given up?

The other thing the minister has to tell us is this. In 1991, the senior management of B.C. Ferries absolutely and resoundingly said they had looked at this technology and did not

[ Page 13824 ]

agree with or want it. So why did they change their minds? Was it a technical or an engineering decision that changed their minds, or was it in fact a political decision? Was it pure politics that said here was a good way for them to put in place an apprenticeship work program to take people out of single steel construction into aluminum construction, so they could get marine workers upgraded into new technology?

If this borrowing by B.C. Ferries is all about the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia, then we're going about it entirely the wrong way. If we're borrowing $730 million to keep people employed in the shipbuilding industry, it seems to me that we're coming at it through the back door. The B.C. shipbuilding industry is very important, there is no question that we need to encourage the construction of vessels in British Columbia. But the province had a highly skilled industry that looked to single-hull tensile-steel vessels, and we could have and should have a long-range program for B.C.

Ferry construction of smaller and faster single-hull vessels. We could then make more sailings more frequently, and thereby keep people moving. We could make B.C. Ferries do what they're indeed mandated to do, which is not to build big terminals where everybody can line up for two hours and then miss the ferry at the end because they got there only 20 minutes ahead of the sailing instead of 28 or 30 minutes ahead. Their mandate is to keep people moving by having shorter waits between sailings.

We can't approve this. We will not support it. We don't support the proposition on that one

section alone, if not others. It's unfortunate, because there are other sections in this bill which I think have merit and deserve consideration. But this government is going to have to come forward to the people of British Columbia and be honest with them. The B.C. Ferry Corporation now runs at a loss. We entered into another venture for a vessel between Seattle and Victoria that ran at a loss. We need some leadership on this question, leadership that tells us that the mandate of B.C. Ferries is going to be as an extension of the highways.

We're not into fancy new technologies on which we're going to risk our capital and long-term debt to try and flog abroad when there are companies that are already doing it in the private sector.

If aluminum catamaran vessels are needed here, let the private sector build them. If they could make a profit on them, and they felt they could market them and that they were worthwhile, they'd be building them here. The fact that the private sector isn't building them here and that we're going to borrow $730 million through a government agency tells us it's a losing deal. Frankly, the people of British Columbia can't afford it. We can't afford to lose any more because of the political whims of politicians of the day, who simply want to try to go out with a great big edifice in their recognition, saying: "Look what I built when I was minister."

This bill, unfortunately, must be voted down. I hope that the members opposite will recognize the seriousness of what they've put forward with respect to the borrowing powers of B.C. Ferries. I hope that the minister will take my words seriously. I don't know the extent to which the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, whose bill this is, has been consulted on what's proposed with respect to high-speed, aluminum catamaran ferries.

But I suggest that there needs to be a very serious second look, because those people who are far more knowledgeable in this industry than I am are telling us this is not the way to go and not a wise expenditure of money. We should not be getting into long-term capital borrowing to get into what will ultimately amount to a very expensive, losing proposition.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry I missed the students who were in here, but the previous speaker, while long-winded, was very interesting, and I'm glad the students got to hear him. In the meantime, in the precincts still are 80 students from Vancouver Technical Secondary School, a very active and forward-looking high school in my riding. The students are with their teacher, Mr. Doyle. They are from grade 11; they are here. Some of them will be back in, joining us. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

F. Gingell: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast spoke at some length. The galleries were full at one point earlier. They've all left now. I don't know whether that was his doing, or whether they knew he would end soon and it would be my turn.

But he's correct. Bill 2 requires some discussion.

Section 1 deals with the corporation capital tax -- some minor changes. Now, the people of British Columbia have been waiting for the Corporation Capital Tax Act to be repealed. The Premier of the province has said publicly that when the budget is balanced, the corporation capital tax will be gone. It was here for the purpose of balancing the budget. Well, without it, of course, even the accounts produced by this government would not have shown a balanced budget if it had been repealed this year.

One would have expected -- their having suggested to the people of B.C. that they've tabled a balanced budget -- that they would announce that it's going to be repealed next year. But they haven't. And I'm not surprised, because I contend, with all seriousness, that this year's budget is not balanced.

There are two or three important things when considering financial reporting. The first is consistency. You must be consistent in your treatment of revenues and expenditures. The second thing, in the public sector area, is that you must match the expenditures or the revenue with the period of time they are applicable to. In the private sector, it's critically important to make sure that you are measuring the same streams of revenues and costs -- that the costs you charge in any particular year are the costs incurred to earn those revenues.

In the provincial scene or the public sector scene, the important issue is to ensure that timing is correct -- that the revenues shown are revenues of this period, and the costs shown are costs of this period.

Now, this government charged up some $22 million worth of grants in 1992 and paid for them in the last days of March, grants that were all applicable to the following year. Those of us who read the auditor general's report on the public accounts will recognize that the auditor general did not approve of that treatment. These costs were clearly costs of the following year. I'm sorry, it was at the end of fiscal '93, and they were clearly costs of '94-95, and so stated. It is the auditor general and the comptroller general who spend their time focusing on the issues of proper accounting for the public sector, which is different from the private sector.

[ Page 13825 ]

I know that the minister is expecting me to speak at this point on the issue of the recording in this year of the $250 million of downstream benefits, and I won't disappoint her. I thank the minister very much for sending me the briefing material, finally; it did take some time. I was discomfited that a period of time was allowed to pass by, which was important not because of the amount, but because of the credibility of the minister's statements and the acceptance of those statements in the public domain.

[3:30]

The auditor general has clearly stated that he does not believe it is appropriate for these revenues to be recorded in the '95-96 year. One must appreciate that the comptroller general's position is a little different, because the comptroller general is responsible to Treasury Board; but if you read his briefing document, one understands the feeling of discomfort.

The minister then went out and sought an opinion from outside, from a firm of chartered accountants whose work is primarily in the private sector rather than the public sector, and they wrote an opinion which indicated that, in their opinion, this treatment was acceptable but not preferable, and it was acceptable on the basis that nothing more needs to be done. I'm sure that the Minister of Finance will agree with me that a great deal more needs to be done.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

First, time has to pass. These benefits that were sold don't even come into effect until 1998, and the provincial government clearly has a responsibility to ensure that the water storage facilities and the flow of water are operated in future in accordance with the original contracts. There may indeed be substantial costs to ensuring that those requirements of the Columbia downstream benefits treaty are in fact met in the future.

It's almost as though, in this particular case, the minister could similarly decide: why don't we take 1 percent of the consumer sales tax that the government is going to collect over the next 30 years, say from the year 1998 to the year 2028, sell it to someone at a discounted value and include that as revenue? That's a very good simile. That's exactly what this government has done: they've taken a future revenue stream from benefits that will occur in the future and do not exist at this time.

The power has not been generated and has not been sold, and they have taken a portion of it -- that annual capacity that is in excess of 950 megawatts -- and sold it early for a discounted sum and included it in revenue. I can assure you that it isn't revenue, and I don't agree. When the auditor general comes to write the report and give his opinion of the financial statements for the year 1995-96, I don't think he will agree with the government's treatment, either.

But then, of course, we all realize that there will be a new government when the 1995-96 financial statements come out, and they will have to deal with that issue.

The other matter that I talked about in the importance of public sector accounting is the issue of consistency and comparability. There is excluded from the consolidated revenue fund some $337 million net of revenues that will be expended by the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority. If one goes back to previous years before this change came into effect -- and its first real year is 1994-95 -- one recognizes that for this government to make the claim that the budget is balanced they have to do it in a manner that is consistent with the comparisons they make.

They always go back to the year 1991-92, and the amount that was in that year for this capital highway infrastructure cost was some $389 million. That is included when they talk about the $2.5 billion that the previous administration left as a deficit in the year the government changed, but they refuse to include the $337 million net that are in this year. When you take the $250 million and the $337 million and deduct it from the $114 million supposed budget surplus, you get a deficit of $473 million, or almost half a billion dollars, and that is what the true deficit is for this year.

If they were going to make some amendments to the Corporation Capital Tax Act -- and I approve of the one they are making -- other than repealing the whole act, the other issue I think they should consider is restricting the exemptions for farms to single-family farms. There are many similar operations which, instead of being owned by two brothers or a father and a son, are owned by two unrelated people. The minute you start making exemptions for one particular group, you tilt the proposed level playing field in favour of one or the other. I'm sure the minister recognizes and accepts that that is not a good practice, and I commend to her the issue of two-family farms.

The previous speaker spoke at some length on the issue of increasing the borrowing power of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to $730 million, a fairly substantial increase of $270 million. We all know what it is for. There has been quite a bit of discussion about the issue of fast ferries.

The one issue that I can't seem to get anyone to take seriously and think about is the issue of the environment. This is a government that is supportive of cleaning up the environment. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks continually speaks about zero-emission vehicles, even though that technology has not been developed to the extent that it is available. But this government is talking about building ferries that will require 300,000-plus horsepower in comparison to the 68,000 horsepower that is presently required.

If you make calculations of the emissions per passenger or per vehicle using some reasonable basis, the oxides of sulphur, nitrogen and carbon will be increased three to five times what they would be under S-class or C-class ferries.

If the issue is to do with the inability to get a full load into the terminal at Horseshoe Bay, surely there are better solutions than trying to build a high-speed ferry. Surely we can make some alterations at Horseshoe Bay, whether it be decking the parking lot, or putting on a floating addition of some sort to the parking lot, which is a better solution.

They are not going to get the advantages of speed from these ferries. In the summertime, the waters around this area where the problem is are full of pleasure craft. It is full of the flotsam and jetsam of the forest industry. We are not going to be able to get high speeds without impinging upon our safety standards. Although there have been some questions in the last two or three years about safety standards at B.C. Ferries, I, for one, in no way doubt their excellent record -- other than these matters recently -- and their commitment to operating safe ferries.

The suggestion has been made that these new aluminum ferries could be operated on compressed natural gas. That would supposedly reduce the amount of oxide emissions, particularly of sulphur -- there would be none -- but also of

[ Page 13826 ]

carbon and nitrogen. The government should be aware that the Coast Guard will not allow them, for safety reasons, to operate passenger ferries with compressed natural gas.

Moving on, the next

section of this act deals with the homeowner grant -- raising the exemptions. This government is determined to have wealth taxes -- that's what this is -- but I would like to reiterate today, as I have in past years, that owning houses on the west side of Vancouver or on waterfront property in the lower mainland does not necessarily indicate wealth and an ability to pay substantially greater taxes than your neighbours for the same services. Many families are living in old family homes.

They don't want to move because of family history in the property, or because of dealing with the issues of property transfer tax, if they were to sell, and all the additional costs that they would incur on the sale. I'd like to suggest that this is an inappropriate tax, and this government should give serious thought to repealing it.

Then we come to the changes in here on the Property Transfer Tax Act to help with issues where transfers are held up through marriage breakdown and through bankruptcy.

[3:45]

We spoke at some length last year about the way that the act was previously written, which allowed high-ratio financing exemptions from property transfer tax, being a better means and more applicable in the innumerable cases of first-time buyers than the changes that they have made. I know that the government, of course, kept saying: "Well, you're against an exemption for first-time buyers." We were not against an exemption for first-time buyers. First-time buyers were still exempt if they met the exemption requirements of the high-ratio financing.

The people that this government should be trying to exempt are the people who are struggling to acquire a home; people that have minimum down payments; families who are taking on substantial future monthly commitments to acquire that home, whether it be their first residence or the move into slightly larger premises, as their family has expanded. I'm surprised that the minister didn't think that this whole issue of what they're trying to accomplish in the property transfer tax exemptions this year would take it back to the way it was in previous years.

We can't support this bill, as I say. That won't come as any great shock, I'm sure. But there are simply too many issues that this government has failed to deal with properly. The bill that they should bring in is one that requires truth in budgeting and requires them to table budgets that are not subject to wasted time and energy on the issue of their accuracy. Let's get away from that. Let's have financial statements that meet everybody's Good Housekeeping seal of approval. With that, I look forward to committee stage of this bill. It will give us an opportunity to get into the meat of many of these issues.

Deputy Speaker: To close the debate on second reading of the bill, I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. E. Cull: This has been a very interesting debate, and I've listened with some interest to the various members who spoke not only this afternoon but last week when we discussed second reading of this bill. The comments that I want to reply to as I close debate today fall into two categories.

A number of the members -- not so many today as last week -- called for greater tax cuts and faulted the bill because the tax reductions in this bill are minor in nature; the rest of the debate seemed to revisit the budget debate that we had some weeks ago. I want to return to the comments I made at the very beginning of second reading debate, and that was that we took great pains this year to go out and talk to people about what they wanted to see in the budget. Overwhelmingly, people told me that this was not the year to make tax cuts; this was the year to pay down debt.

So for those members who called for further tax cuts, I have to tell them, as I said in my introductory remarks, that if you're doing that, you're not listening to what people around this province told us -- not just some narrow group, but people from business, labour and local government leaders. Everyone almost unanimously supported the notion of paying down debt this year and leaving tax cuts for another year.

I have to point out the hypocrisy in the comments that some members of the official opposition have made in speaking on this bill, because not only have they called for greater tax cuts -- they've talked about $1.5 billion in tax cuts by the time you add up school property taxes and the corporation capital tax, and have them come entirely off the budget -- but they have still not yet said how they will, with those tax cuts, balance the budget and maintain services to a province that's growing faster than any other province in Canada.

I think that it's irresponsible to call for deep tax cuts, or to even go further and promise such tax cuts to people, without telling them that the consequence is either going to be a drastic reduction in services or higher taxes somewhere else, because you can't pull $1.5 billion out of a hat and still have your budget balance.

The member for Surrey-White Rock -- I'm just going to look for my notes on this -- said that we should be listening to the people, and I certainly agree with him. He said we should be listening to the Business Council of B.C. I'm sorry that member is not available to hear my response on that, but the president of the Business Council of B.C. said: "We welcome both the elimination of the deficit in 1995-96 and the clear emphasis on debt reduction in the new budget." Then he went on to say:

"[The Minister of Finance] deserves good marks for leading an open and constructive prebudget consultation. It is apparent that she has listened to the advice she received from business and others who have been urging the government to scale back its borrowing in order to get the province's debt under control."

So I agree with the comments from the member for Surrey-White Rock: we should listen to the Business Council of B.C., and the Business Council of B.C. says that we have listened to the people.

[ Page 13827 ]

There has also been a lot of talk, both from that member and from the opposition Finance critic, about an honest set of books. Let's talk about the people who don't have a vested partisan interest, as my critic across the way has.

Let's talk about people who have no partisan interest in terms of talking about our budget -- the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, which has said: "I think it's one of the better documents they've come up with." Or, if we want to go to an even less partisan and more respected source, we can go to our own auditor general, who gave our deficit last year a clean bill of health in terms of our reporting. I expect him to do the same again this year.

The member opposite likes to talk about all the various accounting opinions that have been offered on the Columbia downstream benefits. I have to say that I'm not an accountant, and as a layperson I have to take the advice that is given to me. When we get three sets of different advice on how to treat the downstream benefits, it puts a Finance minister in a very difficult position. But what the member is asking me to do....

He needs to be aware of this, because for the government to override the recommendations of the comptroller general, Treasury Board -- which is a committee of cabinet, a committee of politicians -- has to pass an order to do that. I don't think that with something like this, where we're not experts, Treasury Board should be overriding our comptroller general. We've taken the advice that he has offered; he has had a very difficult job this year trying to match off differing opinions, and when we finalize the public accounts in the fall we will finally resolve this issue once and for all.

The member opposite talks a lot about how this is money that is paid for services or products that have not yet been delivered. He's mistaken. The $250 million payment this year is a onetime payment only for signing it, and it has nothing to do with the services that are going to be provided in the future.

There's a lot that I could say about mines. We've talked about the fact that there are benefits to the mining industry in this piece of legislation; most of the speakers opposite who have talked on it have said that it's too little. They've ignored the fact that last year in our budget we brought in a comprehensive package totalling over $100 million worth of benefits to the mining industry. We have three new mines reopening in this province this year, and I have to ask the members how much more they want the taxpayers of this province to give to an industry that has had considerable help from the taxpayers in the last few budgets.

We've heard a lot of talk about investment, and I simply want to remind the members opposite -- because particularly the Leader of the Official Opposition has said on a number of occasions that he prefers Ralph Klein's approach to Mike Harcourt's, and has said that he will pursue that approach -- that British Columbia saw double the non-residential business investment that Alberta saw last year. We had 23.5 percent growth in investment in this province, compared to about 11 percent in Alberta. I don't think we have anything to apologize about in this province when it comes to new business investment in our province.

Let me turn a bit from the official opposition to the comments that were made by the member for Peace River North last week. I have to say that it's very difficult to take those comments seriously when he talks about the finances of this province being in a mess. That member ran for the party -- I know he's since switched parties -- that left us in one of the biggest financial messes this province has ever found itself in.

He went on to criticize the debt management plan that is in our budget -- a debt management plan that was put together by a group of business leaders, and that was conveyed to me over the signature of the managing director of the Vancouver Board of Trade with the comment in it that this plan should be beyond partisan politics and that we should just accept that there are some sound, businesslike approaches to managing debt, which, if the government accepted -- and we did, in our budget -- we would then be able to move ahead and make sure that we keep our debt affordable and the lowest in Canada, and the lowest interest costs in the country.

He also talked a lot about spending. I have to again remind all hon. members that this budget's spending increase of just under 3 percent is the lowest increase in spending in 25 years. That means that you've got to go back through the Vander Zalm government, the Bennett government and the Barrett government to W.A.C. Bennett before you find a lower increase in spending in a provincial budget.

While I believe the opposition members are serious when they say they would cut spending even more than that.... But it would be drastic, it would hurt B.C. families and it would be out of touch with the modern history of our province, no matter which party was in power.

In closing, I want to deal with the only serious question that we got from across the floor. I think it was the member for Richmond-Steveston who asked the question: is the B.C. Ferries capital plan part of our debt management plan? I want to assure that member that indeed it is. All of our capital plans, all of our borrowing and all of our capital construction are factored into the debt management plan. The debt management plan is what is guiding this government when it comes to making capital investments, and the ferries program is absolutely no exception to that.

In conclusion, I have to say that those who want to carry on talking about what I think one member called the unhappy financial state of the province just don't want to tell people the real story of what's going on in B.C. British Columbia has the best economy in Canada, we have created 40 percent of all the new jobs in this country in the last three years, we have had the fastest growth rate, we have had tremendous increase in investment, we have the lowest per capita debt and the lowest interest payments, and we continue to have the best credit rating in the country.

As my colleague the Minister of Environment would say, we also have the best environmental rating, which means not only are we financially well managed but we are also protecting our natural environment, which is very important to our economy and our quality of life.

With that I move second reading of Bill 2.

[4:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 28

Priddy

Charbonneau

Garden

Hagen

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Cull

Harcourt

Clark

MacPhail

Barlee

Janssen

Beattie

Farnworth

Conroy

[ Page 13828 ]

Doyle

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Jackson

Kasper

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Lali

NAYS -- 11

Wilson

Stephens

Hurd

Reid

Gingell

Dalton

Jarvis

Anderson

Symons

Warnke

Neufeld

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 14.

TOURISM ACT

(second reading)

Deputy Speaker: I'll give members an opportunity to depart the chamber before we resume, and then I will recognize the Minister of Social Services.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've been up on my feet several times to make this introduction, but I want to welcome and say hello to the students from Van Tech, who are with us now. I introduced them earlier, but they are now here. They are from grade 11, and I'm sure they'll be learning a great deal as we sit together in this chamber.

Hon. B. Barlee: The purpose of this bill is to establish a broader range of activities and priorities for the Tourism ministry. Bill 14 essentially updates and clearly reflects the powers, functions and activities of the ministry. This bill, as proposed, also gives Tourism a statutory presence in land use planning and resource management, really for the first time. This change is essential to tourism, tourism growth and prosperity, as this sector depends upon the province's natural resource base to attract visitors from all around the world.

Participating in land use decisions will allow the Tourism ministry to support the Super Natural British Columbia image, which we all know is well known around the world. The bill also encourages the development and growth of tourism through policies, plans and programs that reflect the needs and long-term interests of tourism. The bill continues to encourage the development of the motion picture industry in British Columbia, which incidentally is doing extremely well.

The proposed bill includes several other recommendations by the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, known as COTA, in its position paper "A New Legislative Mandate for Tourism." COTA recommended that the ministry's mandate be expanded to include resource planning and management. The bill involved interministry consultation with the Ministries of Aboriginal Affairs, Forests, Employment and Investment, and Environment, Lands and Parks. So another four ministries are also in on it. The bill supports the commitment made by Premier Harcourt on October 25, 1994, by representing tourism resource interests in regional resource planning and policy development.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am just collecting my papers here. As usual, the day's agenda, as it starts, doesn't always unfold as one anticipates. But I am more than glad to enter into this debate.

In reading through it and talking to people and, indeed, talking to the member for Saanich North and the Islands -- who is the critic for Tourism, but was unable to be here today to participate in this debate -- my understanding of this bill is that the new Tourism Act is designed to do slightly different things than the old one. It has given the minister a somewhat changed mandate in that he now has the duties of reflecting tourism interests in land use and in resource management decisions -- which I think is probably a good thing. It is time somebody started to do that, because the tourism industry is one of our fastest-growing and cleanest industries.

The jobs in the tourism industry aren't always the big high-tech jobs, although they are becoming more so in some areas. I know a number of helicopter pilots who make pretty good money making sure that the skiers who come to British Columbia are happy. I am encouraged to see that reflection in the act.

I think, however, that perhaps the New Democrats and certainly some of the comments that were made by the member for Saanich North and the Islands on the philosophy of where are we going to go with tourism in the next decade or so diverge somewhat, although not completely. There are somewhat different views. I, and members of my caucus, believe quite strongly that there is a role for the government to play in tourism.

But rather than be the actual agent that's in there developing all the marketing schemes and promotional plans and doing all the training physically -- the hands-on portion of tourism -- the ministry should probably take more of a leadership role. It should allow those groups within the tourism industry.... Those who know it best, who make their living off of it, who are providing the jobs and the economic growth and development in tourism, would be better prepared, would contain better knowledge -- the minister shakes his head -- and would know better how tourism should be delivered.

The minister shakes his head.

I know that oftentimes when you have these various groups, whether it is tourism or other ministries for that matter.... When the government is stepping in and taking a real management role, a hands-on role, in developing programs and policies, they tend to squabble among themselves a great deal and compete in sometimes ruthless ways for allotments of limited resources. Because they see that taxes are collected by the government; they go to Victoria in this case.

Federally they go to Ottawa, but here they go to the province in the form of hotel taxes, social service taxes, user fees, licences and all sorts of things. Some of them end up in this ministry and some in others. Then there's this pot of money. Those various agencies and groups have to go back to Victoria, follow their revenues to Victoria, and talk with the minister and other people within the ministry and, indeed, other ministries to try and get some of that back. It becomes a group competing for very scarce resources.

I think that as the industry matures in British Columbia as it has in other jurisdictions, as tourism grows and continues to grow in B.C., as we see more investments made and as we see British Columbia's attractiveness grow internationally.... Almost every year we seem to get more and more people coming to B.C. I think the minister himself, as an individual, is a great spokesman for British Columbia. He certainly has a love for B.C., knows its culture and its heritage, and is a good advocate.

[ Page 13829 ]

As the industry itself matures, there is an opportunity for government to step back a little bit and encourage leadership among the people who are in the field. We should encourage various groups, like hotel people, outdoor and outback people, fishing people and all of the people that are involved in providing services that tourists want when they come from other parts of the province and tour B.C. internally.... People come from outside the province and outside the country.

Those people who are providing those services, who are managing those industries and who are in direct contact with the people who are looking for tourism and vacation opportunities have a real sense of what they should be doing.

Yes, they're going to argue among themselves; yes, there's going to be competition; yes, they're all going to think that the money should be spent in their particular area. But I think it's incumbent upon government, as that industry matures, to start to step back -- gradually, perhaps, or a little faster than gradually -- and encourage those individual groups to start talking among themselves. Get them to compete for those scarce resources among themselves and on their own.

Get them to come to government with suggestions and plans and strategies on how they're going to promote tourism and bring people here from within and from outside the province to their various regions to partake in those resources and industries.

They should determine how they're going to make sure that they have the right people in the right places at the right time to service those tourists when they get here, that the people providing the services are well trained, that you get a smile when you check into a hotel instead of a grumble, that the rooms are clean, that the ski hills are in great shape and that people get a welcome when they come to B.C. There are all sorts of things that have to take place.

I suppose it's moving from a traditional view of government's role, but I think the public is starting to demand that. They're starting to demand greater efficiencies from government. They're starting to ask government to step back sometimes and let them manage their own affairs; get out of their way and allow them to do those things. It is true that those groups do compete among themselves. They're not always happy with each other, and they don't always get along; but that doesn't mean that they can't. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be playing that leadership role and putting them together and getting them to come up with a strategy of their own.

We should make sure that the money we're garnering in the form of revenue from tourism is put back into tourism to the extent that it allows them to promote it, rather than have it all come to Victoria and have them all crawl on bended knees. I know that it's a self-aggrandizement, perhaps -- the minister is smiling with those comments. I know that to have the revenues come here and then have the various operators and people come to Victoria on bended knee to ask for some of it back probably creates more headaches for the minister than he realizes. It would probably be better if we could have them sorting that sort of thing out on their own.

There are number of things which we'll be going through clause by clause when looking at the bill in more detail when we get there. I think it's fair to say that all people in British Columbia believe that tourism is a huge opportunity for this province. For the most part, it's a clean industry. As time goes by, it can and probably will create more highly skilled jobs and more small businesses, which tend to employ people to a greater extent.

There are beautiful areas of this province that are still unknown to most people. There are some fantastic valleys and rivers and mountains and archeological sites. The aboriginal culture in British Columbia is something that I think aboriginal people will want to promote around North America. We have an incredibly huge wealth of aboriginal culture -- in some areas, it's almost untouched -- that I know people from right around the world would love to come here and see. It's something I have pride about, and I know the minister and other members do too.

I notice the member for Burnaby-Willingdon at her seat, and I know she'll probably want to say something. She partakes heavily of some of the more remote areas of this province and has a lot to say about the opportunities we have.

[4:15]

I don't think we're widely divergent in our views with regard to this bill. But I think it's perhaps our philosophy that we'd like to see a little more autonomy and responsibility given to the industry to manage their own affairs, and a little less intrusion by government -- to have a step back and allow them to do things on their own and create some efficiencies.

With that, I will take my seat. I know that we are moving into committee stage of this bill, I assume sometime this week. We'll have a chance to look at the various clauses at that time.

R. Neufeld: I rise to make a few brief remarks on second reading of the Tourism Act, Bill 14. The Reform Party really does not have any basic criticism of Bill 14. We look forward to going through committee stage to deal with a few sections that we want some enlightenment on -- on what these really mean. I guess I'll just outline briefly a few of them that we have.

One of them is: "...reflecting tourism interests in land and resource use and management decisions...." I guess this has a positive side. But it also has a negative side to it, because we now will put Tourism at the table in land use decisions. That could lead to further preservationist attitudes in the province.

Specifically, in the part of the province I come from, we seem to want to continually put away large tracts of land just carte blanche, because we think that at some time they may be useful for some other purpose. The economic activity that takes place in some of those areas is immense, and it certainly will have a dramatic effect on the province at some point in time if we discontinue that kind of economic development in those areas.

I'm not saying that we have to have economic development in every area of British Columbia, because we in British Columbia do have some of the most magnificent scenery anyplace in the world. I can say that because I have travelled almost all of the province. In fact, at one time my wife and I said we would not actually leave Canada until we had visited every part of British Columbia that you can get to by road. We have not accomplished that yet, and we've taken a lot of holidays.

I know specifically that in my constituency there are areas just as beautiful as Banff and Jasper; we just don't have them commercialized. To be honest, I hope that they don't get commercialized like Banff and Jasper and that we do keep them as a wilderness area -- but for many uses, not just one.

[ Page 13830 ]

So there is a positive side and a negative side. I guess, further on that, we wonder what will happen to decisions that are already made regarding land use in British Columbia. Will Tourism now review all those decisions and have their input before we can really decide what's going to happen?

Also, this bill allows the minister to encourage enhancement of tourist facilities. We probably have to look at that very closely during debate, to see just exactly what that means. Does that mean that the minister will have authority now to implement new regulations and standards for motels, waterslides, helicopter skiing and whatever? Already there is a tremendous amount of regulations and rules that the tourism industry falls under -- and many other ministries, such as the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and all those that already have regulations in place to cover them.

If it means something different than what we interpret that it could mean, we'll wait for committee stage to discuss that a little further.

Another area of concern is "developing occupational standards and certification processes." Now, I know that the SuperHost program that the minister has spoken about on a number of occasions is a very good program. I think it enhances tourism in the province, and anybody who would say otherwise certainly hasn't been around the tourism industry. So -- not really knowing what the minister means by this: does it demand certain employment standards in the tourism industry? Is that what the minister is getting at?

Are we going to set up programs within our educational facilities to further expand on those kinds of things? That could be a positive, and it could be a negative. I think about areas that I represent where people have tremendous difficulty in attending some of the schools or the courses that are presented, because most of them are presented in the lower mainland where the bulk of the people are. It gets very difficult for a business person on the Alaska Highway who runs a business year-round by himself or with a partner.

To be able to get out of those areas to come and learn from this process could be difficult, and they could find themselves not being able to certify themselves in a way that would guarantee them continued signage or advertisement, or those kinds of things.

I also understand that there has to be some level of regulation, because it certainly does enhance our business. Second, on that part of the bill we wonder if it's setting up professionalism as another method of encouraging union certification in small tourist-oriented businesses such as motels and tourist attractions. That would certainly have a detrimental effect on many small businesses and many small motel and hotel owners in British Columbia.

The subsection that allows the minister to enter into agreements with other jurisdictions regarding tourist matters is another one that.... In fact, during estimates I spoke to the minister about it at some length. I think it could be very good for the province, especially for the constituency I come from. I can think of many areas of the province that would benefit from agreements made with either the lower 48 states or Alaska, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. My constituency depends heavily on tourism that's destined for Alaska or the Yukon, so I can see agreements reached with these territories and other countries being beneficial to the tourism industry.

I look forward to the committee stage, when we can expound further on that

section of the bill to find out exactly what that means. Basically, the bill is not much different from the existing bill. It has some changes. When we get to committee, I guess we'll all have a better idea of how dramatic those changes will be. We look forward to that time.

D. Jarvis: I rise to speak on Bill 14, the Tourism Act. Looking at it from a different point of view, I sometimes wonder what is going on when the minister says that he needs a change of mandate and that he'll be looking into land issues. It appears that when most of the ministries start getting involved with the environment and land issues, they are eventually taken over by the Environment ministry. So it looks like maybe his days are coming near their end, or else he's going to be emasculated again.

In any event, it appears that this is a very inconsequential bill. All items referred to in the second

section seem to be somewhat superfluous in the sense that it's collecting, evaluating and disseminating information regarding all "the following" lists. I would assume that by this time the Tourism ministry had reached that point, especially when you look at the fact that he has now increased the Tourism budget by another $12 million or $14 million from last year. It appears that it's up to $126 million; it was $112 million last year.

In any event, I would like to ask the minister, later on when he's closing, if he could answer a few questions with respect to just what it means when he says that Tourism's interest in land and resource management decisions will be. Who is it going to benefit? Just what is it going to be doing? He says it's going to be promoting tourism and reflecting the land use decisions, but will it? Are we just going to close off this province even more from the casual...? We would hope that it would open it up.

For example, at the present time there are some glorious areas in this province that are only available to people who have lots of big bucks. Most of the people going into those areas are Americans and Europeans who fly over here and have the big dollars.

For example, does the minister intend to open up the Tatshenshini and put a road through it so it can be accessible to the average person in British Columbia? Does the minister intend to open up the northwest

section of British Columbia, which is pretty well restricted to one main road coming down from the Yukon into Jakes Corner or Bob Quinn? For example, when the minister says he's involved in these land use decisions, is he going to widen the road from Highway 37 into Telegraph Creek, and then perhaps drive a road south and through that park and out into Bob Quinn Lake or one of those parts of Highway 37, which will open up the grandest area in this province to the average person instead of leaving it all to the big-dollar spenders?

I'd also like the minister to answer later on whether he has given any attention, when involved in these land use decisions that he's now wanting approval for, to putting a road up the Stikine or up to Iskut, or to opening up a road from the Alaska panhandle and running it up northwest into the Yukon. These are areas in British Columbia that could open up and create tourism in this province instead of, as I said....

[4:30]

L. Fox: The Tatshenshini.

[ Page 13831 ]

D. Jarvis: I said that earlier. Is he going to put a road through the Tatshenshini? Everyone talks about this great area that we are preserving. For whom? We are only preserving it for a very few people -- maybe 1,000 people a year -- who go into the Tatshenshini. They have to fly in there: Americans and some wealthy.... And the odd NDP MLA who's able to fly in there -- certainly we poor Liberals have not been able to fly in there, because we can't afford to, but I notice half the NDP caucus has been flown in there.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: They haven't got my cheque yet.

As I said, I would really appreciate it if the minister would answer some of those questions as to whether tourism is now going to be a closed shop. Is it now going to be run by the Environment ministry, or is he still going to have control of his own ministry? Every time a ministry gets involved with Environment, they're taken over by Environment -- or at least emasculated.

I'll note those points; I'll end my little talk on Bill 14 and say that I will be supporting it.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I think we're all agreed on and aware of that, and of the diverse landscapes, from the very high elevations to sea level. The northern tip of the Sonoran Desert ends in Canada; it goes all the way from Mexico into Canada. We have such a tremendous, vital variety and diversity of flora and fauna in the province. The minister is an effective promoter not only in his present role but of -- what is it? -- gold dust or gold trails or something, which he does so well.

In referring to Bill 14, I really can't find anything new in the way of the philosophy or principles when I look at the duties, powers and functions of the minister. I presume that the minister already knows what they are. I can't see anything that is different from the former tourism act. Encouraging development of the tourism industry in British Columbia is a very necessary thing for a Minister of Tourism to do. It's one of those good-news bills that governments often bring forward. It reintroduces existing legislation to make itself look good. It's not looking very good at the present time for a number of various of reasons -- except for the Minister of Tourism; he's always looking good.

What bothers me about the philosophy and principles of this bill is that while it reemphasizes the normal duties of the Minister of Tourism.... The only addition is a note with respect to "...encouraging the development of the motion picture industry in British Columbia." That's a significant opportunity. Economically it's a very sound type of opportunity for British Columbia and British Columbians. However, subsection (2) goes on: "Without limiting subsection (1), the minister may...." It doesn't say that the minister shall or will or anything else; it says he may. He may and he may not.

How are we going to debate the philosophy and principles of a bill when the Tourism minister may or may not? We can stand here till all of eternity debating whether he may or may not, whether he will or won't, or whether he should or shouldn't. It's very difficult to relate to the philosophy and principles when all of these options are in there.

The reality is that the Ministry of Tourism and the minister are involved in a number of areas, and he must be involved in them. As a matter of fact, the land use decisions that the minister waxed eloquently on are very important. But the minister -- if he hasn't sat on as chair -- is a member of the cabinet committee ELUC, the Evironment and Land Use Committee. If the minister has been silent on that committee, there is no necessity to bring in new legislation to remind him of what his responsibilities are.

He has the mechanism through the cabinet committee and through interministry action to attend to all of the concerns. We don't need this particular bill or this particular piece of legislation to remind the minister of what he should or shouldn't do or what he can or can't do. The reality is that all of the responsibilities indicated here are virtually the present responsibility of the Minister of Tourism. The only official expansion that I can see is with respect to the motion picture industry.

What I'm really concerned about, though, is the unrealistic expectations that may be raised in certain elements of the British Columbia community with respect to the tourism value on land use decisions. We find that here is another potential access to block any growth or development in a particular area.

There are all sorts of funny things that happen in British Columbia. Not too many years ago I was in the Nelson area, standing in small clearcut. One of the radical environmentalists who was with us in that group had his whole day spoiled because off in the horizon, in the far-off distance, was a small postage-stamp clearcut. The fellow was very, very upset, and it just spoiled his whole day: there was a fault in the landscape. We were looking at literally hundreds of square miles from a high vantage point.

The minister knows full well that at the turn of the century there was no green timber on those hills. The prospectors went through. It was easier to prospect on bare slopes, so they just set fires and burned all of the timber. If you look at some of the early pictures of Sandon or of the areas around Nelson, for example, you'll find that the hills were really bare. There were just forests of snags. Now they are green timber.

In the short span, a lot of local people -- some long-term and some relatively new to the area -- have decided that since time immemorial green standing timber has been there and it always has been that way. The difficulty is that now we have another element to try and bridge, as lobby forces can go and weight the issue with the Minister of Tourism and perhaps deny the planned and necessary development of the province -- which still primarily is resource extraction industries. Unless we use that as the stepping stone to a new dimension in our economy, then we are going to be fraught with problems.

I had the opportunity of speaking to some 16,000 people at a Stein Valley festival, and most of the people came from the greater Vancouver area. They were quite prepared to insist

[ Page 13832 ]

that government put a moratorium on logging over the whole of the province, because they didn't like what was happening. So we should stop logging, forgetting completely that educational funding, public schools, advanced education, health care funding, social services funding and funding to run the provincial government came, and still comes to a large degree, from the wealth creation of the resource extraction industries.

One has to weigh very carefully the values. We have a great area in this province that has not been impacted in any significant way by the population. It's not simply in the high areas, but if you have travelled or hunted or fished or flown over this province to any degree, you understand the magnitude of the province of British Columbia.

Our parks system is equivalent to or greater than some of the areas of the provinces in Canada; that's what we have here in British Columbia. I have always felt rather badly -- and I felt that the British sold us out -- about the adjudication of the Alaska panhandle, for example. Yet when I fly over British Columbia, I recognize that it's not simply a small area -- and it's not simply moose, mountains and Mounties -- but that there is a great deal of very, very interesting land mass.

As far as tourism is concerned -- whether it's consumptive in the way of hunting or fishing, for example, or non-consumptive; whether it's wildlife viewing, river rafting or simply hiking in the high and wild country -- it's all here in British Columbia.

In the philosophy and principles of this bill, it's fundamentally a good-news bill; there's nothing new to it. The minister looks good, and I think so he should, but it does nothing new or dramatic. It's a very interesting bill, but what really bothers me is that it doesn't say anything that is mandatory or definite. Fundamentally, the majority of it all relates to "may," so it's awfully iffy. It sounds like it's a good-news item, but we don't have to do it if we don't feel like it or don't want to.

A. Warnke: I just want to make a few quick remarks about Bill 14. There is no doubt about it, anyone who lives in the province of British Columbia recognizes that tourism is one of the leading industries, if not.... In some ways one could argue -- and I'm sure the minister is quite capable of doing it -- that tourism is the leading industry of British Columbia, certainly in terms of any potential or future in the province.

But the explanatory note does have one magical word -- the member for Okanagan West actually touched on it -- the word "may"; the minister "may" engage in something. I just wanted to touch a little bit on this. It sounds picky, but the problem I always have with the word "may" is that it sometimes turns into the word "will." The minister "will" engage in certain kinds of activities, even though the word "may" suggests an option that is there.

That means then we just take a look at.... Well, this is not a bill just full of options. It's a bill that bears some closer scrutiny perhaps, and I would just like to touch on a couple of aspects. For example, on the plus side, I think first of all of

section 1, subsection (2)(b), where it says that what we need is the encouragement of "the enhancement of the standard of accommodation, facilities, tourist services," and so on -- these are absolutely necessary and essential. In fact, the minister has a tremendous responsibility.

If we want to enhance and protect the quality of the tourist industry here in British Columbia -- one in which people throughout the rest of the world, and certainly the rest of this continent, can have some sort of predictability -- then when they go into the province of British Columbia, and the government of British Columbia states something such as an accommodation meeting a certain standard, in fact that standard will have been met, and all the rest of it; that is so essential.

In the past -- and I do know a little about the tourism industry -- British Columbia has occasionally had the reputation of not meeting the standards of what you would expect from a vibrant tourist industry. So to add this emphasis, I think, is actually quite necessary.

Also, I'm impressed with subsection (2)(d) -- "collect, evaluate and disseminate information regarding the...tourism markets and market potential" and "trends in tourist activities," and so on. This is really long overdue, and as the tourist industry develops, it is so important to identify where in fact the tourist industry is developing and what sort of potential it has. Because I've noticed that the tourist industry in British Columbia -- and elsewhere, to be fair -- has often been the result of boom and bust. That is, all of a sudden a new idea comes forth -- water slides, or something like that -- and it becomes a trendy sort of thing; then everybody wants to be involved in it.

[4:45]

The motel industry several years ago used to be pretty chaotic. It's a result of some people making some money, and then there's a huge response to that: "Hey, we can be part of this as well." Eventually, there is a real problem, and we respond in sort of a boom and bust way. As a result, the economy in the tourist industry fluctuates far more than maybe it should, as opposed to identifying the trends in tourist activities, where there is potential -- perhaps guide entrepreneurs who want to go into the tourist industry; it identifies for them some potential out there. So there are some positives.

But there's one negative, and the member for Peace River North actually put his finger on it -- of course, then he didn't elaborate on it. I won't elaborate too much on it, but when that member pointed to subsection 1(2)(c)(i).... I'm really wondering when we talk about "...enhance the professionalism and job creation potential of the tourism industry by...developing occupational standards and certification processes...." Yes, that sounds good prima facie. Actually, I don't have a quibble with the direction, unless it's a disguise for something --