1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 21

[ Page 5151 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today Pastor Alf Lennox of Abbotsford, who represents the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. He's accompanied by some 30 clergymen representing the Seventh-Day Adventist Church of America from various states in the United States as well as other provinces in Canada. They are meeting in Victoria for a council on religious freedom. They will also have a tour of the parliament buildings around 4 o'clock today. I ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted today to introduce to the House my Member of Parliament, Svend Robinson, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway. I'd ask the members to make him welcome.

G. Wilson: I'd like to welcome to the House today Marilyn Skidmore from Langley Honda, Grant McGowan from Langley Honda, Lloyd Bray from Middlegate Honda, Andrew Hill from Northshore Nissan, Ken Pilson from Pacific Dodge and Don Triffon from Richmond Acura. As the rules do not permit me to tell you that they are here as a protest against this government's budget, let me say that they are here like knights in a quest for truth and justice. May the House please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Blencoe: As the House is aware, in 1994 Victoria and British Columbia will be hosting the Commonwealth Games -- a great event, of course, for our province and our community. Over the next few days we have a delegation visiting from Malaysia. Malaysia, as my colleagues are aware, will be hosting the Commonwealth Games in 1998. The delegation is here to learn and to be briefed by the Commonwealth Games Society and others on how successfully British Columbia is preparing for this wonderful event. I'd like the House to welcome today Hon.

Dato Haji Annuar Haji Musa, who is the Minister of Youth and Sports for the country of Malaysia, and Gen. Tan Sri Hashim Mohd Ali, the executive chair of the Commonwealth Games. Would the House give them a warm British Columbia welcome.

Oral Questions

AIRCARE LABOUR DISPUTE

F. Gingell: My question today is to the Attorney General. Recently the Attorney General has been asked questions pertaining to the AirCare strike. Hopefully today he will assume his responsibilities for this program and answer a couple of questions. Considering that 65,000 vehicles need to be tested before the end of the month, would the minister now indicate what alternatives his government is considering for motorists who will not be able to get their vehicles tested?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's still relatively early in the month. Motorists in the lower mainland still have the opportunity to have their vehicles tested. If the strike continues in the days to come, I will make the appropriate announcement at that time.

F. Gingell: I have calculated the numbers, and it is simply not possible to get all of the vehicles tested, including mine. My insurance expires at the end of this month. I am already having a problem saving enough money for the outrageous premiums I will have to pay.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Mr. Attorney General, you clearly cannot get the number of vehicles through. Just make the calculations. I'm sure that you don't want to make all of us stand in a lineup for two days to try and get through. I wouldn't be able to spend my time here. There has to be a solution. Please come up with one.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: When there's a problem that merits an announcement about a solution, I will make such an announcement.

PREMIER'S ASIAN TRADE TRIP

A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Premier is going on another Asian trade trip. Last year he went on such a trip, and investment in B.C. actually went down. What is the cost of this year's tax-funded getaway, and can we expect the same rate of return on our tax dollars?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The investment in British Columbia went up last year, not down. Because of the turmoil in the Liberal caucus and staff they probably don't have that information, so I'll make sure they get it.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I was asked whether I could use the excuse of the turmoil in the Liberal caucus forever. I would hope not. I would hope they would finally get their act together sometime in the next little while.

In regard to the visit I -- together with over 50 business leaders in British Columbia -- will be making to Japan, China, Hong Kong and Korea, to make a

[ Page 5152 ]

number of significant announcements and to meet the business and government leaders in those various communities, the cost of the travel, accommodation, displays and hospitality for the visits to six specific centres is $200,000.

A. Cowie: In case the Premier hasn't noticed, there's no turmoil over here these days.

Mr. Marc Eliesen of B.C. Hydro is on the Premier's guest list. Who is paying for his trip, and why is he required?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can see that the turmoil has died down a bit in the Liberal caucus since the hon. member from Quilchena withdrew his rezoning bid to break up a single-family neighbourhood. I thought he would have learned the first time he tried that, but he didn't.

The president of B.C. Hydro is going to be in China, where B.C. Hydro, along with Quebec Hydro, is very actively involved in the Three Gorges project and other major hydroelectric projects. I'm proud that Canada is a leader in this area and can help modernize countries like China.

A. Cowie: The Premier is on touchy ground when it comes to subdivision. I notice he did one a few years ago in the same riding.

China has embarked on several electricity megaprojects. Mr. Eliesen is known to be an opponent of megaprojects, especially electrical megaprojects. Can the Premier explain how a sworn opponent of megaprojects will strengthen our role in Chinese power development?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I'm puzzled once again by the inadequate state of the Liberal research staff. Mr. Eliesen was one of the major drivers of the economic success in Manitoba in the mid-1980s around hydroelectric megaprojects.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. Yesterday's government junket to Tofino for propaganda cost taxpayers thousands of dollars for jet airplanes and helicopters. Given the budget crunch facing this province, how can he possibly justify that expense?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member would have said the same thing to the previous Premier, Vander Zalm, when he went on a flight to Kingcome Inlet to promise that he'd start a new day with the aboriginal people. It was a black day instead of a new day.

I can say that it was very important that there be a technical briefing for the members of the media, who, before the announcement, went through all of the Clayoquot Sound and were able to see with their own eyes all of the important complex issues and the landscape around this very beautiful area of British Columbia. I make no apologies for members of the media seeing with their own eyes, in a technical briefing, what the land use decision was about before the decision was announced.

[2:15]

The Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: The comparison between the two trips is an interesting one, and I suppose the results may well be similar.

The Premier talks about courage, but he doesn't have the courage to face the stakeholders in the eye. As a matter of fact, he runs like a rabbit to find a place where he can make an announcement.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows full well that comments of a personal nature are not appropriate in this chamber. I would ask the hon. member....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the Leader of the Third Party to state his question.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly the helicopters were used, I suppose, to find a convenient place in which to make the announcement.

In any event, will the Premier have the courage to invite the stakeholders to future announcements? Will he have the courage, when he's making announcements, to stand up and make them in front of the people who are affected?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The stakeholders are the 3.3 million British Columbians who have a stake in this decision. I think the vast majority of our citizens -- the average British Columbians who want to see balanced decisions where people listen to each other and to the values that each represents, and who want to make compromises -- are going to be satisfied by the difficult decision that this government had the courage to make. The people who take an extreme position of either logging it all or preserving it all are not going to be happy with this decision. They're expressing that unhappiness.

But for the vast majority of British Columbians, hon. Speaker, this was the right, balanced land use decision.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the Premier can tell us how many of those 3.3 million British Columbians were on top of the mountain that he chose to make the announcement on.

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said in answer to the first question, 3.3 million British Columbians were able to participate through the media reports that went with the ability of members of the media to fly over all of Clayoquot Sound; to have the chief forester for the area

[ Page 5153 ]

and all the environmental staff available for questioning by members of the media so that they understood the facts, the trade-offs and the challenge; and then to be able to report to 3.3 million British Columbians from the press conference I held yesterday at the location of that decision in the Tofino, Ucluelet and Port Alberni area.

L. Reid: My question is also to the Premier. It seems to me that most of the media have attended in the Clayoquot Valley. I will ask again the cost of taking those individuals yesterday, because my feeling is that you have not provided the numbers to this House. Let's take translation of service. Whether it was $10,000 or $30,000, what was spent yesterday still translates into hundreds of babies delivered in this province, doctor visits in this province or blood services in this province. Where is your priority, Premier?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Again I want to say on behalf of the government that I make no apologies for members of the media going in and being able to see firsthand the area under decision and to then see the reasons for the very important and balanced decision that was made by this government. I'd like to know the position of the Liberal Party. Do they want the media to be able to see it firsthand? Would they have said: "No, we don't want members of the media to see it firsthand and inform the public of the facts"?

We would also like to know if you agree with the federal Liberal Party, which is saying that they want Big Brother from Ottawa to intervene to preserve all of Clayoquot Sound and put thousands of people out of work. Is that your position?

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND CORE PROCESS

L. Reid: This Premier created CORE with the promise to end the valley-by-valley conflict. Congratulations -- we now have an entire province in conflict over this issue. What reason did the Premier have for short-circuiting his own commission in one of B.C.'s most important land use decisions?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I find it very difficult to tell what the position is of the federal and provincial Liberal Party. As a matter of fact, it's difficult to know the position of the provincial Liberal caucus. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena agrees with the government that it's decision time; on March 25 he said in this Legislature: "But surely the government realizes there's a place for CORE and there's a place for the government to make decisions. At Clayoquot, surely the government realizes they have to make a hard decision...." We do, and we have.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: The Premier's actions have destroyed the public's faith in any kind of process. There's no consultation on the part of this government; there's no understanding of what a process is. Why, again, did you bypass the CORE process?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There have been 12 years of consultation, of consultative committees, of steering committees, of people meeting and not being able to reach a consensus. The time has come to put an end to that indecision and to the instability it has created for that community for far too long. This government had the courage to make the right land use decision.

G. Wilson: I rise to ask leave to table a document of signatures regarding the budget, giving a complete list of those who were in attendance today with respect to auto dealerships.

Leave granted.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I beg the House's indulgence. When I made the introduction of our hon. guests from Malaysia, unfortunately they were in transit. They have now joined us. Would the House please make the hon. minister and the hon. general welcome to this House.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call Bill 3, the Build BC Act.

BUILD BC ACT

(continued)

L. Reid: I rise today on the Build BC Act put forward by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. I have no difficulty speaking against this bill.

This bill does not allow for accountability by this government to British Columbians, and those are the people this government needs to be accountable to. We have not seen any understanding of any kind of process on the part of this government. We have individuals on the government benches who will rise up and say they understand how to consult and how to listen. None of those adjectives apply, because it's simply not happening.

This Build B.C. piece of legislation is a crass revenue-generator, put forward by a crass revenue-generator. This bill looks at increasing taxation and seeing this government as the driver of wealth in this province. That is not a position that the Liberal caucus can support. We're not clear why this agency is being supported, but we can speculate wildly.

If this government is truly interested in any kind of feedback and in listening to people in this province, perhaps they would have looked at a legislative committee, which has some accountability and recourse, where the people believe there is actually something they may have some control over. That is not the case with the Build B.C. committee, which is going to make decisions and remove that process from any accountability. B.C. 21 is another term referred to in this particular legislation. We all know, hon. Speaker, that 21 is a game.

This piece of legislation is a gamble for British Columbians; there is no doubt in my mind. It's very important that we understand the significance of this gamble. We are gambling with the future of this province. Even more disconcerting is that we are gambling with our own money. Taxpayers' dollars are going to be used without any process or accountability. There will be no way for anyone to put these decisions

[ Page 5154 ]

under scrutiny. The Liberal caucus cannot support that position. We truly believe that these kinds of decisions should be reached by ministers who have some accountability. There needs to be some accountability directly to the public. With the number of ministers in this cabinet, the work of this government should be performed by people who are accountable to the public, not by extraneous groups that are created without any process in place.

Yesterday it was suggested that this is somehow going to stimulate jobs and the economy. What about the respective ministries that we currently have in place? Are they stimulating any job creation or economic plan for this province? No, we haven't seen it. But we now see that responsibility, as well, being shifted onto another entity. I believe government representatives have some responsibility. I see this as another opportunity to shirk that responsibility, to somehow distance themselves from any accountability and to suggest that they are reforming government and making some reasonable decisions.

I don't accept that notion, and I don't believe the average British Columbian is going to accept that notion.

If we're talking about job creation, what about the Minister of Labour? Isn't his mandate to create jobs in this province? What about the Minister of Economic Development? Isn't it his job to create jobs in this province? What about the Minister of Transportation? Isn't it his job to build roads and to create jobs in this province? We're having a walk in the park with this government, which suggests that they're not going to be responsible for their own cabinet posts.

They are creating other entities that will allow them to distance themselves from their public -- the people who voted them in -- through a well-funded committee. It is a slush fund, in my view, because they have removed any kind of accountability from the people who will be making those decisions. They've removed scrutiny.

The hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows said yesterday that British Columbians have been waiting 30 years for a particular highway in this province. I might remind the House that 17 years ago this current government was in government and had an opportunity to build that road. So there is responsibility, and it's high time this government discontinued the constant refrain: "Let's blame it on the previous administration." It is no longer acceptable. It wasn't acceptable 15 months ago; it wasn't acceptable on the day they were elected.

Once you seek election in this province and are elected as government, you have some responsibilities. This government has not followed through on any of their responsibilities -- the most important, in my view, that of being facilitators of good decisions. This government chooses to make decisions for people. Frankly, I find that patronizing in the extreme. It allows this government to not listen, and it is not appropriate.

They chose not to make some good decisions 17 years ago, and they still blame the inactivity on the previous administration. It no longer holds any water in debate.

[2:30]

This particular piece of legislation legislates outstanding debt. Not again -- we cannot have people justifying no fiscal policy or bad fiscal policy. That is what this piece of legislation would allow for British Columbians. Again it's nothing to look forward to, and again there is no opportunity to have direct scrutiny of the decisions that will be reached by this particular group.

In fact, we're talking retroactive legislation from what I believe will be seen as a retroactive government. They didn't choose to consult first. They didn't choose to listen to the issues. They chose to react badly after the fact. They are not good decision-makers, and there are opportunities here that have been missed. I believe that this government had a glorious opportunity, and they have daily given it away. They have daily not advocated on behalf of British Columbians.

There are people in this province who choose to be listened to, who will demand to be listened to as they see this government becoming less and less responsive. These are the individuals who campaigned on open government; who said: "We will be there. We will listen. We will understand the issues." There's no consultation. There's no understanding of process. There are people around this province who believe in their heart of hearts that NDP means no due process, and I am finding myself agreeing with them more and more. It cannot continue to go on.

There are individuals in this House, in government today, who are making decisions that no longer apply to the 1990s, and to remove accountability is a decision that should not be taken in the 1990s.

There's no innovation in this. The pat response is: "Let's strike a committee, remove it from ourselves and somehow renege on any kind of responsibility." It's not a position that I could sell to anyone, and I'm amazed that these individuals across the floor believe they're not going to have any difficulty selling this baggage to British Columbians. And at the end of the day that is exactly what it is. It's another opportunity for this government to remove themselves from the issue, to remove themselves from any kind of accountability and to play both sides of the fence.

If it's a good decision, they say: "Yes, we were responsible for that." If it isn't, they say: "My, we had no control over that."

People expect more from their government than the juggling on the fence and the tiptoeing through the park. It is not appropriate that members across this House can somehow believe that they have any understanding of how ideologically bent this particular piece of legislation is. This is not a well put together piece of legislation, in my opinion. Hopefully, this is an opportunity for British Columbians to not be led down the garden path once again by this government. I can say to you today that it warms my heart that British Columbians are standing up and saying: "Enough.

We want accountability from our politicians. We want them to be responsive to where we are today, and to where we wish to be five, ten and 20 years from now."

This is legislation that whitewashes significant issues and somehow tries to legitimize them. It's not going to happen under this piece of legislation. This is a slush fund. It's an opportunity to access dollars without

[ Page 5155 ]

having accountability. That is something members of this government said they would never do. They said that they would be accountable and open and that they would listen.

One hundred million dollars is going to be required to start off, and that is going to be reflected in this year's budget. There has been some comment that this will become a self-sustaining fund. Well, it will be self-sustaining -- by taxpayers. We're looking at the car rental fee and the increase in the gasoline tax to fund this new committee, this new decision-making structure. Taxpayers are already paying to fund the operation of ministers' offices; they've already paid once. They're not going to get improved service delivery through this structure. I frankly do not believe that that will happen.

Again, I think B.C. 21 is a tremendous gamble with taxpayers' dollars by a government that believes that taxpayers have more dollars and suggests that they care about the taxpayer's pocket and that they are somehow looking out for their best interests. If that's the case, it's not reflected in this particular piece of legislation.

There are issues reflected in this legislation in terms of silviculture. There are opportunities to double-tax the taxpayer. I believe that they have been taxed sufficiently and that they are not going to tolerate any further taxation. They are looking for some innovation on the part of the government. They are looking for something more creative than simply moving the dollars to other columns in the ledger. It's not going to work.

This piece of legislation allows for a voted expenditure to be taken out of the vote process, with no recourse or appeal. It's simply: "My, we're in a deficit position again." Rather than improving that outlook, this legislation worsens the outlook for British Columbians. We are not going to be in a better position. Let's take economic development. Does this add anything to the government's economic develop plans? Is this the government's entire economic development plan? I'm saddened to think that that's the case.

The due diligence required in a parliamentary system, which is absolutely essential to the functioning of this enterprise, is removed from the process. When I look at the speakers list, I am sure that there will be some members of government who will rise up today and say: "It's absolutely acceptable to remove scrutiny from the process." It's not acceptable to me.

What is this going to do for our deficit situation? Is it going to improve the management of the deficit, or is it going to open the doors to an increased deficit? We have the deficit being masqueraded as control. There is absolutely no control with this piece of legislation. It allows individuals in this government to go forward carte blanche, without any process in place for taxpayers -- the people who supply this government with money -- to have any recourse.

You are attempting to sell it to British Columbians on the basis that it will somehow improve decision-making. When I look across the floor at the cabinet, I trust that the people currently in place do not need to create a committee. I would assume that someone elected to the government in this province would have enough decision-making ability to make a decision, rather than striking another committee. We need to move beyond that, but we have not. This is not an opportunity to dilute the issues or to bastardize a process. We saw that yesterday with the CORE commission; we saw an opportunity to bypass a process.

It's not appropriate. Frankly, it's beginning to look like a long string of no consultation or discussion. It's not appropriate.

Are we envisioning a slow and steady process of shifting into Crown corporations? Are we just moving away from requiring any members of cabinet in this government? Maybe that's an option we should look at in more detail. The Liberal opposition will never support removing any kind of accountability from ministers of the Crown. If we're going to look at this as a slush fund, are we going to see this as the master BS fund? Are we looking at the big collection of dollars? Are we looking at any kind of reasonable decision-making? I don't think so.

We have a horrific debt of $23 billion in this province. Is this going to allow us to get a handle on that? No. Is this going to fling open the barn door and somehow suggest that we are going to be more responsive? No. We've not seen that from this government; we've not seen them magically become more responsive over the last 18 months. It simply hasn't happened. To allow this piece of legislation to go forward would simply rubber-stamp the lack of consultation, of comment and of listening that this government has subjected British Columbians to over the last number of months.

We look at this piece of legislation as an opportunity for this government to funnel dollars away from any kind of public scrutiny. The money is still going to be spent; the decisions are still going to be made. But they are going to be done behind closed doors by the government that said "open government." This cannot continue. This government cannot stand up again in this House and say "open government" with any kind of clear conscience, because they have not demonstrated that ability. That needs to happen, because as it stands, British Columbians do not believe that this government is responsive to them in any way, shape or form.

We see this as an opportunity to hide a deficit and to move it away from the public. We don't see this as a well-managed tool; we see this as a large committee, again with no accountability. I firmly believe that

[ Page 5156 ]

government should be facilitating good decisions, but the emphasis is on facilitation, not on making decisions for people. This government somehow believes that they make decisions for people. If we accept that notion, we give up the need for independence, for choices and for participating in our democracy. I'm not prepared to do that -- not in this lifetime. There are decisions that must be reached, but they must be reached in some kind of consultative framework. Consultation is not a concept that is particularly well understood.

Are we looking at Bill 3 as another patronage vehicle? Are we looking at just another opportunity to appoint other individuals to these positions? My issue with that is qualification and the need to somehow shift responsibility, rather than to place it on the shoulders of the people it should rest on -- members of this cabinet and the Premier of British Columbia. He has responsibility; the people he appointed to those positions are responsible to the electorate of the province. It's not appropriate to shift it and somehow remove yourself from the process.

We're not pleased with the direction of this legislation, and we truly believe that this government will somehow see it as an opportunity to legitimize tolls and increased taxation. It can't happen, and I think British Columbians have spoken very strongly on this issue. Where else would you see the construction component taken away from the Ministry of Highways? That is the mandate of the Minister of Highways; it is his job -- or her job, as the case may be -- to actually build something under that ministry.

If indeed we're removing that component, as we are suggesting in this piece of documentation, what is the role for the Ministry of Transportation to play? Why are we paying twice for a service?

British Columbians no longer wish to participate in government that tries to lead them down the path of smoke and mirrors. I firmly believe they are prepared to pay for quality service, but they must receive good value, and they must pay only once for a service. This opportunity to move the dollars in the columns in the ledger and remove intense scrutiny is not a direction I believe British Columbians will find satisfactory. They will be very disappointed, because this is one more example of this government's members of cabinet standing back from their responsibilities.

They have responsibilities under their ministries that they are not acting on, and in debate later on this afternoon they are going to try to justify not taking the responsibility that is truly theirs. British Columbians cannot allow that to happen. British Columbians must say: "You are the Minister of Transportation. You have a role to play which is well defined." To mix it all together and suggest there's going to be a finer product when it turns out down the assembly line of the committee structure is ludicrous at best. It's not going to be a finer product; it's going to be a more expensive product.

We're going to be taxed more heavily for it, but it's not good decision-making.

[2:45]

British Columbians put their faith in this government because they believed the government would return good decisions and would consult. It hasn't happened. The frustration level in this province is very high. I think this particular piece of legislation is going to be seen as just one more attempt to browbeat the taxpayer and suck a few more dollars out of the system. It's not reform of government or the high road approach to government. It's not even effective use of the taxpayers' dollars, which is the interest that the Liberal opposition holds most dear.

There are questions of accountability that we, as parliamentarians, must all address. This particular piece of legislation does not consider the role of individual British Columbians. It does not consider how accountable elected members must be to the public. Again, it allows them to stand well back from the process and justify not being responsible. I can't justify that, and I await the comments from the government side of the House, because I believe they will truly attempt to justify where they're headed with this.

I believe the best test of this particular piece of legislation will be the next election, because British Columbians are not buying. They don't wish to see another committee remove accountability from the process. They don't wish to be disenfranchised from another decision in this province. They wish the people they elect to stand up, face them head on and tackle the issues. It didn't happen yesterday in Clayoquot Sound, it's not going to happen today in this chamber, and I'm not convinced it's going to happen again during this particular mandate.

I await the comments of the hon. members across the floor, because I believe they must be held accountable to all British Columbians.

F. Garden: I take great pleasure in rising to support this bill. I've been listening to the previous speaker, and I have never heard a more negative discourse in my life about a plan that's going to kick-start the economy of British Columbia. I would suggest to the opposition that they get on this bandwagon quickly, because when they see the success of it, they'll be wishing they had supported it at the time.

I heard the previous speaker saying that this won't be scrutinized, because it was another method of putting major decisions into committee form. I would suggest that if I were a member of the opposition, that would be an admission that I wasn't performing my duty to seek out and criticize everything the government does. It's their job to scrutinize every piece of legislation that comes before this House and to make recommendations to the government. Instead of that, they stand up there and naysay. They keep saying it's poor legislation.

Let me tell you about this particular legislation. It's a good piece of legislation for the regional districts in British Columbia. For far too many years the needs and wants of the regions of this province have been ignored. This proposal will bring forward much-needed infrastructure, highways and bridge-building. It will be done now. It will bring prosperity to the economies that have been caught in the recession and the slump in the resource industries. It will put people to work. Small

[ Page 5157 ]

businesses will be able to supply goods to the different districts for this much-needed building program.

I hear it being criticized by some members of the opposition. I would be pleased to go to places like Fort Nelson and tell them that this is something this government is going to do for their region. If they don't want to do it, I'd be pleased to go up to Fort St. John, where there are five bridges to nowhere that have been sitting there for 15 years and waiting on the gerrymandering of the opposition when they were in government. Nothing was done. Each year before an election another bridge was built with nothing in between.

There are five beautiful bridges to bypass a dangerous road, and whether they would be completed or not depended on every budget. They would look at the budget and say: "We don't have enough money for highways, so we'll let it sit."

This is a plan to prioritize projects like that and to complete them. In 1989 the former Premier of this province, when she was Minister of Transportation and Highways, came up to Quesnel and talked about a bypass of that city. She said that the bypass should be started then. It's still not started. The reason it is not started is that every time budget time came along, they said there was not enough money to complete that project, notwithstanding that all the dangerous goods in the province go by within 50 feet from a hospital, three seniors homes and every doctors clinic in the city.

We have made plans for getting all these projects in the regions on a systematic basis and accelerating the completion of them in a planned, economical way. I'm pleased to go back to the people in my constituency and say that there's now a possibility for some real planning to get that bypass built. I'd be pleased to go up to Fort St. John and say: "There's every chance that you'll get these bridges connected." They have been sitting there for years and going nowhere.

I want to read you a quote from Hansard:

"We cannot hope to realize greater wealth and a sustainable economy unless we are prepared to invest in the infrastructure that such an economy will be dependent upon. Of course, I refer to the...maintenance and construction of our highways and our highways services, which are the arteries through which the economic blood of the communities flows. ...the economic well-being of Island communities is dependent upon a greater investment in capital infrastructure.

"That is why the provision of new, cost-shared capital infrastructure is so critically important at this time...."

Guess who said that -- the former visionary leader of the Liberal opposition. And we believed him. That was a good speech; we listened to that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order, please. I hate to interrupt the member who has the floor, but at this time the Chair hears at least three or four debates going on in the House. I would ask the hon. members to wait their turn and recognize that the member for Cariboo North is in debate at this time. Please continue, hon. member.

F. Garden: That's when they had a leader with vision: a leader that wouldn't be bought off by the establishment interests from eastern Canada and wouldn't kowtow to the federal Liberal Party or the right-wing establishment in Vancouver. But they kicked him aside.

But I'll go on further. Listen to this: "I would urge the government...."

Interjection.

F. Garden: That's enough for now. Pardon me, hon. Speaker. Through the Chair, that's enough for now.

Another quote:

"I would urge the government to consider expenditures on roads and alternative forms of transportation as essential rather than discretionary.

"If this investment is done in a timely way, it will not only deliver the benefits of good roads but bring enormous savings in the long run.

"The benefits of a good road system are enormous, in both economic and social terms, to business, industry, government and individuals."

That was from Hansard, April 23, 1992. Guess who said that -- the Liberal Transportation and Highways critic. He's sitting here today. That was good advice, excellent advice. We are taking that advice; this government is moving on statements like that. For them to now sit in opposition and criticize what we're trying to do, in the light of what they said, is hypocritical. They should be ashamed of themselves.

If they want to vote against expanding community colleges, replacing portable classrooms with permanent facilities, building new community health centres, improving and building new courthouses, and renewing the infrastructure in this province and in small communities, then let them be my guest, because the people of this province told us quite bluntly to get on with the job.

I was a member of a committee appointed by the previous government in their wisdom. The purpose of that committee was to set up committees in every region of the province to go over the priorities for road construction, including the bridges at Fort St. John. We sat down on a non-partisan basis -- although when they found out I was of the present political stripe, I was off the committee pretty quickly. But while I was on the committee, we prioritized just about every highway and bridge construction need in the province. It was a tremendous program called, as I recall, Freedom to Move. It was a great program.

The only thing wrong with it was that there was no money because every time it came to the budget, they said: "Look, we can't give any more money to Transportation and Highways. We have to cut spending." That's fair enough from budget to budget. But if you're going to invest in the infrastructure of this province, you've got to capitalize these programs over a number of years.

There are very few people in this province these days who could go out and buy a house for cash. What they do is make a plan. They say: "I'm going to plan this. I'm going to buy a nice house, I'm going to build it the way I want and I'm going to mortgage it." Governments do exactly the same thing. We've got

[ Page 5158 ]

capital projects that have to be done over a ten-year period. We know they're going to get done. This government is saying: "We'll accelerate that. We'll do more in the next three years, and then the mortgage will be on the assets that we build." Municipal governments do that, and school boards do that. The strangest thing I discovered is that major successful corporations do exactly the same thing; they capitalize long-term spending and take a mortgage out on the asset. That's what we're doing. If you want to vote against that type of thinking, be my guest.

This program will spend $100 million next year, which will be supervised by a committee. If the opposition wants to question that committee, I'm sure they'll get the opportunity -- if they don't shirk their responsibilities. But now that they don't have that former leader of vision, they may have difficulty getting their act together. This $100 million account will be directed to community-level capital projects, employment and job training initiatives, resource enhancement, and infrastructure projects. We're going to spend $100 million next year. You know who that's good news for?

That's good news for the people in the regional committees who want to work but who, because nothing was getting done over the last 12 years, have become unemployed or dependent on social welfare. Those people will receive training. There will be initiatives out there for them to go and get jobs. Small companies will be able to supply, and car manufacturers might even have to get some trucks and some earth-moving equipment. They might be able to sell some of this stuff under this new initiative.

[3:00]

This is the best news that's been brought into this Legislature, apart from Bill 84, for 20 years. My only hope in the whole scheme of things -- and I hope the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the Minister of Finance are listening to me -- is that they'll take a good look at it and make sure that the fair wage policy is included in the work that gets done, so that the people doing this work can look forward to a fair wage, a good wage, that they can spend in their communities.

I'd have no hesitation in going to Quesnel, or Likely, or Strathnaver, or Williams Lake, or Vanderhoof, or Fort Nelson, and saying: "This is what your government is going to do to provide employment and infrastructure in this province." I'm proud of this bill. I suggest to everybody -- and I want to say it again, because you're going to eventually want to say it to the opposition: get on board, children, because this is going to be a success, and you're going to be wishing you had voted for it instead of against it.

J. MacPhail: I am delighted to be able to follow my colleague from the Cariboo and give the perspective on how we in the city feel about this wonderful initiative that our government is taking.

But I must say that I am disappointed in the opposition's failure to understand what this is all about. I thought that the opposition did understand that the future of our kids is actually at stake in this province. They show a decided lack of concern about what our kids are going to be able to do.

I was just outside talking to a group of grade 11 students, and I explained to them what the B.C. 21 project was all about and what it meant to them as people who are going to graduate next year and who are going to be looking for jobs. They were excited. There's no other way of describing it. It gives our children hope that they are going to have legitimate, decent, skilled jobs, and that at the same time they will be able to contribute to British Columbia. I'll tell you, that excited those grade 11 students.

Because they can't really understand what is behind this initiative, the opposition focuses on money. That's all they can see. I guess that's because it's the easiest thing.... They don't have to do any research if they focus just on money. But this project focuses on people. It has a huge emphasis on investment, not just in infrastructure and institutions but in people as well, because our New Democrat government realizes that our greatest investment is our people. This initiative lives up to that.

In B.C., as in Canada, we are in serious trouble in the provision of a skilled workforce. Fewer people are entering the labour force in the 1990s. At the same time, large percentages of older skilled workers will be retiring. So it's about time that this training initiative came about. It will be good news for B.C.'s economy. Jobs will be generated across the province, which will benefit our regions; but it will be an excellent benefit for those of us who live in the lower mainland to know that our region will also be stimulated.

B.C. 21 is an example of how this government is trying to meet the needs of all workers in the province in a positive, productive and respectful way, not in the way that the previous government tried in the early eighties. When there was a little bit of economic pressure on them, what did they do? They laid off tens of thousands of workers, destroyed industries and basically wiped out our journeyperson trade system. We now have to start from scratch to build up a skilled workforce.

Let me give you some examples of the tough shape this province is in in terms of a skilled and equitable workforce. The previous government not only destroyed the apprenticeship system, it did nothing to make it equitable. They kept it basically among men in the lower mainland. In 1984 there were 1,262 male carpenters in this province and only 16 women. Had it improved by 1991 under the previous regime? It certainly had for men. There were 1,912 male carpenters and 22 women. In 1984 there were 331 male sheet-metal workers and three women. By 1991, how many women were there? Two.

At the same time, there were 432 males. Heavy equipment mechanics: in 1984, 579 were men and two were women; by 1991 there were 512 men and zero women. Is this good news for B.C. when we have an expanding workforce that's going to come from women? No, it's not good news at all. But this B.C. 21 initiative has an employment equity program built into it, and that's good news for our kids -- for all of our children.

I don't know how to say this in a kind way. This is not a partisan issue, and it's not something that the opposition should be taking in a partisan way. We need

[ Page 5159 ]

a skilled workforce. That's not a New Democrat issue; that's not a Liberal issue; that's an issue for British Columbia. At the end of this century, B.C. 21 will have a skilled workforce in place, and we're going to do it in a fair way.

We're not going to pick out a certain sector of our population and say: "Okay, you get all the jobs." We're going to say: "Those of you who have been at a disadvantage, those of you who perhaps have not had the training so far, those of you who have not been able to complete your education, we're going to give you the opportunity for real training." We're going to do it in a way that doesn't mean the person has to come up with all of the bucks. We're going to do it in a fair way, with bridging programs, where first we give people the basic skills and then we put them into apprentice programs. That's good news.

The bridging programs will assist people -- often women -- who are entering and reentering the labour force to develop life skills, career planning skills and job search skills. All of that will be good news.

The greatest single block, for those who are not ordinary men, to getting into apprenticeship and trades programs is getting their first job. That's the biggest block they face. After that, workforce attitudes change; on-the-job attitudes change; co-workers become much more cooperative. But it's that initial step of giving them their first job. B.C. 21 is going to be a program that gives all British Columbians the opportunity to get that first job, regardless of your race, your sex, or where you live.

There have already been many success stories from our government in terms of investing in British Columbia and of job creation. The opposition has probably forgotten about some of them, but my students from the Van Tech grade 11 class haven't. The Working Opportunity Fund is British Columbia money being invested in British Columbia to create British Columbia jobs. The B.C. Endowment Fund is B.C. money being invested in British Columbia for British Columbia.

In our business investment office, we're not doling out money to business and saying, "Do with it what you will"; we're telling business to work with us: "Tell us how to bring investment about, and then work with us after that investment has come about."

Our Minister of Social Services has numerous employment programs that will be of benefit to British Columbia and that will work well with B.C. 21. The RISE program, the YES program for youth employment and the Employment Plus program create real jobs for British Columbia. They're not fake; they're not jobs without any money attached to them for training. They're real jobs.

I must say that it's about time British Columbians set aside their petty differences and got on board for a real, well-funded and strong initiative that will take all of the benefits of British Columbia and put them to work for all of British Columbia.

J. Tyabji: In rising to speak to Bill 3 in second reading, I find myself a little surprised at the programs that were listed by the previous speaker, because this is the first that I've heard of any of the details.

J. MacPhail: That's your problem.

J. Tyabji: She's saying that's my problem. I think it's the problem of the public, because right now we're grappling with the details of the legislation.

J. MacPhail: The public knows.

J. Tyabji: She says the public knows. Last night I was at a rally in Kelowna and 700 members of the public were there. I can tell you they didn't even know about the legislation, much less about the specific programs and the expensive glossy brochures that she's got on her desk.

When I talked to them a little about what B.C. 21 means in terms of the debt and the amortization of capital projects and expenditures, they were horrified -- not surprised, but horrified -- because they were there to protest the fact that we have three things in this budget that we've seen in previous provincial and federal budgets and that they don't want any more: an increase in taxation, an increase in the size of government and an increase in government spending -- again. They told this government, when it was in opposition, to control government spending. They want a decrease in government spending.

They're prepared to take some short-term pain to stop the downward spiral that we've had -- not just in terms of the debt or of the upward spiral of taxation, but also because our economy is starting to grind to a halt.

In my response to the Speech from the Throne and to the budget speech, I outlined my extreme concern that this government doesn't realize that although they may have good intentions -- we would all like new schools, we would all like new highways; I'd like roads all over the place, and bridges and really nice schools that look like shopping malls, and new courthouses, and all these kinds of things -- we just don't have the money for the kind of extravagance they're going to finance through this legislation.

The scary

part is that this is going to be a way of funnelling off the deficit. We had a deficit tabled at $1.5 billion. Ah, the Finance minister raises his eyebrows. Let me explain to the Finance minister a few accounting principles that may have escaped his attention.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: Yes, yes. Once they settle down a bit, I'll enlighten them. It's not magic money that we're dealing with here, that suddenly appears if we put it into a bill instead of into the budget. The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, which is a new Crown corporation.... The last thing we need in this province is another branch of government. Now we have a new Crown corporation to pay for roads and bridges and the expansion of our transportation infrastructure. Where is the money going to come from? Of course, it's going to come through the Crown corporation.

When we look at this bill, what does it tell us? The bill tells us that this brand new B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, which has a corporate seal, is going to have all kinds of employees and is going to be very expensive. It's going to require an office and office infrastructure. But the

[ Page 5160 ]

money for this is going to come through the Crown corporation itself. In effect, it will be self-financing.

I don't believe that this government prints money. And if it did, we'd have a real problem with inflation. Seeing that they don't print money and they don't have their own way of generating wealth, the money is obviously going to come through taxation. If it's not accounted for in this budget -- and it's not -- then it will have to be accounted for by new avenues of taxation. We know that, because the bill says very specifically that it authorizes the new Crown corporation to impose tolls and gasoline taxes.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I'll get to the borrowing a little later.

That means that these new capital expenditures for our transportation infrastructure are going to be paid for by taxes that aren't even on the books yet. That's going to be real news to the people. The previous speaker tried to say that the public is excited, because all of a sudden all these wonderful employment equity programs are coming, through the regulations attached to this bill. I haven't seen any excitement on the part of the public, except if you call the severe level of anxiety that I've seen a form of excitement, in some warped and twisted way. I suppose it could be seen that way.

What I've seen is real anxiety that the socioeconomic collapse I referred to is imminent. We see it all over the place. We see grass-roots organizations forming, whether they are fishermen's alliances, car dealers, consumer advocacy groups, citizens for tax reform, or new parties such as the Reform Party or the National Party. All over, the population is starting to mobilize. There's a feeling out there that they just can't do this anymore. We cannot allow government to continue to increase. We can't allow the increase in the cost of government that we get again and again.

In a publication that all the MLAs get called The Taxpayer, they refer to the fact that in the last 11 budgets in B.C., we've had the largest increase in our deficit and our per capita debt of any province in the country. That's not a record to be proud of. In the last two budgets it has been an absolute runaway.

One of the Cariboo MLAs talked about how we, as the Liberal opposition, should be happy that the highways and the job creation through capital investment that we've been calling for will be coming forward. Yes, we did say that we need essential transportation infrastructure. But that's one of the duties of government. Governments prior to this one managed to pay for that through something called a budget. They tabled a budget, and in some instances -- although it's getting a little hard to remember that far back -- the budget was actually balanced.

This government made a commitment to the taxpayers that they would balance the budget. Instead, we have a very cynical attempt to pretend that they brought the deficit under control, when in fact a lot of it has been funnelled through Bill 3 into a new Crown corporation and what they're calling a special account. It's not acceptable.

The public knows that if the level of services and their taxes are going up, government spending goes up, when they are expecting there to be some sacrifices. The public is expecting two things: a cut in government waste.... We have so much excess. We have travelling road shows and expensive talk shows. We have duplication within ministries and a bureaucracy that's growing like an octopus and strangling the taxpayers. The other thing they are expecting to get is value for their dollar. If they see an end to government waste and some value for their dollar, they might have some more confidence when the government starts to talk about reining in their spending.

[3:15]

At this time we should be focusing more on the sacrifices we have to make as a society and as a community. Not one person in this province thinks that we can possibly have the quality of life that we have today without considerable sacrifice. I'd say that they are quite prepared to make those sacrifices. They're quite prepared, for example, to live at a slightly lower standard of living and pay a little bit more in medical premiums if they feel they're getting some value for their dollar. Clearly they're not, because we've got....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I hear a question about food banks. I think it's extremely alarming that at the same time as we have increases in the settlements for the BCGEU and every other government union in the province, we continue to see lineups at the food banks. Those who are most in need of some help are lower on the priority list than the special interest groups that helped get this government elected. We know what this government's priorities are. We spent $3 million in the fall session just to pass a labour bill because the unions that got them elected forced them to.

I hardly think the government should be heckling about the food banks. My comment to them would be: get your priorities straight. Rein in government spending, stop the patronage treadmill by cutting back on some of the $100,000-a-year or $120,000-a-year patronage appointments, and feed the people.

We have an increase in Medical Services premiums for those who have the lowest incomes. They have avenues to appeal if their income is less than $9,000 a year. They can appeal up to 95 percent, which must be a horrendous cost to the taxpayer in terms of the accountants who have to figure out who qualifies, who doesn't, who has made an application and how it is determined. The government has increased Medical Services premiums in a graduated way for those who are making less than $17,000 a year.

If people do not apply for income assistance and are making, for example, $8,500 a year, they would be paying $8,300 a year in Medical Services premiums. That doesn't make any sense. Yet if they appeal through the avenue that the government set out for their up-to-95-percent claim, it's got to cost more to hire the accountant to administer the appeal than it would to simply say: "You make less than $9,000 a year. Here's the Medical Services Plan."

I don't understand where this government is coming from, except that I think they've inherited a machine that isn't working. It wasn't working when they got it, and rather than start from scratch and deal with the

[ Page 5161 ]

problem head on, they've decided to continue to add a little bit and add a little bit. We end up with an extremely unwieldy and ineffective mechanism for government.

D. Lovick: Are you still on Bill 3?

J. Tyabji: Yes, I am. Bill 3 actually goes very much to the heart of the accretions of government. When you talk about the expensive, unnecessary barnacles, if you will, that government puts on itself to give quick fixes to things, Bill 3 is an excellent example. It's an extra wing of bureaucracy. It's going to result in a lot more people being hired, a lot more debt. I guess the most insidious part of Bill 3 -- and this gets back to an earlier comment -- is that it's going to be amortized so that our children and our children's children are going to be saddled with this government's debt.

D. Lovick: That's not what "amortized" means.

J. Tyabji: Feel free to take the floor afterwards and speak to this yourself. I believe that's exactly the word; I'll have to look it up.

The way I read this bill, rather than being put into a deficit so that it goes onto the debt, which is bad enough, the debt incurred in terms of capital projects is going to be put over several years, so that it shows up in successive years. In effect, we could be paying off highways through tolls and general revenue and the special account and new Crown corporation for the next 20 years. That's frightening. The analogy I use is that it's as if the taxpayers own a house and they sign a lease with this government. The lease is going to run out in a couple of years, and the government knows it.

The government knows that the clock is ticking on the lease that the taxpayers gave on the house. What I say to people who are extremely upset about their taxes is: let's minimize the damage that the house-wrecking crew is trying to do before their lease runs out. When the lease is up, we have to take the house back and repair it, and we'll have to make sure that it is able to continue housing the government.

It's like a free-for-all, as if they don't understand that the most critical message is that we not only cannot afford the deficit, we not only cannot afford the debt -- even if we paid a billion dollars a year, we'd be paying it off for the next 20 years -- we especially cannot afford to start financing our schools, our hospitals, our courthouses, and our highways and bridges on a basis that's going to put it off for another five, ten, 20 years.

Certainly I don't think the people out there, who are angry at this government already just for the budget they tabled, are going to be particularly happy to know of this government's decision in this session that very necessary services -- services that used to be provided for through the budget and will now be provided for by the special account -- are going to be paid off over the next 20 years, no matter who is in power.

We end up in a situation where the crisis that this government inherited from the previous administration has been increased in the last two years, so that we have a spiralling debt, a spiralling deficit and now a very frightening proposal whereby the concrete, tangible services of government, the things that we expect from government, are going to be paid for in a different way. We will now have more revenue forcibly generated through these other accounts.

The people who right now are protesting the extra taxes don't realize that the very things they are expecting through the budget are not being provided for by the budget. This budget, with its $1.5 billion deficit, isn't providing for those things. If they are looking at portables, the next time they want a school, it's going to come through this new initiative, which means that any debt incurred is going to be in addition to the deficit, in addition to the debt, in addition to whatever overruns the government has.

I understand the frustration of the public, and I think it's unfortunate that the government really isn't willing to listen. I'm not talking about giving them an audience and allowing them to come and sit in their office, but about actually sitting down and working through some of the difficult problems we all face. I find that the government will not listen to the opposition when we try to be constructive and tell them how short a road it is if they continue their free-for-all, bottomless-pit spending, and their lack of respect for the needs of the taxpayer and of low-income people.

There are some initiatives in the budget that are commendable. I refer particularly to those in the Ministry of Social Services, where we finally see some recognition that people need a hand up and not a handout, which the leader of the Liberal Party has been saying for five years. In terms of silviculture programs and retraining programs, we do see some recognition that the money put into direct payments in the past without any hope of retraining should be funnelled into retraining. So we have some small bits of hope in the budget. We do have some positives in regional health care. If, in fact, the government follows through on those initiatives, those are positives.

But when we are on the verge of a socioeconomic collapse.... We are not only at the limits of our taxation ability but the economy is going to freeze completely, our property values are going to plummet and people will cease to be able to function in this province in the way they've done before. When we have a government that is arrogant and laughing and dismissing the grass-roots uprising, the popular movement that's taking place across the province, there really becomes very little need for this House.

The practice of passing legislation through cabinet, which we get eight months out of the year, might as well continue year-round if this is the level of response that we get from the government.

I'd like to conclude my comments by saying that if this government does allow Bill 3 to go through, we're going to have a radical change in the way in which government has delivered necessary services to the people. The capital costs that in the past were provided for by the budget are now going to be deferred to this special account and this Crown corporation, and the mounting debt will be almost insurmountable.

A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, may I have permission to make an introduction?

[ Page 5162 ]

Leave granted.

A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, visiting us today in the halls and sitting above us -- in fact, above the Speaker -- are 130 students and teachers from Point Grey high school in my riding. I hope everyone will help me make them welcome.

Deputy Speaker: On Bill 3.

Hon. A. Petter: It's a tremendous privilege for me to take

part in second reading debate on the Build BC Act, particularly because I was unfortunately not able to take

part in the budget debate. It seems to me that one has to look at the overall themes of the budget in order to understand the significance of this forward-thinking initiative. I am particularly pleased to follow the last speaker, the member for Okanagan East, because although she tried to point to some of those themes, she invariably got them wrong.

I think it's useful to review what those themes are and to see where the Build BC Act fits within this government's economic plan. The first theme of the budget is deficit reduction. Contrary to what the former speaker suggested, this government has made a significant commitment to deficit reduction. We have a projected deficit of $1.5 billion -- $2 billion less than what would have occurred had cuts not been made; half the amount of the deficit predicted by the Leader of the Third Party; and down almost $0.5 billion from last year and almost $1 billion from two years ago. That's major progress in deficit reduction.

Secondly, fiscal responsibility. The growth of spending under the former discredited government was at a rate of about 12 percent. Last year this government cut that rate of growth to 7 percent, and this year to less than 6 percent. So the rate of growth in government spending is now less than the rate of growth in the economy, once you include inflation. In other words, we are cutting back in real terms in government expenditures, relative to the rate of growth. That is major progress over two years, relative to the record we inherited from that previous discredited administration.

Furthermore, we're leading by example by freezing the wages of senior Crown corporation heads and deputy ministers, by freezing MLAs' pay for the past two years and by cutting cabinet ministers' pay by 5 percent. So the second theme is fiscal responsibility.

[3:30]

The third theme of the budget is maintaining vital services. Health and Education grants were increased this year by 3 percent. It's a modest amount -- less than the overall rate of growth in the economy -- but sufficient to ensure that basic, vital services are maintained. It won't be easy. I've met with my school board, as I'm sure other members have met with theirs, and I know it's going to be tough. There are tough choices to be made. Nevertheless, I think that this government has steered the right course in saying: "Yes, we must provide for the future of our children and we must provide health care, and we're doing it in a fiscally responsible way."

The fourth theme is tax fairness. We have the second-lowest tax rate in Canada. The increases are placed upon those who can best afford them. I know that many of the members opposite who fall into that category don't like that concept. But the reality is that the poorest 28 percent of British Columbians get a tax cut, the middle class is protected and there's tax relief to small business in this budget, and that is welcome news for British Columbians.

This is the same path that we see Bill Clinton taking in the United States, saying that if there is going to be a serious economic initiative on the part of government, it must be one that's seen to be fair in terms of taxes, so those who can best afford to pay do pay their fair share. That is the fourth theme of this budget.

That alone is not enough. It's a lot more than we have gotten out of any previous government in this province and a lot more than we've heard from the opposition. But it is not enough. If government is to be responsible, it must show economic leadership in the form of economic renewal and job creation. The members opposite don't seem to think this is very important, but I want to caution them: they should read the polls. A recent poll done by Gallup suggests that unemployment is by far the number one issue in Canada.

An Hon. Member: What was the date?

Hon. A. Petter: In yesterday's Vancouver Sun.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't normally quote the Vancouver Sun. But they're quoting Gallup, so it has to be right.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. minister....

Hon. A. Petter: Surveys by Gallup and other pollsters suggest that governments are marching to a different drummer than voters.

Deputy Speaker: Order! Hon. minister, the Speaker is asking that the House please come to order.

Regrettably, I must comment on the Chair's difficulty in getting attention. When order is called for, all members should come to attention and try to recognize the importance of decorum. I would ask those members who have been interjecting to refrain from doing so, because it's very difficult for the Chair to hear what is taking place.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate your comments, although I urge you to be gentle with the members opposite. They find this painful. The facts are painful. What is particularly painful is the comment I was just about to read from this

article which suggests that those politicians who don't attend to unemployment and the need for government to show economic leadership with respect to jobs and economic stimulus are on a death march for politicians. The members opposite may be on that march, but let me assure you that this government

[ Page 5163 ]

is not. This government is on a march to renew the economy of B.C. and ensure that job stimulus is part of this budget. That's why the fifth major theme of the budget is economic renewal and job creation. The centrepiece of that component of the budget is represented by the Build BC Act,

an act that speaks to the need to redress regional inequalities and to provide social infrastructure, transportation and incentives for jobs and retraining throughout the province. It's a forward-thinking initiative that will serve us well in the years ahead.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the components of B.C. 21, the initiative that the Build BC Act relates to. The first is the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, whose purpose is to facilitate and fast-track the construction of essential transportation projects needed for the long-term development of the province's regional economies. All construction projects will be self-financing and capitalized over the useful life of the assets. That's the way it's done in the private sector. For members opposite who constantly preach private sector approaches, this should be a welcome initiative.

During the last budget debate, I recall members of the opposition routinely calling for an increased commitment to the development of infrastructure and transportation and decrying job loss as a result of not spending enough money. But what do they do now? They bark and carp and criticize and have nothing constructive to offer in response to the government's commitment to proceed forthwith with transportation infrastructure in this very responsible and forward-thinking way.

The second component is accelerated social capital. B.C. 21 speaks to the need to increase our social infrastructure, particularly at a time of high population growth -- community colleges and schools, health centres, courthouses, child care spaces. Most projects will be completed over a three-year period, with the costs amortized over the useful life of the assets. The opposition should welcome this initiative. I recall that last year the opposition's Attorney General critic, the member for Richmond-Steveston, called for the expansion of campus facilities in Malaspina College. He should welcome it.

One would expect the opposition's Education critic from West Vancouver-Capilano, who repeatedly called for increased funding for capital projects in education, to praise this initiative. What about the opposition's Women's Equality critic, the member for Richmond East, who is surely concerned about the need for more child care? One would expect her to praise this initiative. But what does the opposition do? Do they have anything positive to offer or to say? No. They bark, they carp, they criticize. They have no vision to offer, only division.

The third component focuses on Crown corporation investment. It is a reality that Crown corporations are an important component of the British Columbia economy. It is therefore very important that we as a government ensure that this investment take place in a way that will promote regional economies, speak to the need for employment in certain sectors of the province, ensure that the initiatives are in accordance with the long-term goals of British Columbians, and encourage the use of goods and services supplied by B.C.-based businesses. That is an initiative which surely should be welcomed by the opposition.

But the opposition seems to offer criticism only when constructive proposals are put forward.

Finally, the Build B.C. special account -- the fourth component of this forward-thinking initiative -- will enable new money to be directed for innovative approaches to investment and the creation of job opportunities.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: I invite the member for Okanagan East -- who is protesting about this -- to stand up and say she doesn't think there is a need for job opportunities in her constituency. If that's the case, I am sure the government will listen to her submissions. But let me tell you, in other communities people say: "Yes, government must play a leadership role. We do have a need for government to show a leadership role with respect to employment creation." And that's what this component of the initiative does.

I would have thought members of the opposition -- who were so eloquent last year in calling for additional stimulus of the economy -- would now praise these initiatives, such as the opposition Economic Development and Small Trade critic, the member for Langley. I would have thought that she, in particular, would praise this initiative. But the members of the opposition stand up and bark and carp and criticize. They remind me of Prof. Quincy Wagstaff, in the movie Horse Feathers, played by Groucho Marx. Groucho got up as Quincy and sang: "Whatever it is, I'm against it.

It really doesn't matter who defends it, I'm against it." And that is the attitude of the members opposite. They are Groucho Marxists, who are against everything and for nothing. And I apologize for my singing voice.

What alternative do the members opposite offer? Last year I spoke about the lack of alternative. They've had a year to practise. I thought they would come in with something positive, but while the government holds out a vision of the future, what do we hear from the members opposite? They invoke a nightmare from the past. They harken back to the good old days of the Bill Bennett restraint program; that's their vision. They cling to the nightmare of the past. They want a repeat of the radical restraint program of the past -- the old approach of divide and decimate.

If they were going to look to the past, they would be better to go one generation back -- not to Bill Bennett but to W.A.C. Bennett, because whatever one thinks about W.A.C. Bennett, he was a builder and a visionary. He understood what the members opposite don't understand, and that is that government has an important role to play in leading, and building economic renewal and job creation. Unfortunately, the members opposite don't understand that. They have chosen Bill Bennett over W.A.C. Bennett, and that's unfortunate.

This bill, and indeed this overall budget, does represent a progressive vision of the future. It does say to people that government can act in a fiscally responsible way but at the same time provide economic

[ Page 5164 ]

leadership. I know the members opposite don't believe that; I know they prefer to bark and carp and criticize. But the fact is, we have here a budget that promotes deficit reduction, fiscal responsibility, maintenance of vital services, tax fairness, and also shows economic leadership regarding economic renewal and job creation. They can't stand it that this budget and this initiative have accomplished all of that.

What should we say in response to these unfortunate prophets of doom? In fact, they should be called losses of doom, because they don't seem to even believe in profit. They are losses of doom. They don't see any future profit from government taking a leadership role. Well, do you know what I would like to say to them? I would like to say what W.A.C. Bennett would have said to them. W.A.C. Bennett had a personal motto that I think is apropos, and I think the opposition could take note of it. It was from a gentleman by the name of Edgar Guest.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: I would suggest the members of the opposition listen up, because they're always saying: "This can't be done, and that can't be done; it won't work; we're against it, and we're not for it."

Here's what Edgar Guest said, courtesy of W.A.C. Bennett: "Somebody said that it couldn't be done, but he with a chuckle replied that maybe it can't, but he'd be the one who wouldn't say no till he tried. So he buckled right in with a trace of a grin on his face; if he worried, he hid it. He started to sing as he tackled the thing that couldn't be done, and he did it."

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, the members of the opposition don't like to hear about the history of this province; they would rather wallow in their negativity. The Build BC Act is evidence that it can be done, and this government is doing it.

[3:45]

E. Conroy: Hon. Speaker, I noted with interest that the member for Okanagan East admitted that she knew nothing whatsoever about the bill, nor did the people of the province. Then she proceeded to speak on the bill for about 20 minutes. Well, we on this side of the House are quite used to that, because a number of members opposite know absolutely nothing about what's going on in this House. Then they get up and try to wax eloquent on what exactly is going on.

I would like to put a bit of a human face on this whole thing. I represent an area that is strong in a number of segments of the British Columbia economy: sawmilling, mining and smelting, pulp and paper, hydroelectric development, high technology, transportation infrastructure and higher education. This sounds wonderful, but I also represent an area that has traditionally had the highest unemployment rate not only in B.C., but in the entire country. So it shows that we can have a lot of these things in our constituencies, but until the proper catalyst stimulates what we have in our constituencies, nothing happens.

I'd like to tell you a few things that I see happening as a result of the Build B.C. program. In the mining and smelting industry, all of a sudden various ministries are beginning to work together. That's something we've never seen before. We see the Ministry of Economic Development and Crown corporations -- which has been outlined in the Build B.C. program, where Crown corporation investment will be focused. The Ministry of Economic Development is dealing with private industry and with Crown corporations. They're all dealing with each other in order to build a better British Columbia.

In the pulp and paper industry in my constituency, for example, under the New Democrat government we're fortunate enough to have one of the largest construction programs in the province. Oddly enough, as the opposition wailed away today about the Premier's visit to the Far East that was going to cost $200,000, I'd like to note that about $500,000 from the People's Republic of China is now being spent in my constituency. The provincial government and the Premier have been instrumental in that and in having the infrastructure developed to maintain this project. So these things don't go for naught.

Our transportation infrastructure is being developed. Now at last we can have some future view with regard to transportation. We all see what's happened as a result of the slide in the Three Valley Gap area around Revelstoke and the rerouting of some of the major truck transport and so on along roads that are totally inadequate.

If we don't keep up, and if we don't have an eye to the future, we're going to be in very serious trouble. This is a government that's taken down the deficit, that's had an eye to the future and that wants to develop the infrastructure of this province, at the same time that it reduces the debt of the province. So there are major steps we're seeing initiated by this government under the Build B.C. program.

Again, we see a situation where the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Forests get together with regard to reforestation and helping to alleviate some of the situations we see with the Ministry of Social Services to benefit the province in the long run with our reforestation programs with money that's going to come forward from this new program to help all of us in weeding and thinning and developing our infrastructure for the future.

We see Education, Social Services and Women's Equality working together in terms of helping single-parent women with children to get back on track and into the mainstream of society again -- an issue that was totally ignored by the previous administration. Now we're recognizing a lot of the members of our society who have fallen between the cracks and who deserve better treatment than they've gotten. I give the Ministries of Women's Equality, Social Services and Education full marks for this. They're working together, and they're solving problems with regard to the elimination of portables and getting single-parent mothers retraining and schooling. It's been a wonderful

[ Page 5165 ]

thing, and I've had the opportunity to witness it firsthand.

I hear members opposite talk about the Build B.C. program, how they oppose it and how it's going to be such a horrible thing for the economy of this province. When the time comes to turn the sod in their constituencies, I wonder if they're going to stay away in protest -- because we're going to be initiating all these wonderful programs to help their constituencies as well as our own. I would challenge them to boycott the sod-turning if it's so horrible.

Build B.C. is important to me for one reason: it addresses the need of this province in the future while at the same time addressing the deficit. There are those who would say to address the deficit and forget about the future. Those are the people that the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs referred to as non-visionaries. We simply cannot deal with one issue -- the one issue being the elimination of the deficit. We're eliminating the deficit, we're doing it on a timetable, and we're doing it very successfully. At the same time, we have a vision for the future whereby all British Columbians are going to prosper.

This government is bound and determined to get the deficit down and to make a better community for all of us to live in.

A. Cowie: At a glance this bill looks almost credible. It looks almost credible, I say, because in the past, municipalities have borrowed for community centres, parks, libraries and roads. It's quite a standard practice. So at a glance it looks like it is credible, and then these loans are paid back. The difference, however, is that the municipalities are required to go to referendum for any capital spending, and the citizens must approve the borrowing prior to the spending. That's not the case in this bill.

The provincial government also has used this method of borrowing for schools and hospitals, but through recognized mechanisms such as school boards and hospital boards. So it's really not a new measure at all, and it's been used very well in this province; it sounds reasonable. For instance, the roadbuilders' association supports it -- naturally; they're going to benefit by it, and I hope they do. I only hope that when this government puts projects out to bid, they do it in the proper way: go through the Highways department, as they've done in the past, so that bids are put out properly.

There is no mention of that; there's no administration process mentioned at all in this bill. I only hope they do follow that process.

Certainly improvements are needed -- one only has to drive to Port Hardy, as I did a couple of weeks ago. It's a very, very long drive and there's certainly need for a bypass around Nanaimo, although I suggest they've chosen the wrong location in that instance. It should be further out from the municipality; 20 years from now we'll only have to build another one. I would like to see a long-range provincial plan for some of these improvements so that I and members of this House could be assured this money is being spent wisely and not just to satisfy some people in particular ridings.

Not only is the Island Highway needed; lots of improvements are needed in the lower mainland, including more bridges.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways, who introduced this bill, mentioned that the population will be going up by some million people by the year 2021. That's his prediction, not mine, but I don't say he's wrong. Certainly if one pays off the debt using the income from those added persons, it sounds viable. After all, that's how most of us buy our houses; whether we have expensive or inexpensive houses, we all have to borrow.

But I have several worries about this bill. The first is that past governments have always paid for roads and bridges out of their annual budgets. They've saved during good times and have been able to build in poor times. For some reason or other this government has taken a completely different approach. Perhaps they are looking ahead a few years and finding the growth in the economy isn't going to be quite what they or we would like, so they have to find a new approach.

I worry about accountability in the administration of this bill. If you look at it, the committee that's set up is actually a subcommittee of cabinet. It also could be a project to keep the backbenchers on the government side busy; that's a possibility. The bill is so vague that it's not possible to fathom that, but undoubtedly we'll see in the next few months.

The $100 million kickoff to start this up, the promised 1 percent tax to be used to reinforce that starting in September, and then, of course, tolls and other mechanisms, really isn't a lot of money. In fact, you couldn't even build the bypass around Nanaimo with that money; you could only build part of it.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: I gave that as just one example, hon. member. If you did have the whole $100 million -- and good luck -- you could only build part of the road around Nanaimo. So we are evidently -- and I can foresee this -- going into very heavy borrowing over the next couple of years, and the accountability for that borrowing will not be in this House. It will shift, I would suspect, to not only this corporation that's going to be set up to funnel the money -- and that's all it's really going to do -- into Highways and other ministries....

In fact, the head of the Crown corporations secretariat must feel very good these days, because in his job he's able to actually carry out a number of things that he was never able to do in government. He wants to see -- and I'm sure this government wants to see -- Crown corporations move into the economy where private enterprise formerly showed most of the initiative. This government is moving more and more in that direction so that they can direct the economy and take

part in it. I would suggest that private enterprise can look after the economy if the government were to tighten its belt, save money where it's possible, especially waste, and let the private industry do most of the work.

The other thing that worries me about this bill is that it's open-ended; it's going to just be another level of bureaucracy. I was talking to a former deputy minister on the ferry the other day. He came in just after the last NDP government was in this House. In the particular

[ Page 5166 ]

ministry that he was telling me about -- I won't embarrass him by saying which one -- they were able to cut staff by 40 percent. They found that they were much more efficient: they could make decisions quicker and they got on with the job. There's no evidence that this government is doing that or that it is willing to tighten its belt at all. It hasn't looked at the bureaucracy in a very meaningful way.

The other thing that worries me is that the money borrowed in this bill will be used for things like silviculture. Funds for silviculture should come from the stumpage fees, as they always have. In other words, as the forest industry takes the trees out of the forest, it should pay for the replanting of trees. If it's new capital, that's another matter. If one were going in where trees were never planted before, I could perhaps encourage that; but when it's just simply part of the forest program, it's not proper to do that.

I also feel that money from this bill will be used for building housing -- and in some cases it's much-needed --

whereas this government should be directing private enterprise to do more innovative housing. This government is taking no initiative at all on those lines. Even though there is a very interesting report on social housing that has come out, they have not moved to increase densities or to encourage individuals in the private sector to solve the housing problem. It could be done quite easily if this government were to encourage them to do so. There's no plan for the borrowing. We don't see in this bill how the money is going to be spent. There isn't even an outline for it. It's completely open-ended, as I say.

Maybe it's just the lack of detail that's the problem. Maybe the bill is better than what I can see. Citizens of this province surely deserve more detail.

The minister spoke for 15 minutes on this bill. This is a fundamental bill and a fundamental change in the direction that this government is going, and the minister spoke for 15 minutes. It's possible that the minister, being an engineer -- and most engineers are logical people, in my mind.... Probably except maybe for some minor expenditures, this really isn't his bill; he has just been the one that has put it through. What he would rather see is some belt-tightening, as most engineers will do in difficult times.

I really would like to know whether the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- in particular the minister -- is fully behind all of the other borrowings that will result because of this bill.

[4:00]

In

summary, I would like to say that the bill could be a good idea. It could be used in some limited situations. But I'm worried about the vagueness of it and the lack of detail. I'm very skeptical, because I think that over the next year or so some members of this government will use the figures that will result from this borrowing in other than a straightforward way.

In response to a question today, for instance, the Premier said that the economy in this province had grown. I have here highlights from the B.C. economic outlook of February 1993. It states quite clearly that last year business capital investment in this province went down by 6.5 percent, and it's projected that when they do their final figures in the latter part of the year, it will have gone down by even more. There is certainly no sign that it will go up in this coming year. If the Premier can get these kinds of figures wrong occasionally.... He's not wrong all the time, but he certainly was wrong today.

I'm worried that this bill will simply be what most people on this side of the House -- certainly the opposition -- feel it is: a way of disguising a deficit. The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada have projected that the deficit will be closer to $2 billion, and not as projected in this budget.

R. Neufeld: I also rise to oppose Bill 3, the Build BC Act. It should come as no surprise to members opposite that I do not agree with larger deficits and debt to fund projects which were previously funded through the operating budget. There is only one reason for Bill 3, the Build BC Act, and that is to hide deficits and build up the debt of the province.

Many members in the government gave glowing reports about how Build B.C. is going to bring the economy of British Columbia up to heights that we've never seen before. We're going to replace every portable school and almost every government building in British Columbia in the next little while, and it's going to be just great. But that's just a snow job. It's a way of hiding a little bit of debt, and it's a way to facilitate the use of long-term borrowing in order to build highways.

The taxpayers in British Columbia have told previous governments, and they are telling this government today, that they can't afford any more taxes. But has this government listened? They haven't listened at all. They keep increasing taxes and the bureaucracy. Now they want to create another Crown corporation so that they can go out and borrow more money to build highways.

When I spoke about the budget, I talked about not being honest with the people of British Columbia. This government has professed to being open and honest. I think that was one of the major planks in their election campaign. To date, on some points this government has been less than honest with the people of British Columbia, and this is one instance of them being less than honest. Why don't the members opposite just come out and say: "All we want to do with Build B.C. is increase the debt of the province in order to build more infrastructure"?

As a member from the north, and having lived in the north all my life, I appreciate the highways we have, and I appreciate that we need more highways. I hear from my constituents all the time that they want their highways upgraded, they want new highways, and they would like to see some of the main highways paved, much the same as the back alleys are paved in the city of Victoria.

I have a tremendous amount of pressure from my constituents for highway building. But philosophically I can't agree with borrowing funds over 40 or 50 years, whatever the plan is. This will be another Crown corporation about which no one will be able to find out how long the money will be borrowed to build all the highways that we think we need in the province, and will smokescreen it with building schools, hospitals and fire halls. It absolutely amazes me that one member

[ Page 5167 ]

brought up fire halls, because I don't believe that I could find in the bill that that could be possible. Maybe I'm mistaken; maybe this bill is so far-ranging that it will include almost everything.

That's not being truthful with the people of British Columbia, because hospitals were built before, and always have been. In fact, your government is tearing one down that was built 100 years ago because they feel it's not sufficient anymore. How did it get built? Did it get built by B.C. 21? No, it got built by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia in the normal way that hospitals, schools, and all those facilities have been built through the years. Those capitalization facilities have been in place for a long time.

An Hon. Member: How about the dams up in your area?

R. Neufeld: The member from across the way talks about hydro dams, and I agree. There have been some hydro dams built in my constituency. I'm not sure if any hydro dams have been built in that member's constituency, but that was built through B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation that charges a fee back to every British Columbian, and it satisfies its own debt. We're now going to build highways, amortize them over 50 years onto the backs of our children, and this member thinks that that's correct. I can't believe it.

He's standing up -- along with others -- telling British Columbians this is something new, this is going to be great, and it's going to build the economy of British Columbia like you've never seen before.

The member for Cariboo North talked about some roadbuilding in Fort Nelson and Fort St. John. I found it very interesting that he talked about both those places and not his constituency, because obviously his information was completely incorrect about my constituency, where Fort St. John and Fort Nelson are. That's indicative of every speaker I've heard on that side of the House. They get up with innuendo that has not been researched. They talk about the Liberal and the Social Credit caucuses having poor research.

If they've got such good research, why do they continually come into the House and talk about the wrong figures; talk wrongly about deficits; talk about my constituency, the number of bridges and when they were first built; when that member doesn't have a clue about how many bridges there were and when they were first built?

I'm just going to correct that member. It's irritating to me, and I think all members opposite, to have to constantly stand up and correct government members. If they're as well-informed as they try to tell British Columbians, if they have such a great research department, and they're all such great orators, why can't they get it right? That member for Cariboo North talked about five bridges. Well, there are six -- he's one out. He talked about those bridges being in place for 15 years, and every year the budget came up: "No, the past government cut it out and wouldn't build the road between them.

They just wouldn't build those roads in between those bridges." And you're right, there is no road between those bridges. But the first bridge was built in 1989. The first one -- only one out of six. Now we're going to build a road, certainly. The second bridge was built in July 1990, and the four remaining smaller bridges were built in July 1991. I'll admit that from July until the election in October the past Social Credit administration didn't go out and build the roads between those bridges. But who has not built the roads between those bridges?

Who has been in government since October 1991? -- the great NDP government.

That member talks about 15 years and five bridges, and he hasn't even got his facts straight. Maybe he should have been building the roads. But if they're going to build that road and amortize it over 50 years, I hope that I can be there at the sod-turning. I hope that the government will invite me to be there. But I still do not agree, and there's nothing I can do except stand in this House and continually tell this government that the people of British Columbia are saying they've had enough taxation and they cannot stand any more taxes. But they continue to increase them.

I hope that I'm able to be there, and I hope it's going to be this year. Obviously things are going to have to happen pretty quickly, because this government is going to face an election soon. I guess they're going to pave all of British Columbia. I hope they do fix the road for the benefit of those people in Peace River North, because they need that road. The old road is sliding out. So I agree it should be built, but I don't agree with the philosophy of borrowing that money over 40 or 50 years and disguising it from the people in British Columbia by telling them it's something that it is not.

If some of those members opposite would like to get out their Hansard, go to the auditor general to check a little bit and get some of the right numbers, I think everybody on this side of the House would be happier.

The one thing that seems common to this administration and the one from 1972 to 1975 is that neither of them likes to build highways. For the first two years of this administration I think they cut out of the highways budget some $220 million. I believe it's very close to that. They were happy about it; they clapped. They reallocated that money to something else. I think it went into fixed wages or excessive union contract increases, or whatever -- I'm not exactly sure. But neither the 1972 to 1975 administration nor this administration -- which is only going to be here from 1991 till maybe 1993, or 1994 if they're lucky -- understands how to do it.

[4:15]

For a hundred years or more the governments of the day have been funding capital construction out of the operating budget. I believe it is now 10 cents a litre, on average, that they tax gasoline for road construction, as long as you're out of the lower mainland. They have licence fees that are for road construction. Now this government, lo and behold, say that they're only going to add on a penny, and that they are going to finance billions of dollars worth of work. It just doesn't work. The people of British Columbia have had enough taxes.

Borrowing money over 40 or 50 years to build roads will only saddle our young people with debt. Right now some of our young people who have completed 12 years of education, been in the school system for 12 years, graduated, gone on to university and spent four or five years in university, and who have worked hard and

[ Page 5168 ]

diligently, have worked part-time jobs so that they could get an education and could come out with a university degree, they go out looking for jobs and can't find them. Then they start really paying attention to some politician, start reading the newspapers, start hearing different people quote different numbers, and they see different graphs. All of a sudden they see that they can no longer afford a car -- for whatever reason; it could be tax increases or whatever -- because they don't have a job. They see governments of the day spending large amounts of money they don't have, along with increasing taxes, and it's no wonder that that young person is a little disillusioned.

The members opposite should just take the time to talk to some of those people. I believe the Minister of Advanced Education tried it a while ago at one of the colleges or universities. Instead of trying to talk to the students, he called them down because they didn't support him during the election, or something to that effect. Can you imagine that coming from a minister of the Crown? He criticized those teenagers who are our future, those young people who have worked so hard to get where they are. It's just not fair to those young people.

All of a sudden they see that the debt that they're going to have to pay -- along with high taxes to be able to afford the services we have today -- is going to be just about impossible to be able to keep up to. It's no wonder they're upset.

There are a lot of other people who are upset. I could go back in Hansard and find lots of places when the socialist NDP government was in opposition, where they stood over here and hollered: "More money, more money, more money for everything." I think every one of them did. That's all they talked about. I can't remember getting up here and saying: "Spend more money on everything." But I have on many occasions -- just like highways construction -- talked about reallocation of funds within the existing budget. And that's what has to happen. We have to go back to that.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs may think that that's going backwards, but I don't think so at all. It's starting to pay our way. That's what people want from responsible governments, and that's not what we're getting from this government.

I think we all remember the Premier standing there with the piggy bank right beside him, plunking in a coin and saying: "Not one more penny than British Columbians can afford." That will come back to haunt that Premier and that member for many years to come, because he broke that promise. He broke that, along with the other 49 promises that he made in "A Better Way."

An Hon. Member: What about the promise that the deficit was going to be $400 million?

R. Neufeld: The member across the way obviously hasn't been listening. I told him to check with the auditor general, and he says something about $400 million. The auditor general will have something much different to say about that, and that's what I keep trying to say. Why don't they check out the auditor general's figures? They will find out that in the last five years of the Social Credit administration -- and I didn't really want to get into this, but the heckling has brought me into it -- the deficit was $1.4 billion in total. Those are the auditor general's numbers.

Those are not my numbers or their numbers; those are the auditor general's numbers. Let's use government numbers. In the first year of their administration they had $2 billion; this year they estimate they'll have $1.5 billion. That's $3.5 billion in two lousy years. It took five years to get $1.4 billion, and now they want to go out and borrow more. They want to hide some debt.

I can understand why they want to create another Crown corporation under the directorship of Bob Williams: they can hide a little more debt, put a little more away and spend a little more on their social agenda. There's nothing wrong with a social agenda, but when it takes hold of the major part of the budget and that's all there is to it, then there is something wrong with the social agenda. The children of this province are going to pay the bill, and they are angry.

Creating a new Crown corporation is going to create some more bureaucracy -- another thing the taxpayers tell these people they don't want to see any more of. They want to see less bureaucracy and fewer government employees. I don't think that that's doing it on the back of the government employees. This government's own records show that in the first year of its administration it hired 1,600 new employees. Sixteen hundred! Yet the people in the province are telling these people that they want less; they want a smaller bureaucracy.

The government went out and hired 1,600, and we haven't created this new Crown corporation yet. In this year's budget, I see they've made a place for 1,200 new employees this year. My goodness, if that's being open and honest with the people in British Columbia, when they get up and talk about how they've reduced staff and deficit spending.... They haven't done any of that. They just haven't got their priorities right, and they are trying to hang it on everybody else. One day that's going to catch up to them.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs talked about President Clinton's new plan for the U.S. economy to borrow more money for roads and infrastructure and those types of things, and he said we are kind of following in Bill Clinton's footsteps. I guess there's some validity to some of those arguments; there's no doubt about it. But the part that this government forgets to apply is that Bill Clinton said he was going to reduce the civil service in the U.S. by, I think, 20 percent, and he's not going to increase taxes in two years by $1 billion each year.

That's not what he's going to do; he's going to try to create some economic activity in the good old U.S. of A. through some private enterprise. That's the difference between this NDP government and the Bill Clinton administration, because the Bill Clinton administration at least believes in free enterprise and knows that it has to be part of the country to make it run and to make it work properly.

This government is intent on getting all the economic activity and having all the jobs in the province performed by the government. Who's going to pay for that? It's fine to say we're going to build all these roads and do all these things, but somebody has to pay for it,

[ Page 5169 ]

and the taxpayer has only got one pocket. Governments of the day -- federal, provincial, municipal or whatever -- have been plucking each pocket dry. They never quit. The taxpayer is at the point where he's ready to explode, and that's why we're starting to see demonstrations in Vancouver and in Victoria. We're going to start seeing more and more of them -- in fact, it's in the interior and up north. That's to make governments like this listen. We've had enough. If the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs wants to use the Clinton plan, then why doesn't he apply the whole darn thing?

Why don't you reduce the civil service? No, no, this government needs more people in the civil service. I don't know why, but they do. There's nothing wrong with civil servants and with people working for government -- nothing wrong with it at all.

Another thing mentioned in B.C. 21 is silviculture. That's part of the Forest Service. Why are we borrowing money over the long term for silviculture? We haven't in the past. It boggles my mind. I could see it if revenue was way down in the Forests ministry. If you go to the government's own budget document -- page 44, for those listening -- you will see under "Revenue by source" that we're going to get another $223 million in revenue out of the forests because the price of lumber has gone so high. Yet we're talking about borrowing money over 40 or 50 years to plant trees. Why don't we use that money?

Why don't we pay our way for planting those trees? No, no, this government just wants to tax and spend.

Direct debt over 100 years was $5 billion when we left office. This government has increased it to $10 billion in two years, and that's by their own numbers, not mine. It's out of their own budget manuals. That's what people in British Columbia cannot tolerate. On top of that, total debt is up by about $6.5 billion in two years. This government has increased total debt -- if you want to work by the bottom number, then work by the bottom number -- 33 percent in two years, and we wonder why people are upset.

H. Giesbrecht: Check your arithmetic.

R. Neufeld: I don't have to check it unless yours is wrong, because all I'm doing is taking it right out of your book that it's $6.4 billion. No wonder I'm concerned. No wonder other British Columbians are concerned about borrowing more money.

[4:30]

We don't have any problem with building more highways, with fixing our highways and getting them into good shape, because it's a great part of our province. I live in the north, and we didn't get a link to the south until the fifties, so I appreciate it. I understand it, and I know we need it. But I also realize that we shouldn't be spending so much money. We should be coming back to reality, back to the planet we live on, back into British Columbia and spending what we can afford. Obviously this government hasn't caught on.

There are other ways to build these facilities than by just going out and borrowing money, and that's by encouraging investment in B.C., by growth in the provincial economy, by getting back the confidence of the investor in the province to supply those jobs and keep people who have trained long and hard employed. That's how you get more money, not by borrowing more and more and doubling debt.

At the rate we're going now, it will take 20 years just to pay off direct government debt. It's absolutely ridiculous. This government has no intention of stopping at this measure. Next year it's going to be worse. So for those reasons, there's no way that I can support Bill 3 -- Build B.C. -- the way it is.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, the member for Cariboo North is back in here chirping away again and saying I don't want to get the road built. Obviously he has a very hard time listening, comprehending or understanding anything, because if he had listened when I was speaking earlier, he would have heard me say yes, I want the road built, but I don't agree with the philosophy of borrowing money over 50 years or of slapping a toll on that road to pay for it.

F. Garden: It'll never get built.

R. Neufeld: He says it'll never get built. Well, I hope that's not the way this government feels, because I don't think that's quite what the people want. But maybe the truth is starting to come out in some of these remarks from backbenchers. What do you call it? Be honest and straightforward and tell everybody what we feel. He's saying that we won't build the road, hon. Speaker. Well, I guess obviously he's got a pipeline into the committee that's going to decide what's going to happen.

So for those reasons, and for those reasons only, I cannot support the passage of Bill 3.

F. Randall: I would just like to state at the outset that I support Bill 3. I would like to review its purpose again for those who may have forgotten. In the bill it states:

"The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the expansion and diversification of the British Columbia economy by

(

a) coordinating the government's activities to achieve overall economic development and job creation goals,

(

b) ensuring that all regions of the Province benefit from economic expansion and diversification,

(

c) encouraging public and private sector investment and job creation activities in an innovative manner,

(

d) promoting training and investment in people as a significant component of public sector investment activity, and

(

e) targeting activities under this Act toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups."

There's one issue there, (

d) particularly, with regard to training. It's fairly common knowledge that for probably the last ten years there has been an awful lot of neglect in the area of training. It has to be increased substantially. We need more trained people in British

[ Page 5170 ]

Columbia. I think everybody agrees with that, and it's an area that I feel is very important.

Also, with regard to some issues in the bill, I think the public generally -- those I've talked to, in any event -- support the idea of allocation of money for specific purposes. Practically everybody you speak to says they don't mind paying, provided they know where the money is going. In this particular case there will be 1 cent a litre on gasoline, which will produce about $63 million, and $1.50 a day on car rental, which will produce about $7 million, for a total of about $70 million.

We're all aware that the bill provides that there will be $100 million to start the account off. The major thing here is to try to get jobs moving in the province and to accelerate construction -- social facilities and schools are mentioned, and colleges and courthouses. Those kinds of things that may be on the drawing board for three or four years down the road would be moved up. We're all aware of what happens with inflation, and with these facilities that are needed, certainly it's better to build them today than three or five years from now; it's no different than if I were to build a new house.

I would rather build them today than five years from now, because of the costs and the value you're going to get out of these facilities. As for the jobs it creates, it will certainly create employment in every area of the province. We hope to see some well-paid jobs for people in the building trades in the province. As mentioned by one of my colleagues, we hope to see fair wages paid on any government work that takes place in the province. I know firsthand that there are many construction workers currently on welfare, and I have not seen that for many years.

In fact, I don't recall ever seeing construction workers on welfare in the numbers that there are today.

The other thing that is important is to ensure that the jobs being created are available to B.C. workers. We don't want to see a lot of people coming from out of the province for jobs that are being created in this province, when they are paying taxes in other provinces. I think it's important to get people back to work and paying taxes. We have far too many unemployed people in this province who are not contributing financially to the economy of the province. When people get back to work, they pay taxes, and we certainly want them paid in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, some members of the opposition parties are insisting that the government should be paying cash for these kinds of highway or bridge projects. That is certainly very admirable. I have no problem with paying cash if you have cash. I think we're all aware that not just the government of B.C. but every provincial government across the country is having financial problems, as well as the federal government. There have to be some innovative ways to stimulate the economy and create employment.

Employment is probably one of the most important issues, because being out of work for a year or two starts to affect people mentally. They begin to imagine that they are not capable of doing the job and wonder about themselves. It has a real impact on the whole family. Everybody should have an opportunity to work at a job. I see that as a real social priority, aside from buying food and having a roof over your head.

On the matter of paying cash, everybody in this House has probably financed a home or a car at some time or another. Not too many of us are in a position to pay cash when we buy our first, second or third house. But it's important to recognize that you don't always have the cash to make a deal, so you borrow money. Everybody borrows money: the federal government, the municipalities.... Even if they have cash available, they borrow internally from various reserve funds. So I don't see anything wrong with borrowing money, providing there is a provision to generate the cash to amortize those loans.

Again, we get back to the gas tax and the tax of $1.50 on U-drives. There will probably be the implementation of tolls on certain projects. I personally have no problem with tolls, and those I talk to have no problem with tolls. I've been to places in the United States where every day you go out you pay four or five tolls. They're not large amounts, but that's how they pay for those bridges or causeways or overpasses. I don't think people mind paying, as long as they know where the money's going and what it's for. In effect, the money is going into a trust fund.

It's no different when you drive across to the state of Washington, where money from the gas tax goes specifically for highway and bridge construction. It's in trust funds that must be spent on that. I certainly support that concept here.

It was interesting; I've been reading a few comments about the importance of highways by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. The quote is: "We cannot hope to realize greater wealth and a sustainable economy unless we are prepared to invest in the infrastructure that such an economy will be dependent upon. Of course, I refer to the...maintenance and construction of our highway