1994 Legislative Session: 3rd 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, MAY 25, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 17

[ Page 11053 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to table the ombudsman's public report No. 33, Listening: A Review of Riverview Hospital.

L. Reid: I have today the opportunity to introduce possibly the finest senior students in the province. There are 100 students joining us today from James Thompson Elementary School in the riding of Richmond. They are joined by vice-principal Jil Ashton-Leigh and teachers Bruce Topp and Patricia Stapleton. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Janssen: It's my pleasure to introduce His Excellency Jan Fietelaars, the Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada. The ambassador is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Fietelaars. Accompanying them are Baron Marnix van Aerssen and his wife Baroness Henriette van Aerssen. I hope that the House would make them welcome, and I also wish them een hartelyk welkom en gezellige visite in British Columbia and Victoria.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is my pleasure today to introduce to the House the consul general of France in Vancouver, Maryse Berniau. I had the pleasure of meeting with her over the last couple of weeks, and she is a delight for us to have in Vancouver. I wish the House to make her welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted today to introduce in the gallery some 21 people from the downtown east side -- and from downtown south, whom the hon. Speaker would be interested in. First, not entirely from the downtown east side, is Jim Green. It's his fifty-first birthday today, and it's appropriate that we recognize that.

We also have Jamie Lee Hamilton, Kathleen Boyes, Nicolas Boyes, Mathew Atkinstall, Lore Krill, Elizabeth Desjarlais, Jean-Paul Desjarlais, Gary Jobin, Tanya Stimson, Ken Klyne, Ron Stailing, Dorothy Milne, Amalia Dorigoni, Mark Hierlihy, Sister Catherine Fujisawa, Patricia Canning, Melaine Bouvette, Lorne Gray, Monica Hay and Neil Macleod. I would ask all members to make them welcome.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today Ralph and Dorothy Belfry from Chilliwack. Ralph is the president of my riding association. Would you make them most welcome.

C. Serwa: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome 60 grade 7 students from Westbank Elementary School to the precincts today. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. George Waldo and eight parents. Mr. Waldo, a former mayor of the municipality of Peachland, had a distinguished career and did an exceptionable job as mayor. Would the House please welcome the students and former mayor of Peachland.

D. Streifel: I have a school group touring the precincts today. There are 20 grade 7 students from Stave Falls Elementary, accompanied by Mr. R. Lewis. Stave Falls is a brand-new school that we opened just two weeks ago in the constituency of Mission-Kent. It's a beautifully structured building that fits right in with the landscape of second-growth forest on the north side of the Fraser River in the Stave Falls area of Mission. If that's not enough to convince everybody to move there, commuter rail should be. I ask the House to make the students and their teacher welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would ask the House to help me in wishing a good friend a happy birthday. A young man by the name of John Stewart, who works with the Liberal caucus, is 27 years old today. I understand he was taken out by the press gallery for lunch and has yet to return. I don't know if we'll ever see him again, but I do wish that everybody could help us wish him a happy birthday.

J. Dalton: I am pleased to welcome to the House and the gallery some lady visitors -- women visitors, if you wish -- from the North Shore. Would the House acknowledge Peggy Grieg, May Baynes, June Walchli, Barbara Wittifield, Shirley Thompson and Sharon Apsey. Also joining them in the gallery are my constituency assistant, Liz Leduc, and my legislative assistant, Jas Gandhi.

I should tell the House that these women came here with great difficulty this morning. They had a flat tire at Horseshoe Bay. They survived the Malahat and arrived here late for lunch, but they are here now, and I certainly encourage all of you to welcome them.

D. Lovick: On your behalf, hon. Speaker, I want to welcome a group of students from Canyon Creek Elementary School south of the 49th parallel in the state of Washington. These students are accompanied by some ten adults and their teacher, Ms. Seetham. I ask all members to join me, please, in making our American guests welcome.

Introduction of Bills

SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Skills, Training and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. D. Miller: Bill 39 contains amendments to a number of acts. The amendment to the Architects (Landscape) Act is to include a nominee of the president of Kwantlen College on the board of examiners of the British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects, as well as the president and past president of the society.

The modifications to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act are to make several miscellaneous amendments, including amendments clarifying the liability insurance provision and providing a right of appeal to an out-of-province person who is refused a licence to practise.

The amendment to the Hairdressers Act is to update the amount of registration fees and fines charged under the act.

[2:15]

The modifications to the Pension Benefits Standards Act are to make a number of technical and clarifying amendments. A main change is to improve the flexibility of options for spouses of deceased pension plan members, who are eligible for a pre-retirement survivor benefit under

section 34. Another, minor amendment corrects a drafting error in this

section made when the act was passed in 1991, regarding employer contributions required to be included in the pre-retirement survivor benefit under a defined contribution plan.

Who writes these things? [Laughter.]

[ Page 11054 ]

Several other housekeeping changes are also included to make this provision more consistent with other sections of the act. Because of a court decision based on a misinterpretation of the application of the act, it has been necessary to include amendments in the bill to make it clear that the act applies to public sector pension plans unless specifically exempted.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: I see I have agreement.

The changes to

section 34 have been recommended by the Pension Benefits Standards Advisory Council.

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FISHING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Fishing Collective Bargaining Act.

Hon. D. Miller: For the first time in the history of this province, Bill 43 will give commercial fishers access to collective bargaining rights and obligations under the B.C. Labour Relations Code. The Fishing Collective Bargaining Act applies to persons engaged in the commercial catching or harvesting of fish. Fishers are the last major group of workers in the province who have not had their collective bargaining regulated by the B.C. Labour Code.

Two years ago the committee of special advisers on labour law reform unanimously recommended that collective bargaining rights be extended to fishers. Due to the unique nature of the fishing industry, a separate review was conducted on the issue by arbitrator Stephen Kelleher. This act is the result of recommendations made by Mr. Kelleher, who consulted with all parties before reporting to government. This government is now acting on Mr. Kelleher's recommendations.

Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. SYSTEMS CORPORATION AND PRIVATE SECTOR

G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. Several months ago the NDP government raided a number of small high-tech firms of key employees and damaged a number of small high-tech businesses as a result of that. They required those employees to become employees of B.C. Systems Corporation. Can the Premier confirm to this House today that the strategy was not aimed at providing added value to B.C.'s taxpayers but rather at expanding the B.C. Systems Corporation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the Korbin commission's recommendation that people who were turned into invisible employees through a phony contracting-out service be appropriately brought back into the public sector through a system recommended by Commissioner Korbin. It is as a result of that commission report that these employees, who were sitting beside their colleagues and labelled as independent contractors -- and weren't, according to the federal government, the income tax laws and all the other laws that were being broken -- have been brought back into the public sector, where they have worked for many years.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The official opposition has received a strictly confidential cabinet document that recommends the sale of B.C. Systems Corporation. The document states that the sale would benefit the province and actually help the high-tech private sector. The government was destroying high-tech companies and adding employees to the government at a time when they had a document before them that recommended the sale of B.C. Systems Corporation. Can the Premier tell us why his government has not proceeded with the sale of B.C. Systems Corporation, which would clearly benefit B.C.'s taxpayers?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That is a question of future policy, but I can tell you that the people of this province are well served by the B.C. Systems Corporation, which is one of the most advanced corporations not just in Canada but in North America. It provides hardware and software services with a combination of in-house work and contracting out. We think we have reached the right balance of providing these basic services to the people of British Columbia and providing the most advanced systems in the world.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: This may be a subject of future cabinet policy, but it certainly reflects a past cabinet action of dealing with their friends as opposed to taking care of the public's business. The cabinet document says: "...there is no clear public-policy reason for government to continue to operate in this area." The NDP government required the raided employees to join the BCGEU if they were to keep their jobs. Can the Premier tell us why the NDP continues to put the BCGEU's interests ahead of B.C. taxpayers' interests?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's clear where the Liberal opposition is coming from, and that is workers being exploited -- that's basically what we're talking about here. We're talking about employees that were forced to go into the private sector as independent contractors. They were asked to then provide functions and roles, very valuable services that they had provided for years, while sitting beside their colleagues and making, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars less in salaries and benefits.

That's out of what was paid to a private contractor who was making more money for providing less service to the people of British Columbia. This is not only cost-efficient; it is providing dignity and fairness to the workers themselves.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLING BY GOVERNMENT

G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday the Minister of Finance, outside the House, admitted that certain questions in a poll would be inappropriate for her ministry to be asking. However, she then went on to state that the poll that the Ministry of Finance did and paid for certainly didn't ask those questions. Having had the night to think about it and review that poll, can the minister now confirm that in fact

[ Page 11055 ]

she did ask those questions and the taxpayers did pay for it, and can she tell us why?

Hon. E. Cull: I find it very interesting that this is the first set of questions that we've had on the budget. There has not been one substantive question come from this Liberal opposition on the budget. I take it that that means they agree with the budget we've brought down, because we have answered the needs of British Columbians, who said: "We want more jobs; we want the deficit down; we want taxes frozen; we want investment in our schools; we want our forests revitalized" -- and that's what we've done in this budget.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: It's interesting how the minister avoids the question to get her own agenda across.

I have another question for the minister. In a poll taken on behalf of the Ministry of Health regarding British Columbians' attitudes toward health care, respondents were asked if they believed in the Minister of Health. It's like the tooth fairy, hon. Speaker. Seriously, it was that Minister of Finance who was Minister of Health at the time that question was asked. In how many other polls has this minister asked about her position and how the people of B.C. feel about her? How much is the taxpayer paying for her campaign for Miss Congeniality?

Hon. E. Cull: Actually, a minute ago I was incorrect. I said that they hadn't asked any substantive questions about the budget. There was one that I've now recalled: they asked questions opposing the reduction of the property purchase tax for first-time homebuyers. That's one of the places where they have had some substantive information.

This Liberal opposition is saying that we should not consult with the people of this province about policies, about their desires or about what they think should be done in terms of the budget or health care or anything else, and we dismiss that.

The Speaker: The final supplementary, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Once again this government has shown its inability to distinguish between its political and personal views and what it should be doing in the interest of the public. She knows full well and she said yesterday that that is not the type of question the taxpayer should be paying for.

My question is to the Premier. Does he agree with the comments of the Minister of Finance yesterday that the types of questions that deal with political and personal issues should not be paid for by taxpayers? Will the New Democratic Party reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of their political polling?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I find it rather amusing that the Liberal opposition keeps standing up with these secret documents that they got under freedom of information. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy. The federal Liberal government...

An Hon. Member: Who's going to pay for it?

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...has given their ministers...

An Hon. Member: Who's going to pay for it?

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...carte blanche to keep back what they...

An Hon. Member: Who's going to pay for it?

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...think, in their discretion...

An Hon. Member: Who's going to pay for it?

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...that the people of this....

An Hon. Member: Who's going to pay for it?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, we have a broken record on the other side. Would you unplug the plug?

Their federal counterparts have given their ministers carte blanche to not release information to the public that they deserve. I think it's the ultimate in hypocrisy.

ICBC TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM FOR NORTHERN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for ICBC. Can the minister explain why ICBC cut high school safety programs for northern British Columbians while transferring the staff and the resources to other locations in the province? Why don't northerners deserve high school safety training in the same way that other British Columbians do?

Hon. J. Pement: I can assure you that I agree with the member that traffic safety programs are of the same value in the north as they are in other parts of the province, and I'd like to inform the member that those programs have not been cut. They are maintained at the current level.

The Speaker: A supplementary, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Is the minister telling us today that she decided to include other northern constituencies with her own in those areas where the program would be maintained? Is the minister saying that ICBC has changed its mind on this slash for northern residents? Has ICBC had a change of direction?

Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to say that I think the member is misinformed. Yes, the program is inclusive of all the northern communities that have had this program, and those cuts were not made.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

L. Reid: Health care in this province is in chaos.

Interjections.

L. Reid: Women 35 years of age are dying of breast cancer in this province. Radiology equipment in Powell River is not being used to capacity due to the funding policies of this NDP government. There are no screening services currently available in Powell River. They must travel to Vancouver or make a special visit to Prince George for referral back to the hospital. The administrative red tape costs the taxpayers in this province more -- an increased cost because of the NDP's funding policies which are regionally discriminatory.

The Speaker: Question, hon. member?

[ Page 11056 ]

L. Reid: My question, hon. Speaker is: will the Minister of Health explain why women are not able to have access to true preventive health care in every region of this province?

The Speaker: The minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I'd also like to thank the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who first brought this issue to my attention a couple of weeks ago. I'm glad to know that the Liberal opposition is catching on.

The B.C. mammography screening program is expanding its services not only in Vancouver but throughout British Columbia. In Powell River there is currently a machine used for diagnostic purposes. I am sure that Powell River will be working with the mammography screening program to make sure that we can bring that service to the women of Powell River rather than asking them to travel to Vancouver.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

L. Reid: Patients in this province currently wait over two years for a kidney transplant. Since the NDP came to power 32 people have been waiting for this service, which has not been provided. There are currently 321 British Columbians on the wait-list for organ transplants. What is the Minister of Health's strategy, when he is closing beds and when wait-lists for cardiac care, neurosurgery and gynecology are growing longer? Where are those patients going to get service?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, we've gone from mammography to kidneys in one leap here. The reality is that this government has increased health funding in this province by $1 billion over the last three years -- the best record of any province in Canada. We are working with hospitals and communities to assist that transfer of services from an in-patient basis to a community or home setting. That's what's happening in communities around this province, hon. member, and that's what the goal of this government is.

[2:30]

The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.

L. Reid: Patients in this province cannot receive surgery in their homes. This is not a Closer to Home comment. You need to respond to the British Columbians who are currently on wait-lists. A 65-year-old woman in Abbotsford waited more than two years...

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member?

L. Reid: ...for hip replacement surgery. She was in absolute agony for the entire time. Will the Minister of Health indicate what he is doing to ensure that hospital services that must be provided in an acute care setting are offered to British Columbians? They cannot receive those services in their homes.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Funding for hospitals rose again this year. This is the third year in a row that this province has been able to increase funding for hospitals around this province. In many areas wait-lists are down, and day care surgery is up. The quality of service provided through hospitals, in clinics and in people's homes has been preserved.

Hon. Speaker, I would ask this member, however.... Her answer to everything seems to be: "Spend more. Spend more here." I would really ask her to turn to her left and talk to her leader, Mr. Spend Less, who says that all deficit and debt is bad. Is it Mr. Flip, or Ms. Flop here, who wants to fund health care in this province?

EFFECT OF U.S. CONGRESS BILL ON B.C. CRUISE SHIP INDUSTRY

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. On a day when the local shipyards are having to auction off all their equipment, and when there is an active lobby in Quebec to increase the amount of federal spending on shipbuilding, we notice that the Unsoeld bill, by Congresswoman Jolene Unsoeld, is receiving swift passage through the U.S. Congress. That bill is likely to eliminate the opportunity for further shipbuilding in Canada as a result of a need and desire by the shipbuilding industry in the United States for cruise ships to have American flags.

That may eliminate the possibility for us not only to pick up shipbuilding contracts but to have cruise ships originate out of the port of Vancouver. Will the minister please tell us what this government is doing right now to offset the potential loss of revenue that the Unsoeld bill will create if it passes through Congress and the Senate?

Hon. G. Clark: This is, indeed, an important issue that I have personally raised with members of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region, of which this government is a member. It's an issue I've raised with assemblymen in the United States and Washington State and with various people involved in the cruise ship industry here in British Columbia. It is an issue which we are pursuing very vigorously. We intend to take further action, particularly with respect to the federal government. Because these are federal U.S. legislation amendments, it obviously makes sense that we work with the federal government on this.

I would invite that member and all members of the House -- anybody who is interested in this -- to work with the government on this, because it does pose a potential threat to the growing cruise ship industry in British Columbia.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Ministerial Statement

BRITISH COLUMBIA'S MINING INDUSTRY

Hon. A. Edwards: I rise to make a ministerial statement and, through this statement, to remind my colleagues that this week has been proclaimed Mining Week in British Columbia. I definitely urge all members to join me in recognizing not only mining companies but also workers, industry suppliers and communities that contribute to the industry and benefit by the industry, to help recognize this as Mining Week.

B.C.'s mining industry has an outstanding record of achievement. It offers world-class expertise in all aspects of mining. It offers high-quality and high-paying jobs. Its environmental and reclamation record is the best in the country. In terms of workers' safety, the industry has maintained its place as British Columbia's safest heavy industry.

This week we have the chance to highlight these achievements, and on Friday we will be giving awards to the Mining Person of the Year, the Mining Community of the Year and the province's safest mines and quarries. It is also a

[ Page 11057 ]

chance for us to recognize partnerships where people work together; that sometimes works very well. We have partnerships in B.C. between mining companies, workers, government, suppliers and communities.

I am very pleased that I have been asked to cut the ribbon on the brand-new B.C. Mining House on Friday in Vancouver. It will be the location of the Mining Association of B.C., the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, and the Mining Suppliers', Contractors' and Consultants' Association of B.C. The opening ceremonies will showcase the wide range of people and professions that are partners in mining. As we all know, they include engineers and geologists, but they also include accountants, educators, first nations peoples, unions, financial analysts, people who supply equipment and transportation services on land, sea and air, and those who supply environmental expertise.

It is this government's objective to ensure the vitality of this key industry right into the twenty-first century. We are working with the industry to make sure that this happens through our mineral strategy, the Whitehorse mining initiative, the Keep Mining in Canada campaign, a major new exhibit at Science World, and as hosts of the 1994 Mines ministers meeting in Victoria in September.

The package of mining initiatives in this year's budget, which means $100 million over the next five years, is part of our program. I am pleased to note an upturn in confidence and investment in the mining community in the province this year. There is currently more than $1 billion in new mining projects on the drawing board for this province. Exploration spending is forecast to be up probably 25 percent over last year, and I'm optimistic that the level of spending will exceed $100 million in the province this year.

I invite all members to participate in Mining Week. Take

part in the events that are happening in your communities. Work throughout the year, as well, to support this industry, which is a very important industry that is working to create jobs, to draw investment. That means real benefits for British Columbians.

D. Jarvis: I'm glad to see that the Minister of Mines is finally opening something. As my colleague the member for Richmond East said, welfare is in chaos; mining is in the hole. Mining has brought many resources to this province, and it has been the mainstay of this province's wealth. It's the epitome of free enterprise in this province.

I looked back at some quotes from the past. I think of previous governments and of this government as well, and I think of one of the great comments about free enterprise, which mining is a part of. The statement is that some think that free enterprise is a tiger and want to shoot it; some think of it as cow and want to milk it; and we in the Liberal Party think that free enterprise is the horse required to pull the wagon of free enterprise.

Mining, as I said, is one of the major producers of wealth in this province. It's a shame that it has come down to this point, where all of the resource industries in this province.... The Mining Suppliers' Association, the Mining Association of B.C. and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines have all had to consolidate themselves.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Just a moment, hon. member. It would be most appreciated if we could have a little quieter environment for the hon. member to respond to the ministerial statement.

D. Jarvis: The truth hurts, I guess.

Nevertheless, as I was saying, it's a shame that it's necessary for these three organizations to have to consolidate themselves when we have a province that is so rich in mining, with a wealth of ore. We have created the situation that is occurring tomorrow, in which the minister is going to open this new B.C. Mining House. In any event, we support this move by the Mining Association of B.C., the Mining Suppliers' Association, and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. We wish them well.

R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me to get up on behalf of the Reform Party and respond to the minister's statement regarding Mining Week in British Columbia. I thank her for sending her statement over to my office.

Mining in British Columbia is very important -- in fact, probably a lot more important than a lot of us realize. From 1988 to 1992, $2 billion in direct taxes were paid to the government. In the same time period, $3.77 billion in wages were paid out by that industry. That shows that it is a very important industry in British Columbia. What I also noticed is that those are stats up to 1992. We'll have to wait for a while to see what has happened from that period forward, since the NDP government came into office.

I think it's fair to say that it's almost 1972 to 1975 all over again with this government and the mining industry. We have seen the mining industry leave British Columbia and go to greener pastures -- South America or wherever there is a more tolerant and inviting government. British Columbia and this minister specifically have really missed the boat. We've seen this government introduce an amazing amount of taxes -- corporate capital taxes, corporate tax increases. We've seen increases in B.C. Hydro.

This is not just coming from an opposition member. I want to read a few items into the record from a mine manager's report that was given to me, so that maybe this government will finally start to listen, or so that British Columbians will find out what this government has done to the mining industry in the province:

"There is a need for a more realistic and streamlined overall tax system for the minerals industry. In our industry, where prices for our products are set on world markets, tax increases cannot be passed on to our customers. In other words, increases in taxes, especially non-profit-based and indirect or hidden taxes, translate into jobs lost in mining as we attempt to control the one area of costs we can control, our operating costs. And as we have already discussed, it is the people of this province who operate mines.

"So the increasing non-profit-based and indirect tax burden creates a financially deadly catch-22 for the entire province. The higher these taxes, the fewer the mines, the fewer the jobs, and the less revenue for government" -- that's one thing this government has not woken up to. "Raising taxes further to compensate for the shrinking tax base only hastens the destruction as more mines close, more jobs are lost, and even less revenue flows to government."

This is directly from the mining industry itself. It's a report card on the dismal performance of this government: creating the Tatshenshini park; closing down numerous jobs, as well as revenue that the government needs. It's absolutely unacceptable to British Columbians that this government would respond to the green part of their caucus and create a park the size of the Tatshenshini just to do away with one mine. Now the cost to the B.C. taxpayer to pay compensation to those people is going to be horrendous. We've also seen a minister who was in charge when the Cassiar mine was shut down.

It totally closed and decimated the whole community. This is a government that says it encourages mining in

[ Page 11058 ]

British Columbia? It's dismal what this government has done.

In fact, another letter from the Mining Association says:

"...mine managers say the industry still faces an uncertain future, and that without a new commitment to foster the mining sector, the industry could disappear as a significant component of British Columbia's economic outlook. The report points to the uncertainty surrounding access to land and mineral tenure, the ever-increasing maze of government regulations, and the increasing indirect and non-profit-based tax burden as the greatest threats to the industry."

That's what this government and this minister should be addressing. Instead of going and cutting ribbons, she should be working with her caucus and cabinet colleagues to alleviate these problems and to encourage investment in British Columbia's mining industry.

[2:45]

Hon. D. Miller tabled the Kelleher report on collective bargaining legislation for the fishing industry.

Presenting Petitions

Interjections.

Hon. Speaker, it's a very long petition, as you can see. I'd like to read only one of the paragraphs in it; it would take too long to read the entire petition. It is typical of the paragraphs in it and is in the words of one of the students:

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A for the purpose of debating the Ministry of Social Services estimates. In the main House, I call second reading of Bill 41.

COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT

Hon. G. Clark: The Community Financial Services Act establishes a new British Columbia corporation whose primary objective is to provide a full range of financial and related services to residents who may not otherwise have access to basic banking services. The need for these services is no more apparent than in the downtown east side of Vancouver, which is one of the poorest urban neighbourhoods in Canada.

The area includes a large proportion of residents who are generally denied full services by the established banking community because they are on income assistance or lack the basic identification needed to open bank accounts, or who, because they have little or no access to banking machines, are more susceptible to theft in the downtown east side.

These difficulties, combined with the gradual reduction over the years in available banking services due to branch closures in the area, have left many of the residents without the standard level of banking services available to most residents in the province. Many residents on income assistance often do not have the opportunity to deposit a portion of their cheques with a financial institution, and they have no alternative for cashing cheques other than using cheque discounters, who charge a significant fee for their services.

The new corporation will establish a community financial institution in the downtown east side of Vancouver. The institution, I believe, will lead to a more stable social and economic environment for the neighbourhood. This bill was drafted after much consultation and input from the community. The community's involvement in the drafting process has been significant and has ensured that the corporation is able to meet the community's needs and is therefore truly a community financial institution.

This act creates the B.C. Community Financial Services Corporation, which is being established to provide needed banking services to Vancouver's downtown or inner city area. Besides being a unique financial institution in terms of objectives and services, the new Crown corporation is unique because it offers community representation, elected from the depositors, on the board of directors.

To ensure that community input is provided to the board of directors, the corporation will form an advisory council made up of members of the community and elected by depositors. The advisory council can nominate three individuals to the board of directors to promote the community's interests. It may also provide advice to the board about general policy, delivery of services and the strategic direction of the corporation. The advisory council is an important vehicle to ensure that the community's interests are represented in the operations of the corporation.

I'm very proud to support this bill, and I'm not surprised at all that all of the opposition parties oppose it. During this session of the Legislature, the Liberals have opposed the forest renewal plan, the tax break for first-time homebuyers and the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act. They have said that they are opposed to raising the minimum wage and to other changes to the Employment Standards Act, and they've indicated that they are opposed to the pace of the creation of parks such as the magnificent Tatshenshini.

But I hope the House will forgive me, hon. Speaker, if I suggest that opposition to the creation of a community bank in the downtown east side of Vancouver is perhaps a bit different. It's different because, at least for me, it symbolizes the difference between our party, the New Democratic Party, and the Liberal Party and Reform Party.

[ Page 11059 ]

L. Stephens: You got that right.

Hon. G. Clark: I hear a member saying: "You got that right." I appreciate the support in this matter.

It symbolizes very much a different view of the role of government. It symbolizes a different set of values and a different philosophy. Why do I say that? After all, this is not a revolutionary proposal. I say it because of the comments made by the opposition members, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, and by certain conservative columnists and by some editorial writers.

Their comments betray, in my view, an ideological commitment much in fashion these days. It's not a new view. In fact, it's a very old one -- a belief in the economic survival of the fittest, a belief that the principal problem facing society today is government. Government regulations, they say, get in the way of corporations creating wealth.

The Leader of the Opposition said in one of his first interviews that one of the first things he would do is cut environmental regulations -- that they were standing in the way. The opposition says government taxes are too high, particularly for the wealthy and for large corporations. Their prescription -- and we hear it daily in the House -- is to cut burdensome environmental and labour regulations. If government would cut....

C. Serwa: Point of order. It seems to me that we are in second reading of Bill 41, the Community Financial Services Act. The minister seems to have strayed from Bill 41. Perhaps he would return to it.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. As members know, considerable latitude is usually allowed during second reading. However, if the minister is straying somewhat, I'm sure he will attempt to recognize the concerns of the hon. member.

Hon. G. Clark: The members opposite like this, hon. Speaker. If government cut the corporation capital tax on large corporations, cut the high-income surtax and cut the minimum wage in real terms, then the rest would take care of itself. That is generally the view we've heard from across the way. Of course, we'll have to take a sledgehammer to services to the middle class and the poor to pay for those tax cuts. But that's okay by the Leader of the Opposition, because rich individuals and corporations will spend more, and we'll all be better off as money trickles down, trickles down.

That's the policy that was pursued by the Mulroney Conservatives in Ottawa, by Social Credit in British Columbia for the last decade, by Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the United States and by Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain. It's a policy, as I said, that was much in fashion, and it's the policy being pursued by the leader of the opposition Liberal Party of British Columbia.

I submit that it's a failed policy. It's a policy that has widened the gap between rich and poor, as real income for the middle class in North America and in the western world has declined. It's a policy that has led to what I believe is a certain meanness in the land, a lack of collective caring, a lack of a sense for the common good -- a more selfish, less tolerant society. This philosophy is a short step toward seeing the poor as victims of their own lack of ambition.

That's not to say that every social program invented by governments is good or that solutions pursued in the 1960s are solutions that we should slavishly adhere to today. Surely there are too many professionals who profit from poverty and too many bureaucratic structures that are not responsive to modern problems. What we need is not a rejection of the caring, sharing society that has been the very best of what it means to be Canadian. What we need are creative responses and a positive role for government in pursuing innovative solutions to modern problems.

Survival of the fittest is a good description of the process of evolution, but surely society and the government that serves it should elevate themselves. We should not condemn some of our citizens to a life of poverty because of an accident of birth, chance or circumstance.

I noted earlier that this is a modest proposal. While it responds to the unique circumstances of the downtown east side, it is not unique in a Canadian or a world sense. The Province of Ontario Savings Office started in 1922, when the United Farmers of Ontario decided to take in public funds to lend to farmers. In 1993 the Savings Office earned $10 million for the government of Ontario. In the 1930s in Alberta, the Social Credit government went into the banking business to help rural areas of that province. The Alberta Treasury Branch is still in business and profitable.

In 1993 the Alberta Treasury Branch earned $18.2 million. There are 88 communities in Alberta where the Treasury Branch serves the banking needs of its citizens.

For years, community banks, such as the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, have been among the most successful models of development in the Third World. The South Shore Bank in Chicago has been operating with a community development mandate since 1973. The founders bought an existing bank, with deposits, loans and a branch in the South Shore region of Chicago. They have since added a real estate development subsidiary and a non-profit community development corporation for job training, development and other neighbourhood services.

[3:00]

Inspired by the South Shore model, following up on President Clinton's campaign promise to create 100 community development banks modelled on South Shore, the United States Congress passed legislation in March 1994 to create a new $387 million fund to provide grants and other aid to a network of community development banks aimed at providing banking services to inner cities in the poorest rural areas of the United States. The bill creating this fund was passed 18 to 1 in the Senate banking committee and by voice vote in the full Senate and House.

In other words, Democrat and Republican Senators and Representatives saw the need for banking services in inner cities and took action to invest government funds to meet this need.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

The ideological attitude of the Liberal opposition -- their "petty-cashbox solution" -- would be out of place even in the United States Congress, filled with the Jesse Helmses and Alfonse D'Amatos of the U.S. conservative right wing. Inspired to some extent by community banks in the United States and elsewhere in the world, the Community Financial Services Act is a modern, creative governmental response to the unique problems of the poorest neighbourhoods in British Columbia.

What are we trying to accomplish with this legislation? What is the problem we are trying to fix? We know that in the downtown east side and downtown south, the majority of residents are on income assistance. Many of these citizens are casualties of our system. They are loggers, miners and construction workers broken by years of hard work; landless aboriginal people; political refugees; people with mental illnesses or drug dependencies; and they are also families. The banks and credit unions do not compete for their

[ Page 11060 ]

business, because in the economics of banking today these clients actually cost money to serve.

I would add that the present system has substantial direct and indirect cost for government and social assistance recipients alike. British Columbia spends $3.8 million a year replacing stolen welfare cheques. Moreover, according to the estimates, 30,000 social assistance cheques a month are cashed for a fee at outlets such as Money Mart. This represents $15 million worth of cheques a month cashed at cheque-cashing agencies.

With a 3 percent charge, this means that an estimated $5 million annually of tax money, designed to be basic income assistance for the poorest people in our society, is rerouted to cheque-cashing agencies. It's no wonder that Mr. John Gregg of the Royal Bank on Hastings said in the Vancouver Sun: "I think it would be good for the downtown east side. I think there is a need."

To deal with these problems, the government had several choices. We could leave these people to their own devices -- the social Darwinist approach I talked about earlier. The status quo means more private cheque-cashing outlets over time, and it means that the violence associated with the rolling of people in the downtown east side on welfare day continues and escalates over time. Or we could subsidize a bank or credit union to service the clientele. I'm not sure members know this, but government does this in Atlin, for example.

We pay $300,000 a year in subsidy to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to maintain their bank in Atlin. This presumes we could convince an existing institution to operate in the area, and this is clearly doubtful. This solution would be better than the status quo, but it's an old solution to throw money at the problem, annually subsidizing an existing bank or credit union. Any solution that requires....

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: They're a bit owly on this today, hon. Speaker.

Any solution which requires ongoing public subsidy would not survive over time and would not make lasting change in the community. The other option would be to open a petty-cash drawer, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests. In other words, the government could open its own cheque-cashing outlet. This would do nothing, in my view, to address the problems of violent crime, it would do nothing to provide banking services, and it would only duplicate a service already offered by the private sector.

Finally, we could develop a unique institution, created with input by the people of the community -- an institution that would treat people with dignity and respect, provide a full range of banking services and over time require no ongoing government subsidy. This is the course we have chosen to follow. Through the B.C. 21 initiative, we will be investing $6 million in this institution, $5 million of which is in share capital, which meets the requirement of the Financial Institutions Commission. That $5 million cannot be spent.

Again, for members' interest, in case they're not aware, the previous government of British Columbia owned $3 million worth of share capital in the Canadian Western Bank, of which we've received not a penny in dividends and interest over time. That was in order to keep a head office in British Columbia. We as government and I as minister have not made any changes to that fact.

So there is $5 million in share capital, which is equity capital that cannot be spent and which is regulated by the Financial Institutions Commission, and $1 million in working capital and start-up funds.

In order to provide the corporation with the income it requires, the government will be providing deposit guarantees of $100,000 per deposit for all depositors, which is exactly the same amount available to depositors of credit unions. Some $12 billion in deposits today are guaranteed by the government of British Columbia. In addition, in order to assist the corporation to solicit and attract the needed deposits from pension plans, public sector plans and agencies and other entities that share the goals and objectives of the corporation, the government will provide a $2 million deposit guarantee.

The corporation, like other financial institutions, will use the money it earns in managing these large deposits to cross-subsidize other activities in the community. We believe that with this guarantee, the corporation will be able to attract sufficient deposits to be entirely self-sufficient over the coming years.

Members of the opposition have raised the issue of risk. They claim that we are risking some $100 million of tax money. I could respond to these allegations myself, but it's certainly easier to note the views of Wayne Nygren, the president and CEO of B.C. Central Credit Union, who said the following: "You have a stake of $5 million and the potential of accepting up to $100 million of deposits in a regulated environment." Mr. Nygren was asked about the risk of taxpayers losing money on the deposit guarantees, and he responded: "Almost impossible."

The corporation will be regulated under the same rigorous liquidity and capital requirements imposed on trust companies and credit unions under the Financial Institutions Act, which will assist with the limit of risk to the province of any contingent liability. In other words, right now there's a contingent liability from the province of some $12 billion in credit unions and trust companies which we assume and regulate. No one has suggested that we are somehow going to be liable for $12 billion or that it shows up on the books of the province of B.C.

This is a much more modest initiative, which adds about $100 million of guarantees to an already existing guarantee of $12 billion in British Columbia. It is regulated by the same Financial Institutions Commission, is owned by the people of British Columbia and is regulated by Treasury Board each and every day.

In conclusion, I put it to members of the opposition: is it acceptable to them that thousands of people in the community do not have access to a financial institution? I would guess that every member of the Legislature has a bank account. Many of us have mortgages, RRSPs, mutual funds and other relationships with our bank. As a Vancouver Sun reader -- and he is here today -- Lorne Krill wrote, in a response to a Vancouver Sun column on this issue: "Having possession of a basic interest-bearing account offers most Canadians a reference, along with being a safe haven for their money."

I ask members of the Legislature to imagine the position of thousands of individuals in the downtown east side who are not served by the present system of financial institutions. Imagine the insecurity this brings, in and of itself, beyond the many other difficulties the community faces. I ask members of the opposition party to rise above their ideological opposition to this sensible community-based proposal. I ask them to abandon the politics of blame and work with the community, as we have, in supporting this innovative solution.

This bill provides for much-needed financial services for residents of the communities in the downtown area of Vancouver, and it will assist in the economic renewal of the area. I am proud to ask the House to support this legislation, which has been drafted with community involvement and

[ Page 11061 ]

support and which imposes prudent fiscal responsibility on the new corporation. I now move second reading.

F. Gingell: I wanted to wait for a moment before I rose, because of that overwhelming round of support for the minister.

I see that Mr. Green is here, and I would like to join with the others in wishing him happy birthday. I hope there was nothing significant in the coincidence that we start second reading of Bill 41 on his auspicious day of May 25.

We sat and listened to one of the milder harangues of the Minister of Employment and Investment. He must have had something cool for lunch, maybe a salad, because usually when he comes in here to harangue us, he's a little stronger, with a little more conviction. But it is the same story. It really bothers me that this minister stands up and says things which he knows in his heart to be untrue.

D. Schreck: Point of order. I believe I just heard the member question the veracity of another hon. member, and I ask that those words be withdrawn.

C. Serwa: On the same point of order, it often occurs to me as I listen in this Legislature that while it is unparliamentary to call someone a liar, it seems not to be unparliamentary to have gross distortions of truth occur in this Legislature. That adds to the point of order.

Deputy Speaker: I think the member for Okanagan West, albeit not as succinctly and clearly as one would hope, nevertheless points to what is indeed a tradition and a convention in this House. Unless the member's motives are directly impugned there isn't really a point of order, it seems to me, and therefore I will simply ask the member for Delta South to continue.

F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly in no way wish to impugn the veracity of the minister. I just want to point out to him and to this House some of the things he says that I think are in error. I thank my friend from North Vancouver-Lonsdale. He'll have an awful job getting recognized in Public Accounts Committee tomorrow morning. [Laughter.]

The Liberal opposition was not opposed to rebates of the property transfer tax to first-time buyers. We were in favour of rebates and reductions in property transfer taxes for first-time buyers, as we were for all citizens of this province who qualified under the old rules of high-ratio mortgage financing.

We are not against forest renewal. We are for the renewal of the forests in this province, but we're against setting up another Crown corporation to do it. They're perfectly capable of doing it within the ministry. We're for spending taxpayers' money in a sensible manner to try to accomplish the things that are important -- not setting up more bureaucracies.

I'm surprised and a little disappointed that the Minister of Employment and Investment accused us of a lack of caring and of being selfish. I would never dream of accusing any member of this Legislature of a lack of caring, a lack of sharing or of being selfish. Anybody who takes on this responsibility and spends their time in the processes carried on here has indicated that they truly do care, that they do share and that they're not selfish. I'm really hurt and surprised that the minister would accuse us of those things.

[3:15]

I have one other matter. In the minister's opening address, he talked about remarks -- which are attributable to me, rather than to my leader -- regarding the petty-cash box. I didn't realize that this minister has so little understanding that he takes everything in a literal fashion. When one is in politics, one should really try and understand the meaning of what is being said. I can't believe that this member, with all these responsibilities, really believes I was saying that there would be a series of little cash boxes.

I was saying that you need a financial institution that allows clients to come in at very short intervals and withdraw relatively small sums of money, so that it is able to help in the budgeting process of making their monthly income last the whole month, from paycheque to paycheque. Many of us live from paycheque to paycheque, and I can understand and appreciate the help that such an arrangement would provide.

The official opposition will propose only one amendment in second reading: to send this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. We sincerely believe that this can be done quickly and efficiently. Today is May 25. Four weeks should be ample time and would take us to June 22. If the minister would agree to that before he leaves the chamber, we would assure him that when the bill comes back to this House after that process, we would do whatever is in our power to provide for speedy passage.

There would be ample time to get this matter settled prior to this session ending. We think an appropriate reference for Bill 41 to go to that committee would read something like this: "...that the committee shall search out and identify an alternative proposal designed to bring financial services to those potential clients identified in Bill 41, in a manner that will reduce the costs and eliminate the financial risk to British Columbia taxpayers."

Do we think there is a better alternative? It's important for us to find out. I in my own heart believe there truly is. I would like to see such a committee explore the opportunity of paying an incentive to an appropriate credit union that could provide all the needed services to the clientele we wish to serve. The minister in his opening address talked about the subsidy that is paid to the Bank of Commerce in Atlin; I think he said $300,000 a year. We're surely not talking about a community much larger than Atlin. Perhaps we are talking about a community that is somewhat smaller; I'm not sure of the size of that community.

Let's face facts. This bank is going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $1 million in the first year. I'm not talking about the $1 million they're going to get as working capital and start-up funds; I'm talking about it actually costing the taxpayers of British Columbia an additional $1 million. The consultant's report for alternative one -- which I believe is planned -- shows a loss of approximately $400,000. I argue with that, having specifically gone through the accounts and financial statements of some of the smaller credit unions which may be comparable. I believe that the expenses have been somewhat underestimated.

In addition to that $400,000, the taxpayers are going to put up a total of $6 million. That $6 million is going to have to be borrowed -- every penny that this government spends on anything extra has to be borrowed -- and that's going to be borrowed at somewhere between 8 and 9 percent. So roughly $1 million is available.

Can we make a deal with a credit union or a chartered bank to provide those services at a fee of less than $1 million, at an incentive of less than half a million dollars or perhaps even less than a quarter of a million dollars? There surely have to be some alternatives. Surely there has to be a different arrangement that will accomplish the intentions of this bill, which we support, in a much more effective manner.

[ Page 11062 ]

If we can make an arrangement with a credit union, what savings are to be made? Right off the bat, you're going to have much better staff utilization. You won't need a $100,000-a-year chief executive officer. You won't need a $60,000-a-year chief financial officer. You won't need a $50,000-a-year branch manager. These will all already be in place with a suitable credit union. Also, all the organizational work has been done. There are trained staff, there are forms, and the whole thing can get started in a quick and efficient manner.

When I look through the consultant's report, in no place can I find anything indicating that a firm offer was explored with any credit union or bank for either of them to provide these services with an incentive or subsidy being paid. We can understand that no bank and no credit union is going to volunteer to do it free. I understand that; we all understand that; even the minister understands it. But the discussions I have had do not indicate at all that one of those organizations won't do it with the right arrangements. I believe that to be the case.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, funding. That would be funding for a lot less than $1 million a year -- a lot, lot less.

The particular problem the minister has spoken of is clearly not restricted to the downtown east side of Vancouver. We need the services of this kind of facility in Victoria, Nanaimo, the Okanagan, Prince George, Prince Rupert, the Kootenays and Peace River; we need them everywhere. I'm sure not even this government would have the audacity to go and spend $6 million a time for each of these communities. If we get the right solution....

And I agree that there are all kinds of savings to the Ministry of Social Services to be made, and that long-term gains will come from the opportunity for these people's lives to be safer and more organized. If we can succeed here with a different arrangement, done by somebody else, surely we will have a blueprint to duplicate for the rest of the province. Surely the minister isn't planning on duplicating Bill 41, the Community Financial Services Act, throughout the rest of the province at $6 million a crack.

The other problem with so much money -- not to the government, I know, but in relative terms to people involved in this exercise -- is that if it fails, I'm afraid that it will leave a really bad taste. The whole project will be dead. It will be impossible for a renewal. It seems to me that the minister is throwing a big bet on a single throw of the dice. We're dealing with a subject that is important, and for which it is important for us to have a successful outcome.

All we need to do to improve our opportunity for a successful outcome is send this to an all-party committee for four weeks only and have them search out -- as I said earlier -- identify and report back on an alternative proposal designed to bring the financial services to those potential clients identified in Bill 41 in a manner that will reduce the costs and eliminate the financial risk to B.C. taxpayers.

In proposing the amendment that will come later from the official opposition, I am reminded of a quote from the philosopher and psychologist William James, who said: "Compared to what we ought to be, we are only half awake. We are making use of only a small part of our physical and mental resources. Stating the thing broadly, the human individual thus lives far within his limits. He possesses powers which he habitually fails to use."

[3:30]

Obviously this is a case where further examination could uncover better options. We need to approach this problem intelligently and systematically to make sure that we are all well served before we legislate a premature solution. During 1991 this government promised better ways of legislative process, better solutions to social problems and better financial responsibility for B.C. taxpayers. Now is their opportunity to prove that they meant what they promised.

J. Weisgerber: It's indeed a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 41, the Community Financial Services Act, which is designed to create a government bank on the downtown east side. I think that before getting into some of the arguments about the advantages and pitfalls that might exist with such a bank, it's worthwhile looking at the legislation itself for a moment to see what exactly it enables this new bank to do.

Indeed, it suggests that it is empowered to engage in trust businesses within the meaning of the act; that it must not expand itself outside the downtown east side, for some reason or another; that it may borrow money without limitation; and that it will indeed guarantee depositors up to $2 million per deposit, if they happen to be public sector pension plans, and up to $100,000 for any other depositor. Here we have a bank that has the capacity to attract a lot of investment, a lot of deposit, because where else could you get a guarantee on a $2 million deposit?

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says the Alberta Treasury Branches. That's rather a strange place for a B.C. public service pension to go -- but perhaps....

What we see is the establishment not of a cheque-cashing facility, as the government has tried to portray it, but of a rather large financial institution. The minister suggests that because this is a controlled and regulated financial institution the risks are minimal. Many people who invested in trust companies knew that they were regulated financial institutions, but they found, to their chagrin, that it wasn't a recipe that ensured success, and that regulated financial institutions can fail.

The difference with this institution is that should the institution fail, it's not the depositor who's at risk; it's you and I and every other taxpayer in British Columbia. That's the fundamental difference between this financial institution and any other regulated financial institution. It says that the only people who can lose in this institution are the British Columbia taxpayers; everybody else's deposits are guaranteed. That's a pretty serious consideration; in fact, it is a very serious consideration.

I don't believe that the government's claim that it is creating a bank in the downtown east side to cash cheques is the real rationale for the creation of a $100 million financial institution. I don't believe that Mr. Green and the very interested group of people would be here today if it were simply to announce the creation of a cheque-cashing facility for the downtown east side. I believe that there is a very clear plan in place to use this institution to invest in housing projects in Vancouver that other financial institutions won't touch.

If these projects were financeable, there wouldn't have been this push to create a bank that's government-controlled and government-regulated -- a bank that I believe has far greater ambitions than simply providing a place for people to cash cheques. It's not lost on me, at least, that this institution happens to be centred in this minister's constituency, surrounded by the Premier's riding or....

Interjection.

[ Page 11063 ]

J. Weisgerber: The minister corrects me: it's the Premier's riding this is in, and it's flanked by ridings represented by the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Minister of Social Services. The NDP used to be able to ignore those ridings. They used to be able to take those ridings for granted, but not after the federal election. For the first time in a long time this government realized that they were vulnerable, even in the downtown east side. And so we see....

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Yes, one of the few Liberal ridings in British Columbia, I think. One would be safe just guessing it was Reform, because they got 80 percent of them, but this was one the Liberals got.

I believe we are starting to see the pattern emerge. We start to see the government move in with a social agenda. If that's what this were all about, I would feel much happier with a government that was honest enough to come forward and say: "Here's what we're seeking to achieve." Instead, the government has maintained from day one that they are going to create a $100 million financial institution so people can cash their cheques in downtown Vancouver. That's not true; that's not a fact. This bank clearly has objectives and a rationale that has not been outlined by the minister.

I think there is a potential here for substantial losses. Regardless of the controls, there is a potential for the bank to make investments that do not have a sound financial basis as their first priority. I don't think there's much danger that this minister and government will be here long enough to have to honour the losses this bank creates. I don't think we will see the bank calling on the guarantees from government within the next 18 months or so. Beyond that, it's highly unlikely that the current government will be in a position of responsibility much longer.

So it's an opportunity for the government to deal with an issue in an area where, for the first time in its history it feels vulnerable, and it will pass responsibilities on to successive governments. Those successive governments are going to have to take responsibility for the administration of this bank.

I don't accept for one moment that regulation by the financial institutions and the Ministry of Finance is going to ensure the success of this bank or any other financial institution in this province. It takes more than simply regulation. We've seen that, and investors in this province know that.

If the government is as enthusiastic about this bill as they would have us believe, then those folks sitting in the gallery must wonder where all those enthusiastic supporters are today. We look around in a Legislature that clearly doesn't have the support of the members of government.

Deputy Speaker: Member, will you just take your seat for a moment. You know full well that our tradition and convention in this House is not to comment on the absence, or reasons for absence, of members. We all know full well that members have other duties that take them away frequently. It is not a legitimate part of debate to suggest that members are not in the House for reasons other than the nature of their work. Please take that into account, member. You know better, I'm sure.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, I'll accept your advice. I think, though, that if you would do me the favour of reviewing the Blues, you will see that I simply reported on the fact that members of this government have not demonstrated any support for this legislation. I didn't suggest that it was because of attendance in this House. But I think we now understand that that's what we were talking about in any event.

There are legitimate issues that this bill purports to deal with. Certainly the question of banking services in the downtown east side warrants attention. I am concerned, though, that if groups such as the credit unions, which are well established in Vancouver's east end, have decided not to provide that service and have moved away....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says they support the bill. If they supported the concept, they would have a branch there. The contradiction I see in this legislation is that the government says that nobody else believes they can profitably operate a bank in this community. They say that even with coaxing from the government, credit unions won't agree to provide these services, that we as a government understand better than they how to run the banking business, and that this will be a profitable venture. Nobody believes that.

Everybody understands that the underpinning of this bank is the taxpayers' guarantee on deposits in amounts that aren't seen and shouldn't be seen at other institutions -- at least in this province. I don't believe that taxpayers should be liable for obligations of up to $2 million for an unlimited number of depositors so this bank can function. There has to be a better way of dealing with the very real problems faced by downtown east side residents.

As a previous speaker pointed out, these problems are not unique to people on social assistance in the downtown east side; these problems are faced by social assistance recipients in other communities, including Dawson Creek and Nanaimo and Terrace and every other community in this province. The members want to deny that, but any of us who deal responsibly with the problems in our communities know that that's a fact.

If we had legislation in front of us that dealt with the problems around this province in a less comprehensive but more focused way, I would be far more inclined to support this legislation. For the benefit of those members who don't get out very often, there are communities other than Atlin in this province, places like Telegraph Creek and Dease Lake -- where you have to drive 150 miles to get to the bank.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: There are no banks in Telegraph Creek or Dease Lake, for the minister's benefit.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says that it's because of Cassiar. The reality is that that situation has existed for a long time. The point I'm trying to make is that there are people all around British Columbia who have problems with the banking system, and if government believes it has to address these specific problems, it would be more reasonable and more appropriate to do it in a more comprehensive way. I am not suggesting for one moment that the ever-ambitious Minister of Employment and Investment should become the new banker of British Columbia and open branches in every small town. What I'm suggesting is that there are....

[3:45]

Hon. G. Clark: What did you do about banking in rural communities? Nothing.

[ Page 11064 ]

J. Weisgerber: The minister asks: what did we do? The problem in Atlin was resolved while I was Minister of State for Nechako.

Hon. G. Clark: What about every other town?

J. Weisgerber: Well, British Columbians, whether they live in the downtown east side or Dease Lake, understand that there are challenges that they themselves have to meet. Those issues can't always be solved by government.

In conclusion, what we have here is a bank that is purported to be there to help people cash cheques but indeed has purposes far beyond that. It provides an enormous potential for loss down the road. If the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Premier are not successful, they may well be sitting on the back bench watching other governments having to make good on these guarantees.

I predict, without much fear of contradiction, that this bank will wind up costing the taxpayers of British Columbia substantial amounts of money -- far, far more than any arrangement with credit unions around the province would have cost. There is a better, less expensive, more efficient way to achieve what the minister suggests this bank is going to achieve. I'm sure that time will prove me right -- more time than the current government has.

Hon. A. Petter: I had not intended to get into this debate, but the comments that have been made by both the official opposition and the Leader of the Third Party have prompted me to make a few remarks. Frankly, I think it's sad to hear these kinds of remarks, which are clearly a sugar-coated attempt to undermine this initiative, from these two parties.

To hear the Leader of the Third Party talk of his concern about fiscal responsibility -- when his government ran up bad debts in the range of $300 million, shovelling money off the back of a truck to his friends for business loans and loan guarantees -- and then turn around and say that an initiative designed to help people in the downtown east side, who historically were ignored by his government and other governments in this province is the worst form of double standard -- in fact, another word almost creeps to mind. In some ways, I suppose we've come to expect that from the party that now calls itself Reform and once called itself Social Credit.

I think it is particularly sad to hear the response from the official opposition. The official opposition talks about alternatives and about referring the bill to committee in some future motion. I think members of the public will not be fooled. We and the members of the public know what the word "alternatives" means. The word "alternatives" means that this bill should be gutted. And "referred to committee" are code words for getting it away from the public eye so we can proceed to gut this bill.

Here we have an opposition party that does double flips if anyone from Howe Street phones up the Leader of the Official Opposition, and suddenly they voice tremendous concern about an initiative that's designed to help ordinary people.

That's what I really think is sad about this debate. We suddenly see opposition parties energized to debate an issue because we have here an initiative that's designed to help ordinary people who've traditionally been ignored by past governments and not been well served by financial institutions. Perhaps that offends their ideological purity. They would like to believe that existing banks and institutions -- which no doubt they have close relationships with -- can serve all of the needs of society.

And perhaps they're prepared to sacrifice the interests of those in the downtown east side in order to maintain that ideological purity. If that's the case, I think the people of British Columbia have reason to be ashamed of people who say they want to get elected to government to represent a public interest, but who are prepared to stand up in this Legislature and basically say: "The private interest comes first. We will stand behind our narrow ideological views and forget the interests of ordinary British Columbians."

Now, what about this claim about us getting it into committee and discussing all the alternatives? This bill is a product of an extensive consultation process with the local community. Maybe that's a community that members opposite don't believe is worthy of being taken seriously or listened to. Maybe we should shunt it off into a back room and have a committee hearing about it so that their views and those of the interests they represent can be represented in this bill, not the interests of those in the downtown east side who produced this excellent piece of legislation over the past year.

We on the government side reject that view. We believe that the people of the downtown east side, like all people of this province, are deserving of a voice and need to be listened to. The year of consultation that has culminated in this bill has produced an excellent proposal that we're quite prepared to debate out in the open, right here on the floor of the Legislature.

Rather than trying to hide it away behind closed doors, where they and their friends can do their work, I suggest they stand up and let their views be known -- not in the sugarcoated way they have here but disclosing their real agenda, which is to protect the interests of their friends and their ideology and forget about the ordinary people in British Columbia.

What makes this additionally ironic and sad is that we have had a tradition in politics that has not corresponded with ideology -- a populist tradition in this province, in this country, indeed even on this continent. Politicians do have a populist role to play in standing up for people where institutions like banks don't do the job. We have that tradition, and it's not confined to any one party. The minister, in his opening remarks, talked about the fact that governments in other provinces have acted, and those experiences have resulted in institutions that have stood the test of time.

He referred to the Province of Ontario Savings Office, established in 1922; in 1993 it earned $10 million -- a pretty successful rate, I would say. The Alberta Treasury Branch, established by a Social Credit government in the 1930s, earned $18.2 million; they serve 88 communities -- a pretty successful track record.

What is particularly sad is that if you go back through the history of this province, the party that used to fight for ordinary British Columbians on the issue of banking was the Social Credit Party. W.A.C. Bennett was a strong proponent of the view that banks could not be counted on to deliver the kinds of banking services that would meet the needs of all British Columbians.

And yet the Social Credit Party today, I suspect -- and certainly their successor, the Reform Party; and the new, reworked Social Credit party, called the Liberal Party -- have apparently abandoned that tradition in favour of a new, narrow ideology that says: forget about populism, forget about people; we have to serve a particular narrow interest first. That interest is the market, and that comes before ordinary British Columbians. Well, shame on them!

W.A.C. Bennett would stand up and give a far stronger speech than I could ever muster against these kinds of doomsdayers and naysayers, who are prepared to put a narrow ideology ahead of British Columbians. Shame on them! He understood that the banks alone could not be

[ Page 11065 ]

counted on to serve the interests of ordinary people and that government had a role to play. This isn't an issue of ideology, except to those whose ideology is so narrow and so blinded that they cannot see what even W.A.C. Bennett, other governments in this country and a moderate Democrat administration in the United States can see, and that is: there is a role for government to work with communities in developing structures that can serve the financial needs of those communities.

Only an opposition so fixated by negativity and ideology would stand against this kind of constructive proposal. This is a proposal that comes out of a community and speaks to the needs of that community. Politicians in the past, be they from the right, left or centre in this province, have been prepared to stand up and say that yes, government has a role to play under circumstances such as these. It is indeed a sad day to stand in this Legislature and see politicians try to draw ideological lines in the dirt that put the people of British Columbia on one side and them, their friends and their ideology on the other. I say all members should reject that view and support this bill.

G. Campbell: It's been quite interesting to hear from the members of the government with regard to this -- the last speaker particularly. I'm getting used to his finger-waving; unfortunately, it doesn't do anything to add to the substance of the debate.

It is possible, in fact, to care about individuals, to understand the needs that people have and to think of different ways of responding than the old ways where the government can't do something. So rather than think about it and how you can provide that service in a cost-effective way, in a way that meets the needs of individuals that live in the downtown east side and the downtown south.... And I can tell the previous minister who spoke that I have been there far more than he has.

I understand there are banks in those neighbourhoods right now. I understand that people can get to those banks, and I'm sorry that the minister thinks that the answer to not having banks work the way he'd like them to work is to create a new bank. That's the kind of nonsense that we're used to from this government.

The fact of the matter is that this initiative is not required in its present form. What the opposition believes we should do is try to actually take care of the people who need those cheque-cashing services. We should be able to provide a service, and we'll take care of them far better than the previous minister did or, indeed, than the bill will.

If you ask the ordinary British Columbian, whom this government has loaded down with additional taxes since they came in, if we should be spending $100,000 on a chief executive officer for some bank in the downtown east side, which may work and may not, they'll say no. There are banks next door that people can use if they decide to use them.

There is a service required in the downtown east side. There are services required by people across this province who receive social services and who receive income assistance from the ordinary taxpayers of British Columbia. I believe that as a government and as elected representatives, we have a responsibility to the people whose pockets we are taking tax dollars from to make sure we are spending them in the most cost-effective way.

I don't believe that this bill does that. We can have all sorts of labels put in place, and the ministers can wag their fingers and shake their heads and raise their voices, but it won't cure the problem. The fact of the matter right now is that we have an administrative structure in social services which works against those people that we're trying to help. It's an administrative structure which for a decade people have suggested we should be changing.

No government -- not the previous government and not this government -- has worked to change thatadministrative structure -- how people receive their cheques, when they receive their cheques. We give everybody all of their money all at once, and we wonder why they're having trouble managing their resources. It doesn't make any sense.

The fact of the matter is that the downtown east side of Vancouver or the downtown south of Vancouver is not the south side of Chicago. It is not the ghetto in Los Angeles. I would suggest that the government take some time to walk through those communities and see what's taking place there and see about the commitments that have been made by this government, yes, and by previous governments as well to increase the quality of life there, to improve the housing for people in those communities.

I think we should recognize that that has happened. Those communities are indeed being upgraded. The people that live in those communities are living a better quality of life today than they were ten years ago. Everyone in this House should hope that they will live in even better neighbourhoods in the years ahead.

Certainly when we look at the downtown east side today, and the downtown south which the minister referred to, I can tell you there are going to be major population changes taking place. There are going to be many, many banks available there -- traditional banks that take cheques, that take deposits. The point has been made -- and I agree with this; I understand that this is true -- that many of the traditional banks don't want to go in and deal with a specific clientele. So the issue for us is how you take care of those individuals that indeed do need our assistance.

I don't happen to believe that this bill meets that requirement. I am not willing accept the government's proposition that there's only one way to do this, and that's the way they've decided they're going to do it.

It is important to note that we have a number of communities that we have to represent in this House. One is the taxpayers of B.C., and the other is the people receiving our services. Our obligation is to try to make sure that we provide those services in the most cost-effective way possible.

The opposition is going to put forward an amendment to this motion, and the amendment is simply that the motion for second reading of Bill 41 be amended by deleting all of the words after that and substituting therefor the following: "...Bill 41 not be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services."

[4:00]

This is not an effort to kill it, and I'm sorry that the members opposite believe that that's the case. We certainly will move.... We understand that this a time-sensitive issue for the people involved. We would be perfectly glad to do this within four weeks. That would be, by any calendars that we have been presented with by the government, before the House adjourns. We would be glad to undertake that the bill be reviewed in one day and would do everything that we can as the official opposition to ensure that that takes place.

We believe that the service is needed. We believe that it can be provided in a far more cost-effective and sensitive way to the people in that community who need it than by creating yet another Crown corporation, yet another bureaucracy with highly paid staff and yet another series of overheads which do not meet the needs of the people it is

[ Page 11066 ]

supposed to serve. We believe that we can do this better. We would like to work with the government to try and make sure that the people on the downtown east side -- those whom they have explicitly identified and focused on -- get the services that are required, and that we can do it in a time which is sensitive to those people and to the calendar of this House. I therefore move that amendment and look forward to the government's support.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments. Before recognizing the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, I would just remind all members that, yes, the amendment is in order. It is what is referred to as a reasoned amendment, and I would refer them further to Erskine May, twentieth edition, page 531, if they have any questions about that.

On the amendment.

D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I thank you in particular for those clarifications with respect to the amendment just introduced by the Leader of the Opposition.

Those who have followed this House since we came here following the election in the fall of 1991 will have noticed a bit of a change from this session relative to previous sessions. In earlier sessions it was the standard practice of the opposition to introduce stalling amendments -- the three standard amendments that are in order during second reading -- in numerous pieces of legislation, dragging debate out for weeks on matters on which a thoroughly canvassed extensive debate could have been held in a matter of a day. We have not seen that in this sitting until today.

We have to ask what is special about Bill 41 and providing banking services to poor people that would warrant the opposition reverting to its old ways of attempting to stall. What nerve has been struck on those opposition benches that they would vote against the forest code, against the renewal of our environment through the BC Forest Renewal Act and against every progressive piece of legislation to benefit people that has been introduced into this House -- but not do so in such a way as to go back to their old dithering and stalling techniques? Suddenly, on Bill 41, we see a reversion to their tactics of old.

There is something here that says something about who the government is and who the opposition is.

We might characterize much of the opposition's naysaying as just a tendency to oppose, which is not based on how good a particular motion of the government may be but rather on who says it. That is to say that very sensible legislation which receives widespread public support is still opposed by the opposition not because of it containing any fundamental flaw but because it's brought forward by a New Democratic government.

In contrast to that form of naysaying, other measures come before this House where not only does the position of the opposition indicate that they oppose who brings good news but it actually brings out differences between the New Democrat government and that Liberal official opposition. I suggest that this change to the stalling tactics of old and the debate that has erupted this afternoon illustrate such a fundamental difference between the New Democrats and that Liberal opposition. That difference is illustrated by a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems faced by poor people.

Earlier this year we heard the opposition critic for the Attorney General making wild claims about welfare fraud, and we heard speculation on different ways of dealing with some of those problems -- which are real problems, although not to the extent exaggerated by that official opposition. One of the suggestions made at that time was: can't we simply deal with the problem of stolen cheques or other irregularities by having direct transfers to welfare recipients' bank accounts?

A lot of people support that type of idea, and there may be cases where it makes very good sense, save for one small problem: most poor people don't have bank accounts. Most poor people are not really welcomed as regular clients in a bank or credit union. There are a great deal of problems in many banks or credit unions on welfare cheque issue day. Some banks simply refuse to serve that clientele at all; a couple will set up a special line where they can stand for three or four blocks.

We have to ask: what's the difference between the downtown east side and that same problem as it may exist in Trail, Kamloops or Campbell River? Part of that problem is that while poor people suffer problems in whatever community they live, a very substantial portion of the downtown east side community is poor, and no local financial services in the form of a bank or credit union exist to serve the residents of that community. The financial services that do exist to serve the downtown east side exist to serve the commercial interests that may thrive on the edges of that community.

I am given particular reason to worry when I hear the Leader of the Official Opposition say: "Don't worry about that problem, because the demographic changes are going to occur such that financial institutions will want to move in." Are we hearing the Leader of the Official Opposition offer a vision, saying that his form of urban renewal will drive those people out of their community? What I hear from the lips of the Leader of the Official Opposition is that notwithstanding the history we have seen for decades in this province -- a half century or more -- of the downtown east side being the core poor area of our province, the vision of the....

C. Serwa: What have you done about it?

D. Schreck: One of the few remaining Socreds is asking what we have done about that, and I'll get to that in a moment -- in the case of what a New Democrat government did 20 years ago, when I was chief executive officer for all of the social services in Vancouver dealing specifically with this problem, what happened over the intervening 20 years, and what we are doing today. I will talk about that history, specifically the differences that existed for that 17 years of Social Credit that destroyed some of the accomplishments made 20 years ago, and the alternatives offered by that fragmented opposition.

Before we go over that discredited alternative by two remaining Social Credit members, let's talk about the official opposition, because it's very rare in this Legislature that we actually hear the Leader of the Official Opposition stand up and speak on a bill. What we usually hear is some sort of mud-slinging in question period or a personal attack, and when we actually had the opportunity before us to compare an attempt at a position -- although that attempt was nothing more than a referral and stalling motion -- we did hear a few comments during the course of that debate.

One of those comments was the prediction by the Leader of the Official Opposition that there would be significant demographic changes in the downtown east side, thereby reversing the last 50 to 100 years of the history of the city of Vancouver, so that commercial banks and credit unions would actually find a market and want to serve that community. I say that the reason there is a need for a

[ Page 11067 ]

community bank in the downtown east side is the failure of the marketplace to serve the residents there. Banks and credit unions traditionally have not wanted to serve that clientele.

A few moments ago one of the two remaining Socreds asked what I have done about that. I can tell you what I did personally as chief executive officer of the Vancouver Resources Board in the mid-seventies. The government of the day introduced a notion of community control.

As part of that, the Vancouver Resources Board said to the Royal Bank: "If you want to handle the$100-million-a-year welfare account, you will have to accept welfare recipients in each of your branches in Vancouver and cash their cheques." It was not until that condition was put on the banking account for the welfare cheques in Vancouver that any welfare recipients were able to receive even the decency ofcheque-cashing services, let alone services in branches.

No sooner was that agreement introduced than it became very problematic for the bank, and attempt after attempt was made to vary the conditions that went with the contract between the bank and the Vancouver Resources Board. Special cheque-cashing services were offered; the bank even offered to go into the main welfare office on Homer Street and staff a cheque-cashing function next to the cheque-issuing function -- none of which was satisfactory or dealt with the question of preserving dignity.

It is very difficult for people who have never been poor or worked with the poor to understand the humiliation of being issued a UIC cheque or a welfare cheque and not being able to find a place to cash it, because no one wants to deal with you. The attempt 20 years ago dealt with that problem through the Royal Bank.

After Social Credit -- with Bill Vander Zalm as Minister of Social Services; it was called Human Resources at that time -- eliminated the Vancouver Resources Board, a deal was cut to release the Royal Bank from its obligation to cash welfare cheques at its branches throughout Vancouver. To the credit of the Royal Bank, it turned around and opened a unique experiment in its community branch in the downtown east side. The Royal Bank deserves full credit for that commitment to the community, and I think that in many ways it compensated for its removal of the cheque-cashing services that existed throughout the mid-seventies under the contract with the Vancouver Resources Board.

When that remaining Social Credit member asks what I have done, I point to the fact that my political party has traditionally understood this problem and acted to do something about it. When that commitment was lost through a change of government, and eventually the measure to adjust to the change with the loss of the Royal Bank contract for the welfare cheques to other banking services that was put in, they closed the community branch as well.

So for the last decade we have once again dealt with a situation in the downtown east side where poor people are not able to receive the financial services that give one a sense of self-respect and dignity. This is something more than being ripped off for 3 percent, 5 percent or 10 percent for the privilege of having your welfare cheque cashed. This is part of the character-building exercise that gives you a letter of reference from a bank saying, "No, you are not overdrawn," or "Yes, you have taken out a small loan, and you have been able to repay it," which is the type of service that the rest of us take for granted and is simply not available in that community.

The marketplace's response to that community has been cheque-cashing operations. As the minister pointed out in his opening remarks, cheque-cashing operations essentially drain an estimated $5 million a year from money that should be going to help poor people. It goes into a cheque-cashing service. There is a more constructive way to deal with this problem.

In this particular niche, the unique community of the downtown east side, which is different than any other community, notwithstanding the community-wrecking projections of the Leader of the Opposition, is in all likelihood going to retain its very unique character. This legislation provides the kinds of financial services to that community that every member of this House and the majority of our constituents take for granted.

[4:15]

What alternative is offered by the official opposition? The alternative they put forward is: "We recognize there's a problem there" -- at least there's a problem until we can drive the people out through this vague demographic change that the Leader of the Opposition talks about -- "but there might be a more efficient way of doing it." The Leader of the Opposition doesn't say what he means by a more efficient way. He criticizes that a bank would have to have some management staff. That's probably true: a bank would have to have some staff to make it work.

But if we look to the Finance critic for the official opposition, we find the suggestion of an alternative they might offer. Whatalternative is that? It is that we might be able to offer a bribe -- an incentive, I guess you would call it -- to traditional financial institutions to service a market they have abandoned and refused to serve.

Let me tell you that 20 years ago when we offered a club in the form of an enforceable contract on $100 million worth of business per year, that was inadequate to get existing financial institutions to service that market. A hard fact of life is that a lot of very nice business clients in those other financial institutions do not want to stand shoulder to shoulder with people cashing their cheques on welfare cheque day.

No matter what bribe the official opposition may want to offer to traditional financial institutions, they are not going to meet that need, and they are not going to provide the dignity and services that the rest of us take for granted. We need a special financial institution that will serve the needs of that community.

The Leader of the Third Party -- the Reformers are now in the House -- said: "That may be true, but you're risking taxpayers' money. If you have $100 million on deposit, only the taxpayers could possibly lose." That is nothing but nonsense. The fact is that the services are going to be provided to the many small accounts. The bank has to earn a rate of return on its other portfolio of business that is sufficient to cover and cross-subsidize that additional expense. How can it do that?

It can only do that by making very conservative and prudent investments, guaranteeing the security of the investors both through the government guarantee and through the prudence of its own actions with deposits in excess of $2 million. It must earn that return and eke out that narrow margin so as to provide the cross-subsidy and serve the residents of that community.

I say that the alternatives we have before us really indicate nothing more than a philosophical difference. We have many different opposition parties here, but it shows us that not one of them has the first bit of understanding about what it means to be poor and to be refused a bank account and what it takes to run a financial institution and provide the cross-subsidy I'm talking about.

[S. O'Neill in the chair.]

With this bill, the opposition members are not being the traditional naysayers, opposing a good government action just because it is a New Democrat government that is helping

[ Page 11068 ]

the people of British Columbia. On this occasion, the Leader of the Opposition was actually standing up and showing us a philosophical difference. It's opposition to a good government move because they do not understand a significant portion of the people of this province. So it is that we see who speaks for whom. I am happy to be part of a government and political party that represents broad cross-sections of British Columbians. It doesn't single out people in the downtown east side or poor people and say: "We will get rid of you through demographic change. Your needs don't count.

If you have to be looked after, we may bribe our friends." I'm proud to be part of a political movement and a government that says that everybody deserves a certain base level of dignity, support and respect. For the people in the downtown east side, that means having access to the same types of financial institutions and banking services that you and I take for granted. That is why this stalling motion should be rejected and this bill should be supported.

J. Pullinger: I would like to ask leave of the House to make a quick introduction, as the people I'm going to introduce are leaving.

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure to welcome, on behalf of the Speaker of the Legislature, 55 grade 6 students from Toutle Lake School in Washington, who are here with their teacher Mr. Frizzell and some adults. I'm very pleased that they're here today. They're watching what is probably one of the more interesting debates. I'd like my colleagues and friends to help me welcome them today.

H. Lali: I would also like to request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Lali: Visiting us in the precincts are 25 grades 6 and 7 students from Cache Creek Elementary School, along with their teacher Mr. Lawrence Northeast and several adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I rise to enter into debate on the Community Financial Services Act, Bill 41. I speak directly to the amendment, which has just been put forward, to refer this legislation to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services.

The intention of the leader, when he put that forward, was to suggest that there are other ways to achieve this goal. Hon. Speaker, you would see this official opposition stand and applaud if this community banking initiative were being carried forward separate and distinct from yet another Crown corporation.

This is deceitful packaging. We saw this government bring forward skills training and fair wages. We're seeing community banking coupled with a Crown corporation. Why is that a necessity? We had the Minister of Forests stand up and suggest that the community asked for this. That's absolutely untrue. The community asked for the service; the community did not ask for the additional costs that are tied to a Crown corporation. They did not ask for a Crown corporation to deliver community banking services in their community. That is the issue that we're in debate on today.

We saw the Minister of Employment and Investment stand up and talk about partnering with other institutions being old thinking somehow. Why? This is the very same government that talks about business and education partnerships as being the way of the future. Who was telling the truth? Why is a Crown corporation considered the most efficient, humane vehicle to deliver this service? That has not been the experience of British Columbia taxpayers. They don't look at Crown corporations and say: "What an efficient vehicle; what a humane way to receive a service." That's not their impression or belief.

I speak honestly to the notion that this government, in my opinion, has been a notoriously bad manager. If we're going to give them another vehicle to withstand public scrutiny, to stand back from where the public is prepared to look at the issues and put the dollars beyond scrutiny from this Legislature, that's a concern.

I believe, and every single person in this Legislature believes, that that service must be provided. We are taking issue with the service delivery model. We do not see a Crown corporation as a legitimate service delivery model for this initiative. The hon. member for Delta South was amazed when the Minister of Employment and Investment stood up and talked about this initiative being regulated by government at the same time as it was owned by government. That certainly doesn't reassure the taxpayer, in my view. I can't imagine anyone could stand up and defend that position. This community service is essential.

That is the message that the Liberal opposition will stand for today: it is an essential community service. What is under debate today is how it is delivered.

For the hon. member from North Vancouver-Lonsdale to stand up and suggest that somehow he has a monopoly on understanding what it is to be poor is absolutely removed from the issue, which is how the service is delivered. The discussion for today is whether or not this House stands and supports another Crown corporation to deliver a community banking initiative. That is not where the official opposition is on this issue.

We saw the Minister of Forests talk about ordinary British Columbians. Well, ordinary British Columbians are taxpayers. They are individuals in this province who have contributions to make and have some expectations about the services they receive. Once again, I will remind this House that the community did not ask for a Crown corporation, even though the Minister of Forests would stand and tell us repeatedly that that is indeed what they asked for. They asked for the service; they did not ask for this service delivery model.

Why a Crown corporation? I have not had that question answered for me today. Why not a community bank? Why not a credit union? Most of us already know and have stood in this House over the last number of years and talked about the user-friendly approach that credit unions have taken with their clientele. That structure exists; that is not going to cost the taxpayer X amount of dollars. Why not look at the services that are currently in place? Why do we have this Minister of Employment and Investment stand up and suggest that using a credit union is somehow old thinking?

This is the same government that talks about partnering agencies and partnering service delivery and about that somehow being the way of the future.

We have the same concerns about Crown corporations that we have discussed in this House in connection with a number of ministries. We talk about forest renewal through a Crown corporation. What indeed is the job of the Ministry of Forests? We talk about road construction through B.C. 21. What is indeed the job of the Ministry of Transportation? We see duplication around these issues, and we are concerned that we are going to create yet another Crown corporation.

[ Page 11069 ]

I think the comments raised on this side of the House about providing these services in other parts of this province are valid. It is not just the downtown east side that has an issue. If this is an essential service for British Columbians, where that service is available should not be geographically determined. That's a legitimate issue, and, again, I have not seen any member of this government stand up and recognize the legitimacy of that concern, which needs to be considered. If this government were prepared to look at a broader infrastructure, that question could probably be answered.

If this government were truly concerned about accountability, they would know that this is not the way to achieve it. Taxpayers in this province are not reassured by the creation of yet another Crown corporation. They do not see that that structure is scrutinized. Frankly, it's created because scrutiny is removed from the floor of the Legislature. Let's be clear about that; that is exactly the reason we have Crown corporations in this province.

Certainly I take issue with the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who has suggested that the service would be more efficient if it were delivered through a Crown corporation and would indeed be more humane. On what basis he reached that conclusion I have no idea, but I cannot suggest that that is in any way a factual conclusion to have reached.

Are there other options? Yes indeed, there are. The reason for this amendment today is to ask members in this House to look at other options. Selling yet another Crown corporation -- asking the taxpayers in this province to pay for yet another Crown corporation -- is not a useful exercise. This service is essential. Members of the Liberal opposition would like to see that service provided, and will stand and applaud if it is provided separate and distinct from a Crown corporation.

If we're talking about an emphasis, if we're talking about focusing on the individual, the Crown corporation is not the way to proceed. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale talked about, the humanity of Crown corporations. I don't think that the individuals in this province who received a rate hike through B.C. Hydro felt particularly pleased about the humanity of that corporation, which was spending their tax dollars to celebrate rate hikes.

That's not the kind of humanity that this House should be particularly known for, and it's not something that this government should in fact be proud of. Yet when they put forward another Crown corporation, we can only assume that that is the case. The track record of Crown corporations has not been one of incredible fineness in this province.

[4:30]

The Liberal opposition and I are asking today for this government to choose another method: cancel the notion of a Crown corporation and put the dollars where they will do the most good, which is not in a Crown corporation.

A. Warnke: I just have a few comments -- because it's possible that I still want to listen to a good part of the debate and make comments on the main bill -- on the amendment that has been put forward by our side and on some of the responses to that amendment. So I'll just take a few moments here.

I found it very interesting that one of the responses was by the Minister of Forests, who said that essentially what we've seen in the past is a bunch of shovelling money to friends. I want to sort of mention that if that is the case, then I'm assuming that the government, in putting forward this particular bill, Bill 41, will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that when this new community bank is established, the people who are appointed to the board and who are appointed to run the community bank will not be friends of the New Democratic Party. It's almost a question that I'm assuming....

Interjection.

A. Warnke: I'm sorry, I didn't catch the response from one member across there. I'm surprised that there's that kind of response. But the Minister of Forests made it very clear that this is not an institution that will shovel money to friends. I will be very interested when the appointments are finally made. We will see, I suspect, given what the Minister of Forests has said, that those who are appointed to run this community bank will not be friends of the NDP.

On the other hand, I would like to see from the New Democratic Party and from those who favour this particular bill, if a friend of the NDP is appointed to this board, if members....

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Oh, there will be plenty left, I'm sure.

If members will be appointed to run the community bank, if they are indeed friends of the NDP, then what commitment and promise will the members who support this legislation put forward in order that they would resign as a government? It would be nice to have that commitment from the other side -- to show leadership and show that they are not going to shovel money to friends and insiders, as it was alleged that previous administrations had done. If this government is not going to use this....

Interjections.

A. Warnke: It's interesting; there's a response. I was going to be very quiet for a few minutes and just follow something through very silently. I was just putting forward the question; I was just making a minor point.

From the statement made by the Minister of Forests, I would have assumed that this was not an institution established to shovel money to friends and insiders. If that's the case, why is there such a response? It's very puzzling. From what the Minister of Forests was saying, I am assuming that this community bank will not be set up to provide for friends and insiders. It's really a question.

If that is genuinely the case from the government side, then it would be really nice to have them put their money where their mouths are, so to speak, and say that if in fact the community bank is set up and there's a bunch of friends and insiders on it, they would resign as government. It would seem very logical, given what the Minister of Forests has said.

We are talking about the amendment, and some of the main things I want to talk about I may state later. In responding to the amendment I also noted a reference that implied that W.A.C. Bennett was a socialist. I believe it was the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale who made such a claim. I would suggest that that member ask Mr. Bill Bennett Jr. whether W.A.C. Bennett was a socialist. We'll see what kind of an answer will be given; I would be most interested in that answer.

In putting forward this amendment, to suggest that this is based on some sort of ideological purity, I believe the word was.... Given the reference to Reagan, Thatcher and a lot of other strange people, I assume that the ideological purity is somehow based on the most extreme right wing of the political perspective. I would suggest that when we talk about ideological purity being the basis of public policy, it

[ Page 11070 ]

would be most instructive for government members to wake up some morning, look at themselves in the mirror and see whether they are void of ideological purity. I suspect that ideological purity may be the driving force behind this bill -- that is, this particular bill at its best. At its worst, this bill could also be nothing more than a means for re-election of members in Vancouver, Vancouver East, Vancouver Centre and Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. It's possible. I would hope not, but, doggone it, in the last analysis I've just got this funny gut feeling that this is the heart of what is being proposed here.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to make a few statements on this bill. I think -- and I'm probably as guilty of it as everybody else -- that sometimes the rhetoric gets ahead of the policy.

First of all, we should commend the minister to some extent for grabbing hold of an issue and trying to achieve something, for trying to come to an end and deal with the problem we all realize exists, and for trying to provide some sort of relief to the people affected and a level of service that we all -- or many people, the majority of the province -- receive at regular institutions. The minister has tried to alleviate a problem and respond to a need. He deserves credit for that.

This has obviously been a pet project of his -- and I don't necessarily mean that in a negative way -- that he feels quite attached to. He obviously took it with him from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I notice that it's the only bill he's done that to so far, so I assume that it's important to him and that this is a problem he feels strongly about -- as do members on this side of the House.

We have to look carefully at what the debate is here today. The debate isn't whether there's a need or whether the need needs to be dealt with or addressed. We all agree. I don't think any speaker who has spoken hasn't said that there's a need to be addressed and that people in the downtown east side and south of Vancouver need to have access to some form of banking institution, where, as the Premier said in the corridors of this House, they can cash a cheque, put their money in a safe place, get that money out when they need it and know it's secure.

There are reasons for that such as robbery and assaults, which the Premier used in defending this legislation. Those are all legitimate reasons. I don't think anybody here disagrees with that.

The problem is not with the fact that the problem needs to be addressed but with the way in which the minister is trying to address that. That's where we part and where we disagree. This minister, despite the credit I give him, has become known as the minister of big projects, big ideas and, quite frankly, big costs. The fact is that a lot of the things he does cost the taxpayers an awful lot of money. Now he thinks it's going to pay off in the long term. We don't necessarily believe that. That's where we diverge, and I know that's where the member for Delta South and the minister diverge on a great many issues.

We heard the Minister of Forests say that somehow his government is on the side of ordinary British Columbians and the Liberal opposition is opposed to ordinary British Columbians. The last time I checked, the ordinary British Columbians were the taxpayers of British Columbia. Everybody in this province pays taxes in one form or another. It's our duty to ensure that those taxes are expended wisely and that they're not done for ideological reasons but rather for the most practical application of those funds. That's what we're trying to deal with here today.

The motion suggested by the member for Delta South and then moved by the Leader of the Opposition is to refer this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, to examine it very speedily within a four-week mandate and get back to the House to report with a decision on how these problems can best be addressed. The opposition would be willing to have that bill pass in one day; we would go out of our way to ensure that the bill pass before this Legislature rose. I'm sure most members of the House would be willing to do the same thing. We're not trying to delay the bill for any undue time period.

I'm sure one month isn't going to make a huge difference to the application of our dealing with the problem.

But it would give us a chance to look at alternatives. A number of alternatives have been itemized by members of the opposition, and indeed the members of the government have put forward little tidbits in debate. That certainly requires some looking into and some examination. I don't think that that's something we should be afraid of; we should be looking at those options.

The Minister of Forests and other members of the New Democrat caucus have stated that somehow the Liberal opposition is fighting this