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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 3, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 14

[ Page 5729 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Hagen: It's a great pleasure for me, on behalf of the members of the assembly, to welcome His Excellency Mr. Tajeddine Baddou, the Ambassador for Morocco, and his wife Mrs. Marie Baddou. Welcome to our assembly this afternoon.

G. Janssen: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House Peter Jack, Rob Fenton and other members of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists, who were so kind as to take everybody on a ride today. I ask everyone to make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: One hundred years ago this month this House passed

an act authorizing the government to construct the parliament buildings. On this occasion I think it fitting that we recognize the contribution of the employees of the B.C. Buildings Corporation who carried out the renovations of the building and who, on a day-to-day basis, are responsible for its upkeep, which I'm sure you will all agree is splendid. In the gallery today is one of those employees, Mr. Doug Pletsch, who has served as the building manager of the parliament buildings for eight years. Doug is leaving this position to accept a promotion within the corporation. Would members please join me in thanking him for his assistance over the years and in wishing him well in his new job.

Hon. E. Cull: In the Legislature today are about 30 students from Glenlyon-Norfolk school in my riding, along with their teacher Mr. Bowers. I would like members of the House to make them very welcome.

Ministerial Statement

PREMIER'S ASIAN TRADE MISSION

Hon. M. Harcourt: Niyo, which is good day, from our friends in Hong Kong and China. Ohayo gozaimasu. Konnichi-wa from Japan.

I think it's important to realize that our future indeed is Pacific based. I therefore rise, not just as the Premier but as the minister responsible for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, to further inform the House, as some members have just requested, of the progress made by B.C.'s trade mission into the Asia-Pacific. A number of our province's business, labour and academic leaders accompanied our delegation. I wish to especially thank Dr. David Strangway, president of the University of British Columbia, for his contribution throughout the trade mission.

As all members of this House will know, and as I said earlier, countries of the Asia-Pacific region are experiencing growth and development levels unparalleled anywhere in the world. For British Columbia, this dynamism is essential to our economic growth. The Asia-Pacific is now British Columbia's second-largest export market for our products and services. My discussions in that market reinforced my own belief that there is nothing but further opportunities for B.C. products, talents and technology in that region.

In Japan and Korea, B.C. has established markets, especially for our resource sector. The challenge is to maintain those markets, while facing increased competition, and at the same time, move to more value-added opportunities. In China the challenge is in finding practical ways of conducting business in a country that is adopting more of an open-market economy.

Our trade mission started in B.C.'s most important market in the region, Japan. While members have read about a recession happening in that country, I can assure the House that the Japanese are again poised for another period of sustained growth. But that economic growth has a new focus: quality of life for workers. That is where our province can take excellent advantage of what we do well.

Japanese companies, such as Mitsui and Mitsubishi, told me of the demand for better living conditions, starting with a modern home. This is one area where B.C. excels beyond any other in Canada and the world. B.C.'s forest products for construction and interior decoration are among the first choice for potential homebuyers. While I was in Tokyo, I helped open a good-living show that focused on this new demand for a better quality of life.

One of the best exhibits there was a display of building materials -- a full floor-to-ceiling construction with cabinets, closets, window and door frames all made with B.C. lumber. This was a display put together in cooperation with the manufacturers in our province and B.C. trade officials. They were all made with B.C. lumber and produced in British Columbia. That week, 500,000 people came through that exhibit. B.C. companies such as Primex, Merit Kitchens and Panabode, who accompanied me, understood the potential and are moving very quickly into that growing market.

I'm proud that this government is encouraging plants in B.C. that build complete homes from floors to ceilings, with all the accessories manufactured here in British Columbia and then shipped to Japan and delivered within a few weeks.

As part of a new interest in B.C. tourism and leisure activities, I was able to sign an agreement with Nippon Cable that permits a long-term lease of the Tod Mountain area near Kamloops. Work on a new ski lift will begin this fall. I understand that the cold ride up in the old chair that takes 22 minutes will be replaced with a new quad-chair with a cover that will take seven minutes. There will also be work on new ski runs to be ready for this winter. Over time the plans are for a major recreation development with housing, a village centre and a golf course -- a project that will, I'm sure, be welcomed in the Kamloops area.

But Japan is much more than Tokyo, and the mission spent two days in the Kansai area in Osaka, a city that feels much the same way about Tokyo as Vancouver does about Toronto. In the Kansai area B.C. hosted a business forum where over 500 companies turned out, the largest business forum ever held in that city.

[ Page 5730 ]

The B.C. government opened a new trade office in Osaka, a market of roughly 60 million people. With the new routes that are coming on line when Osaka's airport opens in July of 1994, there will be many direct flights coming to Vancouver in the next year.

While in Japan I stressed with representatives of the Japanese government that B.C. and Canada do not want to see sector-by-sector quotas for imports negotiated between the United States and Japan.

[2:15]

I also questioned the 8 percent tariff on B.C.'s spruce, pine and fir forest products, and stressed our view that this is an unfair tariff that precludes more sales into the market. Our ability to supply more forest products to Japan would be enhanced by reducing and, as I suggested, eliminating this tariff.

From Japan, the trade mission moved on to Beijing, where I met with the new vice-premier, Zhu Rong ji, and many other senior officials. As members of this House are aware, in certain regions of the country, market economies are taking over, and in Guangdong province the annual growth rate is running at 14 percent per year.

The amount of activity has increased dramatically. There are something like 25,000 new enterprises being created. Hong Kong has moved 40 percent of its manufacturing into this area. Three million new jobs have been created in just the last ten years. That is the best place for Canadian companies to focus at the moment. B.C. Hydro will be exploring opportunities there for its first foray into China.

While I was in Guangzhou I signed a memorandum of understanding with Governor Zhu, who was the mayor of Guangzhou when I created the twinning between Vancouver and Guangzhou.

Guangdong, a province of 63 million people, makes many of the major decisions for approximately 200 million people in the southern part of China. The purpose of the memorandum of understanding was to find practical ways for British Columbia to cooperate with Guangdong in areas that our companies should be most able to take advantage of: transportation infrastructure, telecommunications, hydroelectricity and the Power Smart program to conserve energy, which is a major potential throughout China.

In China, I was accompanied by several Chinese-Canadian business people from Vancouver, led by Bill Yee and Mr. Johnny Chee, business leaders with expertise in conducting business in China. I can assure the House that another advantage that B.C. has with China is the strong links with our significant Chinese-Canadian community. The belief that China will become the next economic superpower is evident in all of Asia. We in Canada must take advantage of the opportunities, while we continue to press China to live up to its responsibilities on human rights issues.

Nowhere are the effects of China's growing economic clout felt more than in Hong Kong. In discussions with Hong Kong leaders, such as K.S. Li, I underlined that B.C. expertise could work in joint ventures with Hong Kong's massive financial and entrepreneurial resources on some of the new development projects for China. Business leaders with whom I spoke reaffirmed their general concern, though, with the state of Canada's national and provincial deficits.

They acknowledged that the British Columbia government had made significant progress in reducing its deficit, which is down some 35 percent from the $2.4 billion we inherited two years ago, including a 25 percent cut this year to $1.5 billion. To show the confidence that people have in British Columbia and in Vancouver, while I was in Hong Kong I finalized an agreement to have two major shipping companies, including Valles Shipping, led by David Koo, locate offices in the International Marine Centre in Vancouver. We believe that other Hong Kong shipping companies will follow in the near future.

Lastly, the trade mission visited the Republic of Korea, B.C.'s second major export destination in Asia. In Korea we were accompanied by Capt. Norman Stark of the Vancouver Port Corporation. Most of our exports to Korea are raw materials, especially coal. Our meetings stressed our government's commitment to ensuring stability of supply. We also encouraged the major Korean shipping lines to add Vancouver as a regular port of call. A major case study, prepared by this government, was also presented to Samsung Data Systems on the advantage of locating their planned research facility in the Vancouver area.

Daewoo Corp. has shown interest in the prospect of shipping liquefied natural gas from the Pacific region to Asia, from the Peace region right across the north, out of ports on the northwest and into Asia. The government has committed to having a feasibility study on such a project completed as quickly as possible.

Of the many business leaders who were with us in Seoul, I would especially like to thank Steve Seo, president of Vancouver's Korean-Canadian Cultural Association, and Mr. Peter Choi, the owner of a seafood product company, who was also involved in establishing the Korean centre at the University of British Columbia. Their accompanying me to Korea was a very valuable contribution. Dr. Strangway, Mr. Choi and I met with the Korea Foundation, who are cost-sharing that centre along with B.C. business leaders. This centre will add immeasurably to the cross-cultural understanding between our friends in Korea and our citizens here in British Columbia.

Over and over again, people told me of their respect for and their thoughts about British Columbia. We're well thought of in Asia. The efforts of our province's leadership and this government to promote B.C. as the gateway to North America are appreciated and understood. The lower mainland's gateway role is obvious, but in fact increased trade and investment can do even more for the regions -- the Thompson Valley, the Peace, the Cariboo, the north. Throughout this mission, Asians had a clear understanding that British Columbia has the brightest future in Canada.

There's much work for us all to do to increase our trade and investment, but we should also be encouraged that we are more than welcome to increase our ties across the Pacific.

J. Dalton: On behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition, I would like to first say

arigato ,

[ Page 5731 ]

Premier-san, which essentially means welcome back. I'm not so sure that all the people of this province are entirely happy that the Premier even left on that trade mission. However, we do appreciate the travelogue, and I think we can say that we're looking forward to the slide show that will no doubt follow it.

I was particularly interested in the comment the Premier made about the B.C. deficit when he was in Hong Kong. He seemed to be pleased to be able to report to the business people of Hong Kong that the deficit is being reduced. But the rallies and protests that the Premier missed while he was away did not reflect that same enthusiasm. However, in the euphoria of the day of the Premier's return, we must not be too critical.

It is certainly of note to the opposition, and hopefully to all the business people of British Columbia, that the Premier has assured us that this trade mission is going to prove successful and pay dividends. I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that the opposition will be watching intently to see if those dividends are indeed returned.

I also hope that the Premier was truthful to the people he met on the trade mission about some of the budgetary problems, tax increases and things of that nature that we have experienced -- not to mention last year's corporation capital tax and the increase in the corporation capital tax in this year's budget. I trust that the Premier was up front with all the people he met, so if they come to British Columbia, they will not be deceived in any way or have false expectations about doing business in this province.

Again, I wish to welcome the Premier back. We're looking forward to his continual attention to the difficulties and problems in this province, rather than being so concerned about flying off to other parts of the world to advance causes. Quite frankly, I think there are far more important things to be done in this province, rather than elsewhere.

J. Weisgerber: I want to join in welcoming the Premier back to British Columbia. It's with some hesitation about breaking the euphoric bubble that the previous member mentioned, but the Premier left out a few things in his report about his trip to Asia. He didn't tell us about the concern in Asia over this government's anti-business stance and the recognition of it.

He didn't tell us that those same people he met with 18 months ago and promised no new taxes were a little skeptical this time, having seen two budgets tabled by the same Premier, each with a billion-dollar increase in taxes in them -- the first of which had the much-hated corporation capital tax. And we know that the Premier spent a good deal of his time in Asia trying to distance himself personally from that tax, suggesting that somehow somebody else had done it, and he really doesn't like that kind of taxation.

I'm sure also the Premier had some difficulty dealing with a promise that he had made on his last trip to those same potential investors that there would be no changes to labour legislation -- particularly when he came back last time and went almost directly from his airplane to the B.C. Fed convention and promised them that he would make major changes to labour legislation.

We know which of those promises he kept. So I think it should be no surprise to us that Asian investors were a little skeptical this time around -- polite, as one would expect them to be, but a little bit cynical about the approach being made a second time around.

It seems to me the Premier would serve this province much more effectively if he stayed home and worked on creating an economic climate that encouraged investment, not only from Asia but by British Columbians and Canadians. And if he worked on creating an economic climate and a tax regime that allowed British Columbia companies to be competitive in the world market, he would then much better serve the people who elected him.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CONSUMER SERVICES MINISTER

G. Farrell-Collins: I know the Premier would like to go on about his trip at length, and I, too, await the slide show. But we have been dealing with more important issues in this province while he's been away.

[2:30]

The Premier did an investigation on the Minister of Consumer Services prior to appointing him to his position in cabinet. Can the Premier tell us whether or not that investigation included his real estate dealings in California and the advice he gave to his clients?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said earlier, the investigation was around some statements made by a previous Social Credit member in June 1991, as I recall. That investigation proved that the statements made by that member, John Reynolds, were entirely groundless. On the basis of that, I asked the present Minister of Labour and Consumer Services to accept the portfolio. I don't deal in allegations. I deal in facts, in findings and in treating people fairly.

G. Farrell-Collins: Exactly what we're trying to find out here are the facts. The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services stated to the press in this province that he was not involved in those unsavoury business practices. While the Premier was away, we found out that he was, in fact, intimately involved. Can the Premier tell us if he knew he was intimately involved, and if so, when he found out?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I understand that this is before the Law Society. The Law Society has asked that a previous member involved in a transaction in the 1980s send some information, and there has been some sort of communication to the Law Society. I can tell you, hon. member, that the Law Society receives many hundreds of these requests every year. I understand that the Law Society request for information has gone to the member. That is the only piece of information that I have. I have the same information that the general public has through the media, and I think we should let the Law Society get the information. We should deal with facts and findings, not with allegations.

[ Page 5732 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier is obviously still suffering from jet lag and failing to take responsibility for his own actions. As the Premier, he handpicked and selected this member to be Minister of Consumer Services. It's quite clear that he now must take responsibility for that appointment. Will the Premier do a further investigation into the conduct of this minister, and if he is no longer able to perform his duties at Consumer Services, ask him to resign? If he won't do that, will he at least table the investigation that he did initially so we can see how scattered it was?

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND CORE PROCESS

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier about an abiding mystery in the Clayoquot Sound decision. Can the Premier explain to the people of the province exactly why the commissioner on resources and environment was at that $30,000 exercise in public relations? What was his role there?

Interjections.

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask the Premier then about the report the commissioner issued while he was out of the country. The report indicated that he should have had a role before the Clayoquot Sound decision was made; and now that it has been made, he wants a role now. Will the Premier support the commissioner on resources and environment in that indeed he should have a role in Clayoquot Sound?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The commissioner did not request that role. The commissioner has made a number of suggestions on how the CORE process on Vancouver Island can be improved. We are taking those suggestions seriously, and we'll be responding in the near future.

W. Hurd: The Premier must be aware that the presence of the commissioner at Clayoquot Sound has undermined the people's confidence in him. Once again to the Premier: why was he part of a $30,000 public relations ceremony that has undermined the confidence the environmental community had in this particular commissioner? Why was he there?

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. The auditor general has determined that the government broke the law on 49 of 389 order-in-council appointments made last year.

Can the Premier explain why his government ignored the legislative requirements for authorization of these individuals' salaries? Was he so ashamed of the salaries awarded to his patronage appointments that he deliberately broke the law in making those appointments?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Those are very nasty words from the Leader of the Third Party. This report has just been received. The government is considering the report, and we will report back in the near future. Just getting back into the province, I haven't had a chance to read the report. I will get back in due course.

J. Weisgerber: Will the Premier agree at least to table the list of the 49 appointees that were made -- without their salaries being disclosed -- and will he further undertake today to reveal the remuneration for each of those 49 appointees, which information was omitted from the order-in-council?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We are considering the report of the auditor general. We will respond in due course.

J. Weisgerber: We know from the auditor general's report that on 49 occasions the government ignored the regulations. On some occasions appointees were allowed to set their own remuneration after their appointments were made. Can the Premier advise why his government responded by saying that no response by the Attorney General appeared to be warranted? Can the Premier tell us why he felt no response was warranted, and why he didn't want to see a response published?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As you are aware, the previous government has a process that they'll now be able to utilize to scrutinize this material through the Public Accounts Committee.

ESSENTIAL SERVICE DESIGNATION FOR SCHOOL TEACHERS

J. Dalton: My question is to the Premier also. Mr. Premier, in your absence, a number of school districts have been shut down by strikes and lockouts. In fact, the north Vancouver Island strike precipitated an investigation into essential service designation, and the special investigator so recommended. The Labour minister declined to exercise his proper authority under the Labour Code and, in fact, referred the matter back to the Labour Relations Board. My question is: why was the correct process not followed, thus adding to the unacceptable delay in resolving this and other school disputes?

Hon. M. Sihota: I would be happy to educate the Education critic on the other side by explaining to him what the sections deal with.

Section 72 of the Labour Relations Code deals generally with the matter of essential services.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, if the Labour critic would just settle down, I could answer the question.

Under

section 72(1), there is a process by which the Labour Relations Board can inquire as to whether or not a particular situation constitutes an essential service or poses a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of British Columbia in general. An inquiry must

[ Page 5733 ]

be made under

section 72(1). An inquiry was made under

section 72(1) by Mr. Wayne Mullins of the Labour Relations Board. That inquiry was inconclusive. In other words, he did not recommend one way or the other as to whether there was a threat posed to the essential services of British Columbians.

Subsequent to that, there was a letter written by Mr. Lanyon, under

section 72(1), recommending that I trigger the provisions of

section 72(2). Given the fact that

section 72(2) requires the minister to trigger a certain process....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, if I may answer the question in its totality.

The Speaker: Order, please. If we could have order in the House, I'm sure the minister will quickly wind up his reply.

Hon. M. Sihota: Therefore, with regard to

section 72(2), I could not act in compliance with that section, given the fact that 72(1) had not had an investigation completed to the full extent that we believe, based on our advice, was required under the law.

J. Dalton: I didn't expect to get such a long dissertation from the Labour minister on that, and we didn't want a crash course on labour law.

My question is again to the Premier. Under subsection (2) of

section 72 of the Labour Relations Code, the Minister of Labour clearly has a responsibility to make a decision, and he abrogated that responsibility. I put it again to the Premier: why is there this unacceptable delay in resolving these disputes? They are getting worse, not better.

Hon. M. Sihota: There was no abrogation of responsibility. In fact, what we did was exercise the responsibility we had under the legislation, and the hon. member should know that. Secondly, the hon. member is wondering why we aren't dealing with these issues on an expedited basis. In fact, he should know that the hearing that will take place under

section 72(1) will occur on an expedited basis at the direction of the minister. Third, I'm pleased to advise the hon. member, in terms of our efforts to further resolve and conclude that dispute, that today we asked Mr. Grant McArthur, the mediator in that dispute, to become a special mediator and make public his recommendations so that we can bring about an expedited solution to the dispute.

J. Dalton: One short question to the Premier, which I hope he will answer. Mr. Premier, the chair of the Labour Relations Board has indicated that he believes grade 12 is an essential service. Does the Premier agree with that feeling?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has either not read the letter from Mr. Lanyon or doesn't understand the letter Mr. Lanyon has written. It's also clear to me that he doesn't understand the

section in dispute here. The lack of all that understanding explains why they don't understand what's happening in this situation. Under

section 72(1)....

The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the minister to try to make his reply as brief as possible.

Hon. M. Sihota: Under

section 72(1), Mr. Lanyon did not come to a conclusion but simply offered an opinion based upon a report from a special investigator, an opinion which the minister then can review. There are provisions under

section 72(1) for the minister to order further investigations, and we have made that order.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL FOREST WEEK

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to make a brief ministerial statement. Hon. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to inform you and the members of the House that May 2 to 8 this year is National Forest Week. This important annual event showcases forest management and the importance of our forests. This year's theme is "Our Common Ground." Forest Service staff, community volunteers, industry and other forestry groups in about 130 communities around the province will conduct tours, host demonstrations and stage special events to celebrate the week. This year's provincial forestry capital is Kamloops.

In Victoria there will be displays at the CanWest and Tillicum Malls, and interpretive forest tours for schoolchildren and the public at Beaver Lake park. There will also be forest management displays and a fire protection demonstration at the B.C. Forest Museum in Duncan, and a tour of the Cowichan Lake research station.

[2:45]

I would urge all members to take advantage of the activities, displays and events during National Forest Week, not only in the capital but in their own constituencies.

W. Hurd: The opposition is pleased to support the goals and aspirations of National Forest Week in British Columbia. I certainly hope, however, that one of the displays might be the linkage between the economy of the province of British Columbia and the level of harvest in British Columbia. Certainly one of the issues that we canvassed with the minister in estimates was an attempt to analyze the relationship between the annual allowable cuts in British Columbia the potential loss of revenue to the Crown, and the effects on employment in the province.

Noting the involvement of the Ministry of Forests in these displays, the opposition would welcome a display that indicated the impact of some of the cut reductions around the province and what they will inevitably mean to employment and local economies. Certainly during the next week we look forward to seeing that type of display somewhere around the province.

[ Page 5734 ]

R. Neufeld: The Social Credit caucus also supports National Forest Week, and it's fitting that it falls at this time. I think it's important to all British Columbians to realize just how important forestry is to our province, and that it is the engine of our province. It's what makes available all the things that we enjoy today in British Columbia, and some of the wealth that British Columbia has gained and the respect around the world. I hope that through displays in some 130 communities in British Columbia there will be opportunities displayed for individuals and companies to further grow and to produce more value-added products for the province of British Columbia.

We're also pleased to note that Kamloops is chosen as the forestry capital this year, and we congratulate that community. We hope that every individual who is talking about forestry in British Columbia will temper it and try to get across to the people how important forestry is to the province and to the wellness of B.C. It's a very important industry and it contributes greatly to the wealth and to the jobs that British Columbians have come to enjoy.

With that, we congratulate the government on declaring May 2 to 8 May National Forestry Week.

Presenting Petition

D. Mitchell: I rise to present a petition signed by more than 5,000 residents of West Vancouver. The grievance of these taxpayers is probably best summed up in the prayer of the petition, which very briefly says: "Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House demand that the people of British Columbia be treated fairly, that the homeowner's grant be restored to all homeowners, and that the provincial government begin addressing the needs of taxpayers through expenditure reductions, not increased taxes."

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise all hon. members that in Committee A we will be debating the Labour estimates. In this chamber, I would like to take this opportunity to call second reading of Bill 3.

BUILD BC ACT

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

C. Serwa: Just to bring everyone back up to speed, we're debating a reasoned amendment to Bill 3. The amendment basically says that the matter under discussion should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. It is a very good reasoned amendment.

When I concluded my remarks last Thursday I was in the midst of referring to a number of quotes by and from ministers of the Crown, and I'm going to continue on that for a short while. I had dealt with some of the quotes from the Minister of Labour and, at the moment, I am looking at several put forward by the Minister of Finance.

Here's what the Minister of Finance said on March 30: "It's a major commitment: a plan to lay the groundwork for longer-term economic growth." Let's evaluate that. I wonder what the people of British Columbia think. Looking for long-term economic development in all regions....

In spite of the relatively small injection of seed capital at $100 million, we're probably looking at an annual expenditure somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion by this Crown corporation, based roughly on the number of elements that will be contained in the expenditures. Not only Transportation and Highways but public buildings, be they health centres, law courts or schools, will all come under the parameters of this particular bill, as well as the control of the direction of capital spending of other Crown corporations, such as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail.

We recognize that the debt and deficit situation in Canada is currently really quite critical. We recognize that the federal government is spending roughly 36 cents out of every revenue dollar, not to provide goods and services for people but simply to pay interest -- not to gain on the debt, not to reduce debt, but simply to pay interest on the accumulated debt. We recognize that there is less and less capital available to fund the ongoing operations of government and fuel the economy.

If you're looking for a healthy, viable economy in the future, you cannot attain it by increasing the deficit and the debt of the taxpayer in B.C. That's clear. There's nothing partisan about that. It's a simple economic fact.

If we have a capital structure and we're amortizing it over 40 years, the reality is that by year ten of the debt servicing we will have paid more than the capital costs of this particular project, be it a highway or a large building, and we still have a further 30 years to pay on it.

So the net result is that if we had a $1.5 billion expenditure per year over five continuing years, and we capitalized and amortized it over that period, and the rate of interest was 30-year provincial bonds, we would be looking at a repayment of $30.8 billion, which is simply and mostly debt-servicing costs, interest on that amount. So for an expenditure of $7.5 billion we will be paying back $30.8 billion, and in reality we will be paying more than the $7.5 billion back by year ten. So it doesn't make any sense that we're creating a climate of opportunity.

What we're endeavouring to do is make a fair or a favourable show at the moment, but the reality is it will harness us into a debt and deficit structure which will be the downfall of the strength of the economy of this province.

The minister had further indicated that this Crown corporation would have a much greater hand in creating the diverse economic opportunities for all regions of British Columbia. That certainly is a notable goal, and one that we have been committed to since 1952 -- to open up and expand the opportunities in British Columbia for all British Columbians. That is the only solution for a strong economic future so we can continue to provide the necessary services that government has to provide as well as providing the quality of living for all British Columbians and a standard and quantity of life that we're particularly

[ Page 5735 ]

happy with. So this is not a new development. We have regional economic development groups scattered throughout the province, and we're trying to arm them with the ability to attract industry and attract investment and manufacturing within their own economic development areas. I'm sure that the minister is still committed to that concept, although the ministry itself has been somewhat gutted by two provincial budgets.

But we have to rely on our strengths, and we have many strengths in British Columbia. Hydroelectric energy is perhaps our greatest strength. An abundance of natural resources is another tremendous strength. And the work ethic and sense of entrepreneurship and commitment of the diverse peoples that make up the population of British Columbia is certainly a large economic development tool. Another one that our government has been proud to have been associated with is the extensive transportation system within the province, again a tremendous economic development tool.

So most of the infrastructure is there, be it rail, be it road, be it the waterways with the outstanding ferry system that we put together here in British Columbia.

So while the focus is there and the intent is there, basically all of the opportunities are available in line ministries of the provincial government. There's no question about that. I don't think anyone can dispute that. There are no financial limitations restricting the continued expansion of line ministries in accepting their responsibility. Bill 3 will enable government to extract itself from accountability and responsibility.

As a matter of fact, I don't even know what the ministers of the Crown will be doing with respect to that, because they will be able to blame the Crown corporation for an expanding deficit for which they will take accept no responsibility. The reality is that the taxpayer of the province will have the ultimate responsibility. We'll sell the birthright of the future for a little bit of gain today, and there is no justification for that whatsoever.

The Minister of Economic Development indicated that if we vote against this legislation we're voting against the continued investment in those kinds of infrastructures that are essential to the continued development of the regions of the province. Bilk 21 is able to coordinate necessary spending, which is happening anyway, by B.C. Hydro and B.C. Buildings Corporation. So you can see the expansion of the concept of an unelected group of individuals not accountable to the people of British Columbia and their particular role.

I can't point out often enough that we do have that responsibility and authority within all of the line ministries of government. This Bill 3 is not going to serve any interest other than hiding the accumulated deficit in a Crown corporation and creating a climate of opportunity for political hacks -- perhaps from the province of British Columbia, but I think all of them have been hired now.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Oh, there are a few that haven't been hired, and that's the reason for the Crown corporation. I'm sorry. I thank the hon. member for bringing that to my attention. But there are probably several in other areas of Canada. Perhaps they're being a bit unsettled in Ontario, and there will be new applications. So that's the real reason for this.

There is probably another reason, and I think this third reason is a fairly significant one. A lot of the private sector unions are becoming increasingly unhappy with the actions and direction this provincial government has taken. It has compromised the opportunities for private sector unions to have a fair share in the development of B.C.'s economy. They have seen the high-spending public sector unions get the lion's share of the cake and virtually all of the icing, and they have continued to express their concerns.

For example, the IWA is recognizing that with the cozy relationship the current government has with the environmental movement, there is more and more pressure to reduce the annual allowable cut and to create more parks in forested areas. Obviously the Clayoquot Sound decision has not met with the favour of all environmentalists; there are some radical groups. But by and large, the environmentalist crowd has been quietened significantly, and all at the expense of the IWA. They're concerned with the direction this government is going in various aspects of logging and manufacturing.

Obviously the construction industry too -- Local 115 -- wasn't really very happy with the abdication of responsibility by the Minister of Transportation and Highways, where as a member of the executive branch of government he again got at that particular ministry, so there is virtually no capital construction other than completing projects that the former administration had initiated.

[3:00]

So there were a number of concerns voiced by the private sector unions, to which the government has not paid significant attention. Their concerns are that the public sector unions are getting everything: security of tenure; a lifelong opportunity for a job; a tremendous benefit package. As I say, they have absolute security,

whereas the private sector unions have to be more responsible and cognizant -- like the IWA, who have to reflect on world market prices. There is only so much that you can do, only so many efficiencies that can be incorporated. Otherwise there are no jobs. They are also cognizant of the fact that as labour costs go up, the manufacturing industry as well as the logging sector have to become more efficient, have to increase productivity. They do this through technological improvements and larger equipment, which results in ending jobs for IWA members.

Here we have an initiative in Bill 3 that creates that climate of opportunity again. The government, through its fixed-wage legislation, takes taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and throws them out to the private sector unions in hopes of appeasing and regaining its credibility with that particular arm.

The Minister of Forests had several interesting comments. I look at one of them especially: "With the budget situation, with our inability to finance the capital costs that we're talking about in one year, it seems to me only prudent that we look at financing those capital costs over a number of years." He's

[ Page 5736 ]

certainly right: it appears to be prudent -- and that hiding of the deficit is what I've been talking about. The reality is that government revenues have increased quite dramatically with the growth of the economy in British Columbia. There's nothing lovelier than inertia to carry a government forward. I'm sad to say that we, or the next government, will be burdened by the loss of inertia that this current government.... Believe you me, this is a one-term government. But perhaps the nicest thing I can say is that nothing is quite so short-lived in the province as a socialist government. That's certainly one thing that I can look forward to, and Bill 3 will ensure that that comes to pass.

We're hiding the ever-increasing deficit. The Minister of Finance glowingly indicates that he has reduced it to $1.5 billion. He didn't have that glowing commitment to reduce the deficit in the earlier years, but he is reducing it now. But he's also hiding a $1.5 billion in this new Crown corporation, so we have a great deal of concern in the accountability of this current government.

The Minister of Finance, with his program of reckless spending in areas which are simply expedient political payoffs, with absolutely no benefit to the quality of goods and services that the people of this province receive.... The former administration made a mistake: we left several hundreds of millions of dollars in a fund called the privatization fund. It was co-opted and renamed the B.C. Endowment Fund -- I think the unofficial name is the party hacks' fund. A fund accumulated by taxpayers' dollars is now being spent by the current Minister of Finance in a reckless manner.

The real concern comes when we recognize -- and I know that you've heard a great deal about other jurisdictions, primarily New Zealand.... New Zealand, which has had socialist governments almost from the beginning of its history -- and I was there in 1958 and am familiar with New Zealand and their government -- has been forced to reappraise and reassess the direction that it's going and has taken relatively harsh measures in order to get its act together and get on the road.

They were forced to do this simply by international borrowing authorities refusing to grant them any more credit, so they've led the field in privatization. As a matter of fact, New Zealand was leading British Columbia in privatization in our former administration because of the necessity of taking these steps.

They've privatized things such as the post office, for example, and many other institutions which we feel are in the public domain. They're privatizing education in New Zealand simply because of the inability and unwillingness of the taxpayer to fund areas which have become very wasteful, very large and very inefficient. In their privatization move, they've taken the attitude that public sector jobs are not sacred. The Minister of Finance has often said: "We will not compromise. The one thing that is sacred in the province of British Columbia is public sector jobs.

We won't reduce the staff; we will increase them. We will not reduce the rates of pay, the benefit packages or the job-for-life type of situation." That would be untenable, the Minister of Finance has implied a number of times.

In New Zealand it's a little bit different. As a matter of fact, they've gone extensively to contractors to provide services for government. This current government has spent a great deal of public funds in making those contractors part of the public service. The reason they were contractors is that their services weren't required on a full-time, annual basis. When we needed the services, we went out and purchased them for the time interval. When they become full-time employees of the government, then we create jobs, inefficiencies and huge expenses on the public purse. I regret to say that New Zealand and their socialist government is far ahead of this government.

The last question I would like to ask is: how will we finance this? I know there are some proposals put forward, but I'd like to go back and remind the public of Maureen Maloney. She has proposed -- and the Minister of Finance has hired her and used her as a consultant -- that the idea of wealth tax follows naturally. Their belief is that the poor are poor simply because the rich have too much and that we must use wealth taxes to supplement the income tax system. She goes on to say that the reason people are wealthy is that this is either as the result of a legacy or because they have been very lucky.

It's not that anyone in this country works for wealth; they've either been lucky or inherited that wealth. I guess the sadness in this whole thing is that here's a lady who is obviously very bright and well educated but not very smart or experienced. That's the sad truth.

If we don't attend to debt and deficit, it will crush us. It will crush the economy of B.C. Bill 3 is selling out British Columbia. We're creating a monster that will speed and expand direct debt accumulation at an unprecedented rate. If this government cares about the quality health system, one of the finest education systems in the world and superlative social services, then you will have to get rid of Bill 3, because with Bill 3, we will not be able to afford them. If you want poverty, joblessness and a crumbling economy as your legacy to the future, then carry on with Bill 3, because that's exactly what's in store for British Columbians.

A. Warnke: My voice has picked up a little from last week, but at times I'm still having difficulty recognizing myself after a few days. I feel compelled to respond to this particular amendment, and I support it wholeheartedly. I believe it is absolutely essential to support the amendment to deal with the very difficult bill before us.

Many people have spoken from this side -- and eloquently, I would say -- outlining the different problems. What is striking is that between our turn we have been waiting for members on the other side to give a detailed critical analysis of some of the concerns that we have raised and to put forward some arguments to reinforce the strengths and pros of this particular bill, but unfortunately, that has been really lacking in this debate. I suspect that my hon. friends across the way have actually bought the bill of goods articulated and formulated by cabinet. It's worthwhile, therefore, to touch once again on a few of the arguments presented

[ Page 5737 ]

cogently on this side. It's absolutely essential in order to make a strong case for the amendment that is before us.

It has been put forward time and again that Bill 3 is a fundamental altering of the process and the accountability of public works and public works projects in British Columbia. When funds go to a Crown corporation, how accountable will they be to this Legislature? I listened to the Minister of Finance put forward what he called the four strengths of the bill. Regrettably, he was the only person to mention it.

One of those elements says that what we have before us is something that can capitalize highway construction; that this is simply a means of establishing some sort of an authority in which we really cannot spend more money than is generated by dedicated taxes. I like some of the words, incidentally. Dedicated taxes is a concept that I would like to see explored. What he meant by dedicated taxes is that we would simply establish a 1-cent-per-litre taxation on gasoline that would go into this Transportation Financing Authority. The problem is not that people do not want any extra taxation.

The Minister of Finance conceded when he travelled around the province that many people said that they didn't mind paying extra taxes provided that they're going into something concrete, something that really builds British Columbia, something that perhaps should contribute to the substructure.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: It's interesting hearing the hon. member across the way. He mentioned everything but the substructure, which so seriously needs to be addressed in this province. That's what people are saying. It includes schools, courthouses and so on. I'll get onto that in a moment. Again, I warn that hon. member to listen to what is being said, something that is so lacking in this debate.

People have said they don't mind extra taxes, but they want you to be upfront about it. Here's a way to institute a tax through a financing authority in such a manner that once it is instituted, who's going to say that it remains at 1 cent a litre? Many members have pointed out, and I think quite correctly, that once the principle has been established, once we have a new tax instituted, guess what? It goes from 1 cent to 5 cents a litre very quickly. Once we have it up to 5 cents a litre, guess what? I would suggest that before too long it will increase to 6 cents a litre and 7 cents a litre.

People have also pointed out that the Minister of Finance should have picked this up in his travels. The taxes on gas and other kinds of energy are already far too much, and the provinces have to be very careful -- each and every provincial government has to be careful -- about what it is doing in terms of generating revenue for itself and certainly on how it expends moneys. That was one element raised by the Minister of Finance.

[3:15]

Another cute term I liked, his first element, was that this will introduce an accelerated social capital. My hon. friend from this side, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, asked: "What does this mean?" To a certain extent, the Finance minister bears the responsibility to detail and give an explanation as to what the phrase "accelerated social capital" means. "Accelerated" means fast pace, and all the rest of it. "Social" means we can spend money in this particular area.

It looks like "accelerated social capital," prima facie, means we're spending money on all kinds of projects that come up out of nowhere. It's a fancy way of saying that we're spending money to beat the band. I think the Finance minister bears some responsibility to explain himself when he uses such concepts as dedicated taxes, accelerated social capital and so forth. Though I want to address the amendment here, I digress. But nonetheless, perhaps these terms do need further explanation.

After all, they're the composite of the elements of the argument, the supposed rebuttal against some of the ideas that were presented by this side of the House.

The second element the Minister of Finance introduced was that this particular bill facilitates regional economic development. Now I find this particularly interesting. Is this a concession that this government does not know how to facilitate regional economic development in its present state? I thought the Minister of Energy was from the Kootenays. I thought that many members of the caucus across the way, on the government side, were from the Okanagan, the far north and the Island, as well as from the lower mainland. I find this almost a concession that the caucus is not working properly on that side.

More than that, referring back to the original principles of confederation developed by the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, in forging his cabinet, one principle that he stuck to and imposed was that there had to be regional representation in the cabinet. Interestingly enough, premiers since then have also exercised that basic principle. Now what's this a concession of? The Minister of Energy is from the Kootenays.

But is what the Minister of Finance saying here a concession?" It sounds like a concession to me, that not even cabinet is working in terms of facilitating regional economic development. If it's not working, don't blame something else. Don't suggest that what we need is a new Crown corporation or something like that which can facilitate regional development.

The fault lies within cabinet and caucus. Perhaps what it reveals is an imposition of ideas of cabinet on caucus. I would say to members across the way on the government side: wake up, members of caucus, and begin to exercise some gusto when you meet these cabinet ministers before you within your own political party, and exercise some gusto and present some ideas at the convention. If you cannot do that, you will be in very serious trouble in your own constituency. That member is from the interior. Knowing how Kamloops votes, it's a swing area. I warn that hon. member that he'd better pay very close attention to the people within his own riding.

However, another principle that I think bears some elaboration is the reference to a $100 million special fund. The Finance minister conceded that it does increase the deficit by $100 million." It does increase the deficit, and that's a concession by that Finance minister. The problem is this: once a $100 million special fund is

[ Page 5738 ]

institutionalized and is in existence, where does it end? Is it just $100 million? Well, somewhere along the line we'll make up for that $100 million later on. Frankly, I have my doubts. But even if I didn't, even if I conceded that the Finance minister was some sort of whiz -- and I'm certainly not convinced of that -- the fact is that there is no built-in guarantee that the $100 million special fund will somehow evaporate in the past. Pretty soon $100 million becomes $200 million, $500 million becomes $1 billion, and on it goes.

On this side of the House many members have put forward a warning to that side -- to the government and the executive council -- that they must begin to examine certain elements of this bill that set a possible precedent for financial disaster. The Finance minister said that the public misunderstands. Well, they do understand some things. One thing they have tried to convey to this government, to provincial governments right across Canada and to the federal government is that the whole manner in which revenue is raised, and the purposes it is used for, must be readdressed.

Indeed, what the public is saying to this government -- to many governments -- is that quite contrary to what this government is proposing, which is to take money that traditionally has gone to ministries and put it in a Crown corporation that is less accountable, Crown corporations must become even more accountable than in the past. You don't crowd more money and more government activity into a Crown corporation, simply because it makes the government less accountable in this Legislature.

A point that has been raised time and time again on this side of the House is that it does set the prospect of money being shifted in such a way that it makes money less accountable in this chamber. In the whole history of parliaments and legislatures and congresses around the world, including the United States, ultimately financial authority rests in the legislative branch of government.

That's hard for executives, whether it's the President of the United States or the Prime Minister or whoever, and for executive councils and branches of government to accept, I know, but it is a fundamental principle, because spending ought to come from the authority of the people.

That is why on this side of the House we are making such a stink over Bill 3. It is because we see the attempt in Bill 3 to make government activity and expenditure less accountable. This is so sad, because it is at a time when people are demanding that Crown corporations and all aspects of government become more accountable.

I have mentioned on previous occasions that Bill 3 does not stand on its own; Bill 3 is part of a package. It is part of a budget that was introduced by the Finance minister, and therefore Bill 3 is not the only contentious bill that has been around in the past year. There is more contentious legislation coming forth in this session. So when Bill 3 is seen as part of this package, it is no wonder that the opposition has some real concerns about the nature and the impact of Bill 3.

If the Minister of Finance really believes there is nothing to fear, then he should also suggest some very significant changes to make Crown corporations more accountable. But I don't see that as part of the legislation in this session. I didn't see it as part of the legislation in the previous year. We know full well what some members were arguing on this side of the House that what we have is a package around a budget and an agenda that will be run essentially by a very tight group of people; call them the power elite if you like.

But when my friend from North Vancouver-Seymour talked about the Guntonization -- which is a cute term in itself -- what he was really saying is that what we are creating in this government is a power elite enhancing and developing a socialist agenda. You really see it in Bill 3, as we will see it in legislation to come that is around the budget.

There is another part that is of considerable concern, however. It's bad enough to put in place and institutionalize some of the features that we on this side have talked about, but on a practical level, once we have it, what do we have before us? I know government members guffawed when they heard members on this side say this is nothing but a slush fund. It's obvious that government members either do not understand or are concealing, for their own political purposes and agendas, the nature of this bill.

If they are not concealing it, then it bears some elaboration as to why we are suspicious that this is a slush fund.

Once a particular group -- call them a power elite if you like -- through the Minister of Finance is in charge of particular funds, where they go and so forth, those occupying the posts now certainly have the prospect down the road of setting up a situation where cabinet members on the threshold of an election will be very tempted, and I suspect would follow through, to allocate funds, hidden from legislative and public scrutiny, in such a manner that they would be targeted in specific areas to enhance the election prospects of the governing party.

That is why members on this side are skeptical, are suspicious, and therefore strongly oppose this particular bill. We simply cannot accept prima facie the arguments put forward by the Minister of Finance. As we progress through those so-called four elements we find a lot of problems, contradictions, inconsistencies and anomalies.

[3:30]

We really feel that what is essential if this bill were to come into being is that at least the arguments must be fleshed out in full so that the loopholes are plugged. This amendment is a test of whether government members are really sincere, of whether they really want to bring forward a bill that has no loopholes. They know what the loopholes are, because they've been described and explained over and over again on this side of the House. As they are explained, they are exposed. It should be very clear to government members that there are some severe problems with this particular bill.

It institutionalizes many problems that governments will have to overcome. This amendment is a test, however, and in that context we hope that some sober second thought will be reflected by all members of the House and that members will support this particular amendment. I hope it and I pray it, because it needs it.

[ Page 5739 ]

If government members get their backs up because it's referred to as the BS 21 fund, or the BS blackjack fund, and so forth.... Yes, we're making fun of it. But in all that fun, we're also very serious. We see severe potential problems with this particular bill. We see the potential for mischief in institutionalizing a gas tax that goes from 1 cent to 5 cents, and then to who knows where, and in institutionalizing a $100 million special fund that goes from $100 million to $200 million to $500 million to $1 billion, and so forth.

This government, as did the previous government, made some rather dramatic moves to increase the debt of this province. One thing we were proud of in this province over the years, even the decades, was that we were responsible for how we raised revenue and how we allocated it. Where we allocated it, we developed a very fine substructure, a substructure that is indeed the envy of this country and of the world. But the previous administration and this administration indicate that we are on the very dangerous course of repeating some severe mistakes made by other governments in the past.

We on this side of the House don't want to see those mistakes repeated. We want to see a close examination of the relationship between revenue and expenditure, and how to make that responsible in the Legislature.

A personal quest of mine is to make this House the prime focus of responsibility, of where government is and where it is going. How a government conducts itself must first of all be exposed in this chamber, not hidden away in a Crown corporation, but it must also be subject to the approval of the members of this chamber. I strongly support this amendment and hope that it will be accepted by all members of this House.

L. Reid: I rise in support of my hon. colleague from Richmond-Steveston. I too support the amendment that we not go forward on second reading and that Bill 3 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. I believe this piece of legislation will be nothing more than a legacy of debt for this province. There must be a way for this particular piece of legislation to see the light of day. We certainly believe strongly that intense scrutiny must be placed on this piece of legislation, and we trust that by continually attempting to amend it, we will see some sober second thought from the government benches.

There needs to be scrutiny of this legislation because it is, in fact, simply the tip of the iceberg. We will continue to see legislation that allows greater and greater privileges to be extended to those who do not sit as Members of this Legislative Assembly. That is not a position that this caucus, the official opposition, can support. We only wish to see accountability within this chamber not continually diluted out to Crown corporations. We are talking taxpayers' dollars, their hard-earned money, and I believe that they wish to know exactly how it is spent. They wish to intensely scrutinize the dollars under Bill 3, Build BC.

Earlier in my remarks I talked about the game of blackjack. I talked about this being a gamble for British Columbians. I hold very strongly to that view, because I do believe that we are going to be involved in some game that becomes more bizarre by the day. We are going to indeed be gambling with taxpayers' dollars in this province, and I can't imagine that that's a justifiable position for anyone in government to adopt. I can't imagine that that's the way we would wish to see good, honest, responsible government proceed.

I believe that the role of government is to facilitate decent decisions. The only opportunity the public has to scrutinize those decisions is from within this chamber. That is the only legislative authority that they can examine in some detail. Again, if we allow the creation of jobs and the legitimizing of debt to be moved into another forum, I think we as British Columbians will be sorry. I think we will regret that kind of opportunity that we've let slip away. I think we will be letting it slip away if we do not stop and reconsider this particular piece of legislation.

I think the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services has a role to play in taking a look at this. I believe British Columbians are only too happy to pay reasonable taxation. They wish to be involved in the services they receive, but they must know that they are actually getting something for their money, that it is a reasonable expenditure of dollars that has some appeal, some accountability process in place. I'm not convinced this is happening under this piece of legislation.

My hon. colleague for Richmond-Steveston talked about loopholes and talked about different Members of this Legislative Assembly coming forward and acknowledging that loopholes were in place. What I need to see today -- what my colleagues need to see today -- is the resolution of those loopholes. How are we going to ensure that this is the finest piece of legislation this particular government has brought forward? We're going to do that by amending it significantly, because this piece of legislation needs tremendous work. It is an ideological bent that we on the opposition side of the House do not wish to see pursued. We do not wish to see less and less accountability.

This chamber is supposed to bring together some of the finest minds, some of the best decision-makers, some of the finest problem-solvers, to come together and seek resolution to pressing questions of the day. That is our role. We will not be able to participate in that or be part of that if that particular function is removed from this chamber. That is the overlying issue that my colleagues and I have today, because we wish to be part of that process. We were elected to be part of that process. Many of us worked extremely hard to ensure that there was some sense of participatory democracy in this province.

We're not prepared to see it calved off into a number of different Crown corporations. We believe that those corporations must be accountable, and under this current piece of legislation, Bill 3, there is no opportunity to make them accountable. That is the situation that I find intolerable, and I trust that my colleagues cannot support it, because they are indeed supporting this particular amendment, which says: "Stop. Take a look at this in more detail to decide if it is the wish of British Columbians that we proceed in this

[ Page 5740 ]

fashion." This opposition is asking for some detailed consideration of this particular piece of legislation.

My colleagues and I do not understand the urgency with which this particular piece of legislation is being put forward. Is there some mysterious time line that this particular piece of legislation is attempting to tie into? Is there some opportunity that this particular piece of legislation will provide for the government benches? I'm not clear as to the urgency. I think an agenda item of this significance needs due consideration.

I trust this amendment will be supported because I think it is the last opportunity that British Columbians have to engage in reasonable debate on this question, and it is a huge question. The question that must be posed to British Columbians is: do you wish to see decisions removed from public scrutiny? That is the basis of this bill and this entire discussion. I know I don't support that. My colleagues do not support that.

We must ensure that British Columbians are at least aware of how insidious this particular piece of legislation will be if it is allowed to proceed without a general understanding on behalf of the public and without an opportunity for the public to come back and scrutinize where we wish to go with this.

We are institutionalizing further tax under this, and we're institutionalizing tax without accountability. That is a huge direction for the government benches in this thirty-fifth parliament to stand up and adopt. Yes, absolutely, we've seen how much they favour increased taxation. We cannot allow increased taxation to go forward without some kind of scrutiny in the process. What I'm asking today is that we come back to British Columbians and to this forum with some kind of time line. Are we going to take action? Will there be some response to the public as to where we wish to go? Where are we headed? I think that is the question the official opposition is posing today.

We've seen this particular government not accept amendments put forward by the official opposition on two occasions. We trust that reason will prevail and that British Columbians will be given the opportunity to examine this bill in more detail. We trust that will happen, because British Columbians must have a better understanding of where this bill will lead us; where we are indeed headed. I believe that the basic premise in the common statement that those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it is evident in this piece of legislation.

If we do not look at taxation without accountability and that has certainly happened in this province in the past.... That is all Bill 3 -- Build B.C., or Bilk B.C. as my hon. colleague has referred to it -- will reflect: less and less accountability to the question and more and more opportunity for British Columbians to be less involved with their government. That is not the direction we have seen over the last number of months in this province.

We have seen British Columbians only interested in participatory democracy; only interested in understanding the questions in more detail; only interested in coming to understand the bigger picture, the broader landscape. That is where British Columbians wish to go today. They don't wish to have less and less understanding of the issues. They certainly wish the reverse, in my opinion.

Where we are today, we're talking about responsibility. We're talking about the responsibility that this government needs to accept publicly for all the actions they would take. This particular piece of legislation, Bill 3, removes responsible conduct from this government. It allows them to step back from the process and say it's not their responsibility. "Those decisions were taken in a Crown corporation. Those decisions were taken by someone distant and removed from this chamber." We're not able to support that as the official opposition.

It runs contrary to what the role of an opposition should be, which is to provide the checks and balances in any legislative, democratic system. Those checks and balances must be in place. If the official opposition did not wish to scrutinize Bill 3 in extreme detail, the official opposition would not be doing their job, in my view.

[3:45]

Our role and goal for the official opposition is to ensure that every single British Columbian understands the basic tenets of Bill 3, what the legislation says and the intent of that particular legislation. We're not convinced that has happened. Certainly I can only assume that is not the wish of the government; otherwise they would allow more time for debate on this question and not proceed into night sittings. They would do the business of the day for the people of British Columbia.

The night sittings are another opportunity for the numbers game to come into effect, for a majority of the House to push something through. It is not appropriate and not something I'm particularly proud of. Certainly if you look at parliaments across this country, they do not stand up and take great pride in the fact that they ram something through in the dead of night.

It's not an appropriate process to uphold and say: "Yes, we are indeed doing the business of the people." It's a bit clandestine and underhanded, and not particularly useful in terms of ensuring that all British Columbians understand the basic intent of this piece of legislation. It's not contributing to the process in any way, shape or form.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Certainly all members in this House have heard me speak on many occasions about the lack of process. If this piece of legislation is hurried through in night sittings, it will be another classic example of no due process. It will be an opportunity for this government once again to deliver something that British Columbians do not understand and are not convinced they want. Those two questions, in my view, must be addressed before any piece of legislation can be put in place in British Columbia. It hasn't happened in 18 months, and I'm not convinced it's going to happen this afternoon.

The most significant issue for me today is process, and it's a lack of process that would allow this House to legitimize debt -- Bill 3, a legacy of deceit. It doesn't really say what all it can accomplish, and that's a concern for the official opposition. The intent of Bill 3 is not well understood. Again, our goal in asking that this legislation be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

[ Page 5741 ]

Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services is for that very purpose: so that more British Columbians have a better understanding of where we're headed under Bill 3. It's going to be a long and arduous journey over some very rough road if indeed British Columbians do not get a handle on the direction in which this government is proceeding today.

We can't afford to wait another day. We can't afford to have one more insidious piece of legislation go forward unchecked by the official opposition in this province. This legislation must be brought to task, and it must be brought to task today. I can assure you that my colleagues and I believe so fundamentally in ensuring that British Columbians understand this piece of legislation that we are prepared to continue to battle this legislation and battle the members of the government benches, who do not seem to appreciate how important it is that British Columbians -- the people who voted for this government -- understand this piece of legislation.

This is a very significant direction for this government to take. It's removing accountability from the process, and it's somehow suggesting that they do not need to be accountable. As a legislator, I cannot accept that. And again, I'm dismayed that my colleagues in this House can justify that position and attempt to defend it in their home ridings. I'm not convinced that their constituents understand this legislation or even support it as it stands on the order paper today. It does not give comfort to the voters in this province.

Indeed, it increases the apprehension with which people approach government in British Columbia, because again it's an opportunity for the government to distance itself from the people, to stand well back and not be directly responsible. Responsibility is rolled in very tightly with accountability, and it's a very big question. We're not talking about innocuous legislation here or an innocuous direction for this government to proceed. We're talking about a significant shift in how closely tied these members on the government benches wish to be to the electorate in British Columbia.

We're having an interesting time realizing that this is very patronizing legislation, because it does not demand understanding on behalf of the voter or demand accountability for the voter. It simply says: "We know what's best. Allow us to proceed." It goes even one step further. It says: "We're going to proceed, because we're going to win the numbers game. We're going to play blackjack in this House between the government and opposition sides, and too bad for the taxpayer; we know what's best for you." I don't accept that notion, and I can assure you my colleagues do not accept it.

We find it insulting that anyone would suggest that they could somehow make good decisions for people. We firmly believe in facilitating good decisions with the voters in British Columbia.

I return to the funding question. What is the urgency with Bill 3? Why today? Why this week? Why is it appropriate to proceed when there is limited understanding in the province as to the entire intent of Bill 3, blackjack, Build B.C., B.C. 21? Certainly you will not find anyone on the opposition benches who does not support capital spending, job creation and road construction. But we have entities in our current system of government that allow us to do that. They are called ministries.

They have ministers heading them up -- people who were appointed by the Premier of the province to take responsibility for those tasks. All we on the opposition benches are asking is that those people actually do the jobs they have been paid to perform. We're not seeing that happening. We're seeing the calving off of additional responsibilities to allow a dilution of that responsibility. It's not a position that the opposition is comfortable with.

No one will come back to this House and say: "These are the dollars that were expended and these are the opportunities in place for you to question us on those expenditures." That, which I believe to be integral to the process, will be removed. It is simply not appropriate that we remove that kind of process from what we see as one of the finest parliaments in the country, if not in the world.

We have members in this House who have attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meetings and who have believed fundamentally in the fragility of democracy. We have people who have gone forward and said: "This is really important." Those very same people will now stand back and say: "No, it's more appropriate today to calve off legislative decision-making and take it outside the legislative chamber." You can't have it both ways. Either you fundamentally believe in democracy and the accountability of democracy or you do not.

And if you do not, stand up today in this chamber and you say so; you tell British Columbians that no, because it's more expedient, because it's somehow more useful to your particular agenda, you are prepared to ram this piece of legislation through without legislative scrutiny and without direct accountability to the taxpayer. And it won't work to see this government play both sides of the fence a whole lot longer. Either they're supporting participatory democracy and believe in their constituents to the extent that they must allow their constituents to respond to new pieces of legislation, to new ideas....

[ Page 5742 ]

This should be an exciting time for this government. They should have the opportunity to come forward and present this idea to British Columbians, and they should be able to put this idea into a legislative framework. They should have those expectations for their members of cabinet. You are going to build roads and create job employment. You are going to do some things that are exciting and innovative for British Columbia, and you're going to do it from within the legislative framework, because that's what you were elected to do.

I'll return to my point about streamlining the process. This will allow another layer of bureaucracy to be created in British Columbia. Are British Columbians interested in that? Absolutely not. British Columbians find this continual growth, expansion and taxation to be sheer lunacy and rubbish. They want efficient, effective and cost-efficient government. This is not going to add to what they wish to see their tax dollars fund. This is going to expand the number of dollars required to perform a job that British Columbians believe they have already paid for.

Those are significant issues, and they are the themes that run through this piece of legislation. This is not going to help us get a handle on the debt and the deficit.

This creates an additional dilemma for British Columbians. We don't have an opportunity today to examine this piece of legislation in extreme detail. Voters in this province won't have an opportunity to examine the expenditures on the projects undertaken under this piece of legislation. How that's parliamentary defeats me. It absolutely is not. Public consultation is the order of the day. Governments in British Columbia, the other nine provinces and the Territories in this country are learning a very significant lesson: public consultation is the way to proceed. Governments that do not learn that lesson will not have a repeat opportunity to carry out their mandate. It's as simple as that.

Today this government is embroiled in the recall and initiative questions. They actually did strike a committee to travel the province and look at that very issue. The results are overwhelming: a majority of British Columbians do support participatory democracy, being involved in the process. How a government can say on one hand, "Let's listen to the taxpayer and understand the tone and tenor of debate in the public forum," and on the other hand say, "We are going to ram Bill 3 through the House in the dead of night, because it is our personal agenda"?

It must be a personal agenda, because it's not a public agenda. The public has had no opportunity to examine this particular piece of legislation. In the eyes of the opposition and in the eyes of a decent government, they must be given the opportunity to do that. Otherwise, we're creating more bureaucracy, reducing accountability and going on our merry way. That's not an appropriate way for a legitimate government in the province to proceed.

These are the same cabinet ministers and MLAs who stood up and demanded due diligence. They stood up and said that it's absolutely critical that British Columbians understand how the process works and where their tax dollars are going. Neither of those beliefs are reflected in this piece of legislation -- again, another broken promise. What they said they would do 18 months ago is absolutely not reflected in this particular piece of legislation.

I don't take any issue with ministerial responsibility; I think that's where the responsibility lies. It's absolutely critical that we ensure, demand and expect that ministers in this government do the jobs they are paid to do. If not, downsize the cabinet. Keep one or two, and go the Crown corporation route. If we're not going to have accountability from our ministers, frankly we're paying money that we don't need to be paying.

I'm a firm believer in the need for reflection, in the need to stand back and look at the issues and ensure that there is understanding across the board on all issues. We haven't seen that with this particular piece of legislation, and this government doesn't appear to want to give British Columbians any time to reflect on where they're headed with this particular piece of legislation. I believe it's absolutely critical that there should be some understanding and reflection in the next number of days. There has to be some second thought given to this particular piece of legislation.

[4:00]

As it stands today, British Columbians are not sure where we're headed, but they're very uncomfortable. They do not find this particular piece of legislation to be particularly reassuring. They don't know who it was written for, and they don't know why they're being sold a bill of goods surrounding this particular piece of legislation. They don't know why members in this government stand up and say: "Bill 3 will be good for you." What part? Where? For how long? How long are we going to institutionalize debt in this country?

How long are we going to continue to create different levels of bureaucracy and then rise up in this House and justify them? It's in direct contrast to the direction the government said it would proceed in, and I have significant problems with that. It brings back the question of who's in charge. Who is responsible for creating this Crown corporation, and why is it necessary? I have yet to find a single government member stand up and answer those two very direct questions. Those questions are posed to me by my constituents. They wish to know how they will benefit from the creation of Build B.C.

How are they going to see their lives enhanced? I haven't found the kernel of wisdom in this particular piece of legislation.

I'm all in favour of supporting the best ideas that come down the road and understanding how they are going to fit into an overall plan, but I need to hear it from the government benches. British Columbians need to hear it. It's not just an opportunity to ram something through the House, lay on another piece of insidious legislation and walk away. There is accountability in the understanding of this legislation that has not happened. If this government is going to stand firmly behind this legislation, would someone on that side of the House stand up and tell us how it fits into the overall game plan?

What is the direction? Where are you headed with this? Why is it urgent? Why is it important that it not be an accountable piece of legislation? Give us the

[ Page 5743 ]

background. If this is about something you believe in strongly, you should have no difficulty standing up and selling this particular idea.

I believe that government is about carrying forward the finest ideas, but it's also about bringing people on board, ensuring that they understand and believe in what you wish to accomplish. There is no understanding about Bill 3, just tremendous uncertainty and anxiety that this is another NDP patronage appointment. A number of British Columbians have tremendous fears about the creation and growth of other Crown corporations in British Columbia. We need to understand their impact on the growth of our economy, and I'm not convinced today that it's a positive impact.

I see it as a negative force -- an opportunity to funnel taxpayers' dollars and for British Columbians to be removed once again from the process.

I find nothing in this legislation that would allow me to sell it to my constituents. I'm not clear if it fits the mandate of this government. It certainly doesn't fit the mandate upon which they were elected. It may fit with today's mandate, which seems to be patronage, diluted responsibility and removal of accountability. That's not something I would be particularly proud of. It's certainly something that I hope this government does bring back to the legislative Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services, because this piece of legislation does require significant reflection and a sober second look.

I have stood in this House for 18 months and said: "What is wrong with process and consultation?" This is the government that said they believed in it. They would consult widely, and they would bring British Columbians on board. Now that they are playing the numbers game with the voters in this province, they are prepared to disregard the wishes of British Columbians and to discount the fact that British Columbians don't understand this legislation.

I speak today as a teacher. You do not proceed unless the people you are speaking to understand the issues. The government is speaking directly to the people of British Columbia and saying: "It doesn't matter that you don't understand the intent of Bill 3. We have decided that it will be good for you." That is unacceptable to me, to the official opposition and to the people of British Columbia.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I call a quorum. I don't believe we have a quorum here.

Deputy Speaker: We now have a quorum, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I met earlier today with grade 10 and 11 students from Gladstone Secondary School in my constituency -- very near yours, hon. Speaker -- who showed a keen interest in parliamentary democracy. I would ask all members to join with me in making them welcome.

H. De Jong: I rise today to speak in support of the amendment, and I suppose there are a number of reasons for that. We've debated Bill 3 for quite some time, and certainly a lot of good argument has been presented, but the government just doesn't seem to listen or even indicate that it may want to amend this bill at some time in the future. While some statements may be repetitious, the fact that the government isn't listening does bear repeating.

The theme of this bill is build British Columbia. If this bill really would do what it says, I don't think anyone on this side of the House would oppose it. But this bill is a no-down-payment bill: no money down; why should anyone frown? Recognizing the demonstrations here on the lawn last week and elsewhere in various communities throughout B.C., the people not only frown but know very well that with Bob Williams at the helm, this promise will drown. No down payment, only pay later -- pay later, but much more. This is what is in store for the next generation.

Most merchants who sell things for no money down and pay later are either in the process of foreclosure or the foreclosure is imminent. Perhaps it's time for the Minister of Finance to come clean and tell this side of the House what's really at stake. Are we perhaps close to that step as well?

We talk about the No Development Party. The Minister of Highways is probably a busy man, and I know that roads take a lot of money. Everybody knows that. But for the Minister of Highways to demand in excess of $1 million for one commercial developer.... I believe it is ludicrous for that developer to spend $1 million on improvements to a highway fronting that particular property while many other businesses are fronting on the same street.

This government seems to be out to kill development. By the initiation of the minister, he has indeed killed that proposal in the Abbotsford constituency. It was the type of proposal that would have helped to avoid cross-border shopping. Is this government out to kill even the initiatives on the part of British Columbians and to avoid having people shop elsewhere? This government seems to be specifically on the road to kill those who are doing business in Socred ridings and, moreover, entrepreneurs who have always supported the Socred Party -- and car dealers are no exception.

The Premier promised no new taxes. He also promised to work with industry. Is this working with industry and commerce? When a proposal fits well within the planning guidelines of a municipality -- in this case the district of Abbotsford -- the Minister of Highways' reaction is none other than to kill the project.

The new demolition party. This bill is killing democratic rights and responsibilities: the democratic rights on the part of the opposition, but the democratic responsibilities on the part of the government. It's demolishing the faith and confidence of the voters.

[ Page 5744 ]

In this House and elsewhere, the Premier said: "Read my lips." The voters have read the lips of the Premier, but they have lost trust in his actions and in the current affairs. How can the Premier expect the people to trust him when he's placing such a major thing as highway building in the care of a Crown corporation? Because of a comment once made by Mr. Williams, surely they would not trust that type of thing being put in his hands.

I'm not sure where he made it, but he said: "If you think '72-75 was bad, just wait, my friends." The people of today are frightened about what this government is doing to them, not for them. They are presently demolishing the trust and confidence of British Columbians.

[4:15]

"If that is not enough," says the Premier, "why not take a shot at those British Columbians yet to be born? What's wrong with being born with a mortgage around your neck? What's wrong with saddling future generations with the philosophy of Bob Williams and Ms. Maloney?" It's not democratic, it's demoralizing. But worst of all, it's going to throw British Columbia, young and old, into a state of poverty.

But amid all this, there are also some bright lights. I understand that the clothing designers in British Columbia are now busily working on designing new deep pockets to fit into the new style of clothing. They're quite confident that that particular style of pocket will be with us for some time to come. They're a little worried, however, whether what may be deep enough this year will prove to be deep enough the year after or perhaps even the year after that. If in fact the Premier's statement was "no new taxes," they could get on with the design and sewing of the dresses, pants and whatever.

But again, the philosophy that goes with people like Bob Williams and Ms. Maloney is the scary scenario -- indeed, a very scary scenario.

Bill 3 is specifically designed to avoid accountability; but worse -- yes, far worse -- is the fact that the minister is avoiding accountability. We all know where this lack of accountability has led this country, particularly at the federal level. It was during the seventies and early eighties, when the Liberals were in Ottawa, that they also started all kinds of Crown corporations. It was not acceptable to Canadians then, and it's not acceptable to British Columbians today.

When I listen to the backbenchers' statements, the backbenchers seem to be of the opinion that schools, hospitals, court buildings, bridges, highways and practically everything else can be built through a Crown corporation, and only through a Crown corporation. How misleading. If the government backbenchers truly believed what they have said here in the House, they should acknowledge that they have been badly misled by their cabinet colleagues.

I can understand this because the Minister of Finance has not in any way convinced anyone in this House or the people of British Columbia why this move towards a Crown corporation is a better way. Availability of money is not the case; though if it were, then it would be time for the government to come clean and tell us and tell the people of the province exactly why this Crown corporation has to be established. Surely, if in fact it was due to the lack of credit available, then the motion under discussion at the present time would be that much more essential.

I believe the general message from the public to all levels of government is not to spend beyond the means available through annual revenues.

If in fact there is no problem to get the additional credit under the normal channels, as has always been done, why then borrow these funds on long-term rather than short-term loans? Anyone in business today knows that long-term financing is more costly than short-term. So why make this move? The minister hasn't even touched on this. This legislation will have no say in the loans and mortgages to be arranged by Bob Williams and company. It's doubtful whether the cabinet will have any say. The minister has not confirmed that there will be any savings at any time with the establishment of this Crown corporation.

He has not convinced the members of the opposition parties, and he has not convinced the public. I'm sure that if he tried to explain it to the public, he would probably have a more difficult time than here in the House, because the public is outraged.

I believe that the people of B.C. are quite prepared to forgive and forget when a government or a member of the government or the Premier makes an honest mistake, but failing to admit or participate, as the Premier did last year during the NAFTA discussions, is not easily forgiven, and it's not forgotten. Today in the paper I read an

article that says an interim report released on Thursday said that Socred, Liberal and NDP MLAs agree there's a serious concern about the impact of NAFTA. All of the parties were lumped together in that statement, but I can assure you that my fear is not so much for the NAFTA agreement but for the lack shown by the Premier and the government in that process. This government is handing the people of B.C. a blow: more bureaucracy, more taxes and higher fees. Labour and business are now their foes.

D. Symons: Again I rise to speak on Bill 3, and in this third amendment we're asking you to send it to committee. I will speak very strongly in favour of the amendment, because I believe that the committee procedure here in the Legislature is a very good vehicle that has had minimal rather than maximum use. We must look more carefully at using the committee stage in this legislative chamber in order to bring forward legislation that has been thoroughly investigated and adjusted to make it the best possible in Canada. That is not the case at the present time.

If we look back quite a while in British Columbia's history, we may find that one of our previous Premiers, W.A.C. Bennett.... I hate to refer to the Social Credit Party, but one thing I must say is that although a bit of a joke was made of Mr. Bennett because he would often have what was referred to as a second look at something when he found that he'd made a mistake, at least he was man enough to admit that something was wrong and deserved some looking at.

J. Beattie: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. I hardly think the comment about the Premier of the past

[ Page 5745 ]

being man enough to make some decision is an appropriate remark for this chamber. I suspect that that kind of sexism is gone. I think the member should withdraw the remark.

Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member who has his place would withdraw the remark in deference to the hon. member's feelings about it, it would be of great assistance to the Chair.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, the member was surely referring to a very historical and credible individual who led this province for a number of years, and was obviously making no reference to any member of this chamber.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. It's been a custom in the House for members to rise if they feel there's been an improper motive attributed to any member or any aspersions cast on any hon. member. It's not a matter which the Chair can rule on other than to ask the member who made the remark to withdraw in deference to the feelings of the member who objects. Would the member consider that matter and therefore withdraw?

D. Symons: Well, I have no problem. I'm just surprised at the member being offended by that particular statement. I would certainly withdraw and simply add that if this person were a large enough person they would recognize that when something needed adjusting they would be willing to look at it and make that adjustment. In that sense, that person would be of a large stature. I would hope that this government, even with their very thin sensibilities, would consider what Mr. Bennett was able and willing to do, and maybe take a bit of a lesson unto themselves.

We must also, I think, be considering that this legislation does allow for unlimited borrowing, and I believe the people of British Columbia are going to be concerned about that sort of open-endedness. The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, if it's to be self-financed, needs a close look at how future revenues will pay for the present spending. Again, I do not see that contained in this bill. I do not agree with the Finance minister's remarks in the budget that it's going to be self-financing. That is not the case.

The only financing I see built in to the authority is the fact that it will have a 1-cent-per-litre fuel tax in British Columbia, which this year will bring in about $33 million, and in a full taxation year will bring in somewhere around $50 or $60 million. This is not going to be enough to pay for the sorts of promises that this Government seems to be making to the people of British Columbia for the projects that are going to take place -- the highways, construction, the hospitals, the schools, and so forth. Along with that they have another tax on car rentals.

But add those two together, and they simply are not going to be enough to carry forth even a small portion of the sorts of projects that the government seems to be implying they're going to be doing -- the way they're going to open British Columbia up to development and all the rest through capital projects once this bill has cleared the House.

[4:30]

Therefore I think that we have to go back and look at this in light of the talk the government is making on the projects they're going to do and in light of what is allowed in the bill, both in the way of borrowing and in the way of paying back that which is borrowed. There is going to have to be a lot more scrutiny made of that, and going to committee would be one place this could be done.

Also under scrutiny, I believe we need built into the bill -- which I don't see here -- disclosure of the projects beforehand. We need to know the costs of these projects beforehand. We need to know the reporting of the revenues that are expected, as the government says, for this to be self-financing. We need to know the spending and the total debt that's going to be done that year. These are not built into it. What we really need -- and I would love to see this here, and certainly in third reading we'll bring in an amendment to this effect -- is an audit by the auditor general of the province.

The only spending authority that does any sort of looking into and auditing of this seems to be Treasury Board, which is really a part of cabinet. In other words, it's going to be hidden within a clique of government cabinet members what authority they're going to have for auditing it and for spending, borrowing and so forth. This is all done by a group of cabinet, or by their chosen representatives on boards. That does not really mean that it's going to have proper authority looking into the auditing of it from a non-self-interest viewpoint. I believe we need that third outside body to take a look at that sort of responsibility of government spending.

There are some very strong advantages to doing a committee study. One of them is that this could, by having a committee look at it, either allay the concerns of the public that there might be something devious, as has been suggested by some members of this House in

[ Page 5746 ]

the bill being brought forward, or it would allow the government to make changes. As I mentioned about Mr. Bennett before, his famous second look would make the bill more accountable and more viable to the public of the province. By going to committee we give the opportunity for public input. It gives the government time to explain what the contentious parts are. This government has said that it's an open government; it wants to be responsible -- freedom of information and all that. What we really have is the opportunity in committee for the government to carry forth those fancy words.

They're going to give the public an opportunity to look at the bill, discuss it and bring forth their concerns before it's passed.

This will give the government time to generate public understanding and support for their bill -- if the government really has confidence in its legislation. Maybe this is the important point here: if the government has confidence in its legislation, it would be willing -- no, it would be anxious -- to give the public a chance to examine the bill before it's passed. That would be a very strong motivation for the government to say: "Yes, let's support this amendment; let's support the concept of going to committee." That way we can say: "Here, public, we have a bill that's worthy of your consideration.

We have a bill that we can stand behind, and we're going to show you that you should stand behind it too. All that's happening is that this Liberal opposition, in trying to hold it back, is obstructionist. Let's bring it to committee. Let's show up the Liberal opposition for what it is. If they believe we're being obstructionist, let's take it to committee, have that committee look at it and prove that when the opposition members are saying we're wrong, the public will buy this bill.

They'll think it's a wonderful piece of legislation." And I'll be willing to eat crow, if that's the case -- if the hon. member doesn't have an objection to that phrase,.

We have an opportunity to hear the public's concern in committee -- if there is one -- over its proposed legislation. It will give the government the opportunity to claim that it's consultative and open. Right now, I'm afraid the opposition fears that the way they're trying to push this bill through, that's not the case. There seems to be non-openness here -- a lack of consultation. I'll get to that point a little later.

We have concerns in the opposition about the apparent desire of the government to rush this bill through. Good legislation is well prepared. Good legislation will stand public scrutiny before it's passed. Good legislation should be valid regardless of which party forms government. Maybe this is something that the hon. members opposite in the government benches would like to consider, because I believe that safeguards should be there to prevent the abuse of power by whichever party may be in power.

Interjection.

D. Symons: I would ask the member over there who is kibitzing me a wee bit to take a bit of consideration here and fancy that the situation were reversed: you were in opposition and Social Credit was government, and they were bringing forth the legislation, Bill 3. Would you be supporting this bill? Would you be willing to live with this bill, with all of its faults and blemishes, when you're in opposition a few years from now and we are in government? Will you think the shortcomings in this bill that we are complaining about today would still be okay when you're in opposition and we have the unlimited power to borrow and spend the future generation's money that's contained in this bill?

I hardly think so, because you would be irresponsible as an opposition if you were not raising these concerns. And you're being equally irresponsible as a government in trying to bring forth a bill with these loopholes and defects in it. It's going to allow this of any government -- not only you, who might be pure as government and say: "We will not abuse the open powers that are given here." You're leaving those powers also to any future governments that may follow you -- and that most likely will follow you. So I have concerns about the faults and defects that are built into this bill, and I think this government, if it were in opposition, would be equally vocal in opposing it.

My concerns are reinforced by comments made by Mr. David McLean of the Vancouver Board of Trade. I'm only too ready to recognize that probably the government members opposite don't consider the Vancouver Board of Trade as one of its friends and insiders. They probably don't go to them too often asking their advice on things. But I think we must remember that the board of trade shares some concerns with the government members. The board of trade shares the concerns that they have been telling us, both before and after they were elected, about the size of the deficit and the debt of this government.

Also, the board of trade does have members that have an interest in and expertise in economics and finance, and this government should be willing to listen to them. Nay, it really is incumbent upon the government to listen to people who have some experience and expertise in the field of finance, including the Vancouver Board of Trade.

What did the board say in a newsletter they put out about two weeks ago? They said:

"'The Harcourt government's rush of Bill 3 is irresponsible and unnecessary.... Why are they in such a rush to spend our money?' Bill 3 is represented as being 'self-supporting,' but the money ultimately comes from the taxpayers.... 'What's more worrisome is that there are no safeguards for spending limits or accountability'."

It seems familiar; I think I've been hearing the opposition say something similar.

"'It's an open invitation for fiscal mischief.' Bill 3 is too far-reaching in its implications to be rushed through the Legislature, and the board is therefore calling for a legislative committee to study, review and give full opportunity for public input into Bill 3. 'People deserve to know the truth and to have input into where their tax dollars are going....'"

Further on they bring up some real issues raised by Bill 3:

"Bill 3 will create more bureaucracy, which means additional public sector workers and additional

patron-

[ Page 5747 ]

age appointments. What does it do that cannot be done by existing ministries? Generating revenue in creative new ways is just another means of extending taxation. Bill 3 offers no assurance that the funds will be carefully spent, with open competition for contracts. Will it provide more openings for government patronage? Bill 3 appears to be a sleight-of-hand move to remove some expenditures from the government's accounting mainstream, thereby obscuring even further the province's true fiscal picture."

Those are comments from the Vancouver Board of Trade, and I believe that those comments deserve and need serious consideration.

We find also that the board of trade chairman and chief executive officer sent a letter to the hon. Minister of Finance on April 23, in which he said: "In the due course of prebudget consultation, our membership have not recommended anything like Bill 3, and I am not aware of anyone else having recommended it." This government, which claims to be a government that has consultation and listens to the people, obviously does not seek or listen to advice from people who are most qualified to give it. It should weigh heavily upon members of this Legislative Assembly when the government members ignore such groups as that and the advice given by them.

I think what we have to do is compare and contrast Mr. McLean's statements with the remarks made by B.C.'s Finance minister just last week with regard to the federal budget. I'm quoting our Finance minister from an

article in the Vancouver Sun on Tuesday, April 27: "'It's kind of a sad legacy of the Conservative administration that they've made no progress in reducing the deficit and no progress in reducing unemployment across the country', Clark told a Vancouver news conference." Further on: "He also expressed disappointment that spending cuts announced in other areas won't occur until two, three or four years down the road -- which he labelled 'classic' for a government facing an imminent election." Well, we may not be facing an imminent election in British Columbia, but we certainly are facing a series of large numbers of people in the province calling for the recall of members of this government.

So in a sense we have that issue facing us as well.

What we find here is that the Finance minister is criticizing the federal government for doing some of the very things that it's currently trying to do through Bill 3. Through Bill 3 they're going to be increasing the deficit of the province, and this in a province that already has the fastest-growing deficit in the whole of Canada. The rate of increase in the deficit and debt of this province is greater than in any other province, in spite of what our Finance minister might be telling us to the contrary. Therefore, we have to be careful that we don't criticize the federal government for what we're doing in this province as well.

Bill 3 is really nothing more than a vehicle for hiding a growing deficit, not a shrinking one, as the Minister of Finance would have us believe. It is important that we do ask that this bill go to committee, that we do seek the advice that can be given to us and that we look for input into where this bill can be improved and adjusted in order that it will indeed do what the government claims it will do and yet, at the same time, safeguard the interests of the people of British Columbia.

I would like to go through the bill and just explain where my concerns come in. I got part way through this before, so I won't repeat myself; I'll skip on to the point where I left off before, when the time had run out on me. We find that the Transportation Financing Authority is going to be established, and it will consist of a board of directors made up of the minister and not more than four other members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- in other words, by the cabinet.

This, of course, will then mean the added bureaucracy, and so forth, because once you have a board, you're going to have a chairman, you're going to have staff, and you're going to have meetings that are going to generate expenses. All these sorts of things that go along with this added bureaucracy will be built into it.

[4:45]

"The purpose of the authority is to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure throughout British Columbia and to do such other things as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may authorize." As I mentioned the last time I was speaking, these are all things that are already relegated to various ministers of the cabinet, so it seems we're getting a great deal of duplication built into this bill.

As I asked then: who's going to be the arbitrator when this new authority differs with the recommendations to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure? What happens when this authority brings up something that's contrary to Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Highways, which also have those authorities vested in them? As I suggested, maybe we'll need another authority put on top to be an arbitrator between the two.

H. Giesbrecht: It's already there.

D. Symons: True, hon. member.

This authority is going to be an agent of the Crown, and it will have all the property of agents of the Crown, and so forth, which I will not read. One thing I do note is that it will acquire property by expropriation or otherwise. It will create subsidiary corporations to carry out the purposes of this act. Indeed, notice it beginning to grow here: the rabbit effect, where you create one and you're suddenly going to have a litter of more -- because it can create more subsidiary corporations to carry out the purposes of this act. It seems that we already have ministries to do that, but they're going to create more subsidiary corporations. It has the power to do that.

Those are pretty powerful words, and a pretty open-ended bit of legislation here. The board that has all this authority must meet at least four times a year. So we seem to be giving this board an unlimited amount of power, but we say: "Well, you only need to meet four times a year." In other words, I rather suspect that we're going to have the backroom boys simply carrying this forward, bringing forth recommendations and so on;

[ Page 5748 ]

they'll be rubber-stamped four times a year. It's not the sort of thing that sounds like responsible, open government to me.

Along with that we have board remuneration. Well, we're going to have more expense. We're simply going to have to pay these people at the rates fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. We might have a few more patronage appointments built in as well. We find that on the recommendation of the minister, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint a person as the chief executive officer of the authority. I can be pretty sure that that "may" will be "will" appoint, and we will have a new high-paid patronage appointment.

"The chief executive officer, to the extent authorized by the board, may appoint officers and employees of the authority necessary to carry on the business and operations of the authority, and may define their duties and determine their remuneration." Indeed, nothing is spelled out. It simply says that we're going to set up a Crown corporation; after we've got it set up, we're going to let it evolve on its own. Like Topsy, it will grow and grow and grow; and the taxpayers of British Columbia will pay and pay and pay.

This is simply not acceptable. It has to be brought to a committee so that we can bring in some safeguards here to protect the people of British Columbia from the possibilities that are built into this misuse of power. Therein is the real reason that this has to go to committee. The bill could be workable, but it must be adjusted so that the open-endedness of it can be well defined and its powers can be limited, and so that the Legislative Assembly here would be responsible for overseeing the authority and for scrutinizing its actions. That is not the case in the way this particular bill is crafted.

We find that all these new employees that are going to be generated out of this -- and I won't read them here -- are in line for all the government benefits, pensions, etc.

Under "Financial administration," it says: "All books or records of account, documents and other financial records must at all times be open for inspection by the minister or a person designated by the minister." Notice that they're open and inspected only by the minister. Where on earth is the freedom of information of Bill 50 brought in in the last legislative session that this government said that they were going to adhere to? Indeed, this is not open; it's open for the inspection of the minister. That's not freedom of information at all.

"The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may direct the comptroller general to examine and report to the Treasury Board...." Indeed, we believe that this should be an operation of the auditor general, and not "may" but "must." So there are certainly many things that will have to be corrected in that respect.

"The authority must, at the times specified by the minister, submit to Treasury Board for review" -- Treasury Board is simply a creature of the cabinet -- "and approve a business plan with respect to projects to be undertaken by or on behalf of the authority that includes," and then they name the things that I mentioned earlier in my talk that should be taken care of.

What I want to know is: when are these things going to see the light of day? When are they not going to be just hidden in cabinet? When are the revenue expenditures, borrowing and lending proposals going to come before this House? When will they be reported to the auditor general? When will they be public knowledge to the people of British Columbia? When is there going to be a statement of the assets and liabilities? All that this says is that it reports to Treasury Board and that there's going to be a business plan. When will that business plan be made public?

Too much of this seems to be hidden from the public eye. Too much of this does not open itself to the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly to which we were elected, to hold the government accountable for its actions.

"The report and financial statement referred to in subsection (7) must be laid before the Legislative Assembly by the minister as soon as practicable." I would like to see that happen yearly.

I mentioned earlier the revenue from gasoline tax. It's going to have the authority to raise revenue from a gasoline tax, and indeed it is currently said that this gasoline tax -- to raise money to make it self-financing -- will be 1 cent per litre. But nowhere in here is it limited to 1 cent per litre. All we can say is that that's what the government is planning to do for this first year. Very soon they will discover that the debt service charge on the money they are going to borrow for carrying out these projects is going to be more than the money generated from a 1-cent-per-litre