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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1993

Volume 9, Number 9

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 5509 ]

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

E. Barnes: I just noticed a very good friend of mine in the galleries: a former caucus staff person, political activist, businessman, musician, etc., etc., Mr. Robert Mingay. Would the House please join with me in making him welcome.

S. Hammell: In the precincts today are several grade 10 students and their teacher from Johnston Heights Secondary School in Surrey. This school has been recently redesigned to respond to the future, and the result is unique and very beautiful. The students have also participated in a unique

schedule called the two-by-ten timetable. They take two courses for ten weeks, allowing intensive study of a subject before moving on to others. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FISCAL RESTRAINT ACT

J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled Fiscal Restraint Act.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: One thing about it, we don't have to wait from 1972 to....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Weisgerber: This bill requires that overall government spending be limited to 1 percent below the previous year's growth in the economy if growth has occurred, as determined through the gross provincial product, or to the previous year's budget where no growth has occurred in the province's economy.

Government spending is broadly defined. Municipal spending is not included, but transfers to municipalities are. Off-budget spending by Crown corporations and other public sector bodies is included in this restraint bill unless they are self-financing. Finally, the provisions of this bill can be modified only with the unanimous consent of the House.

The purpose of this bill is to provide long-term protection to taxpayers by ensuring that the size of government will not grow, relative to the economy as a whole. While it does not limit the absolute size of government, it provides for zero growth or in fact a shrinking of the relative size of government, gradually extracting the government's hand from the taxpayers' pockets.

Bill M215 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAMILY DAY ACT

R. Chisholm presented a bill intituled Family Day Act.

R. Chisholm: This bill is designed to ameliorate the lives of all British Columbians at a time when juvenile delinquency is on the rise, the family unit has metamorphosed and financial obligations often detract from the quality time spent together as a family. It is imperative that we acknowledge the importance of family life. A day spent in celebration of the family can only increase our awareness and quality of life. I know that the values that our pioneers built this province on had to do with the home and family. As we get into the speed of modern society, I think we forget about the foundations that helped us to build such a magnificent province.

I'm looking forward to seeing communities across British Columbia make Family Day an important part of our tradition in the future. It should be noted that Alberta has passed a similar act, which has proven to have a positive impact on the quality of living in Alberta. I urge members to support this legislation.

Bill M216 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Barlee tabled the report of the Agricultural Land Commission for the year ended March 31, 1992.

Hon. T. Perry: I move the introduction of a bill standing in my name intituled the Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, and that it be now given first reading.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. minister.

Hon. T. Perry: I regret that I've neglected to bring with me the message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, and by your leave I shall return at a later date with the appropriate message.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE ACCORD

L. Reid: My question is for the Minister of Health. Health care in British Columbia is heading into a long, hot summer. This government has placed workers and hospitals in a state of brinkmanship. Nurses are discussing job action, hospital budgets are in chaos and doctors are out of the talks. Will the minister table today a full cost accounting for this accord and reveal why

[ Page 5510 ]

this is going forward before the uncertainty has been resolved in this province?

Hon. E. Cull: The member has the full cost accounting that was prepared by the Hospital Labour Relations Association, which examines in considerable detail what it will cost the hospitals with the accord and without the accord. I know she has that document. She also knows that the parties are meeting today to discuss what happens now with the agreement and how we can move forward. Those discussions are ongoing. As we are in the middle of the Health estimates, she will be advised during that debate as to the progress of those discussions.

L. Reid: I'll pose my supplemental question to the Minister of Finance. He stood in this House and said that the cost of the agreement is $50 million. The HLRA has said $529 million, which is the cost accounting that the minister refers to. What is the difference, and where are British Columbians going to find an extra $450 million?

Hon. G. Clark: Last time I looked, it's the Legislature that approves the budgets for the Ministry of Health and the acute care sector. The Minister of Finance, of course, has some role in it. We can predict with a fair degree of accuracy how much money will be given to hospitals in any given year. The number we gave for the wage bill in the acute care sector, $50 million over three years, still stands.

L. Reid: The unions have announced that they are not prepared to give up a single cent in this deal. What will this government have to add to the agreement to ensure that the minister's reputation is salvaged before this deal proceeds?

ABORIGINAL GAMING

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. Over the weekend it was reported that the Beecher Bay band are contemplating a $250 million casino resort complex. We know that the Nanaimo band are actively planning a $40 million Las Vegas style casino. Is it the position of this government that the province has exclusive jurisdiction over gaming in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

J. Weisgerber: Has the Attorney General then conveyed to the tribal councils around this province that it is the position of his government that the province has jurisdiction and control over gaming on Indian reserves?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the Leader of the Third Party knows that there is an aboriginal gaming committee which has been meeting and continues to meet. I think the member knows -- other members also know -- that there have been discussions at the staff level between native people and ministry people on these issues. These discussions and consultations continue.

[2:15]

J. Weisgerber: It is the position then of the province that they have jurisdiction and control, but the province is unwilling to convey that to the tribal councils. Will the province make its position on this most critical issue clear for all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, we will.

B.C. HYDRO CHAIRMAN'S CONTRACT

A. Warnke: My question is for the Deputy Premier, in the absence of the Premier, concerning the contract of Marc Eliesen. In addition to the $50,000 moving expenses, the lucrative executive benefit packages and the $195,000 per year salary, the package also includes a 30 percent, or $58,500, bonus. Will the Deputy Premier take the appropriate action to table the bonus provisions? Why was this government less than forthright about discussing Mr. Eliesen's contract more fully?

Hon. A. Hagen: On behalf of the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, I will take the hon. member's question on notice for a response when he returns.

APPOINTMENT TO THE LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

G. FarrellCollins: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Perhaps the real Premier may choose to answer it, I don't know. Perhaps she can explain to this House why Hans Brown, the campaign manager for the NDP in the last election, has been given a job with the Labour Relations Board? Why is it that despite assurances given to the business community in this province, his duties are to transfer the appeals division of the Employment Standards Acts to the Labour Relations Board?

Hon. A. Hagen: The question by the member is related to the responsibilities of the Minister of Labour, and announcements will be made either by the minister or by government. I will take the question on notice on behalf of that minister.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, I regret that with the

preamble, we cannot formally take that on notice.

A supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's becoming evident time after time that the government is taking these questions on notice -- or attempting to -- so that they don't need to answer them. Hon. Speaker, they must be accountable to the people of this province. Somebody on that bench must know that Hans Brown has a nice big payoff job with the NDP, and we want to know why.

[ Page 5511 ]

B.C. TRANSIT STAFF TRIP TO EUROPE

A. Cowie: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. Can the minister confirm that senior transit officials and staff are on a jaunt to Europe?

Hon. G. Clark: No, that's not correct. The chair of B.C. Transit also is heading up the KAON negotiations, along with Stan Hagen, who used to be the Minister of Advanced Education in the previous administration and is now the federal government's KAON representative, as well as Erich Vogt, the scientist involved in KAON. They are in Europe, I think in Rome particularly, meeting with Italian officials. We're very optimistic that the federal government did not choose to cut the KAON project.

We in British Columbia don't get our fair share of federal funding for science and technology, and we're delighted that we are continuing to keep this alive, working internationally to see if we can bring a world-class facility to British Columbia.

A. Cowie: We understand that Mr. Ken Georgetti is also on the trip, and we wonder what qualifications he has for that trip -- or is it just compensation because he missed the Vienna trip earlier?

Hon. G. Clark: Under the previous administration a group was formed called Friends of KAON, co-chaired by Ken Georgetti. I'm very surprised at the members opposite. It shows their ignorance of the work that has been done in this province by thousands of British Columbians to support the KAON project. The Friends of KAON, which has several thousand members, is co-chaired by Jim Matkin and Ken Georgetti. Both of those individuals have played leading advocacy roles to procure this world-class facility on behalf of the people of B.C.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Cowie: A very quick one, thank you. Would the minister table the costs of this trip?

Hon. G. Clark: Certainly. As always, it's a cost-shared arrangement. The federal government is paying their share, and the province is paying some of ours. I would be delighted, of course, to debate with the opposition the question of KAON. There is a line item in the budget for debate, and I look forward to that debate.

I hope members opposite will reconsider their reckless remarks today about this vital project. We're attempting, as we move forward, to negotiate our fair share with the federal government. This project is number one on the priority list of the previous administration and of this government in order to get our fair share of federal science and technology funding, and I would expect the opposition to support this pan-British Columbian initiative.

PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Finance. You and your government, Mr. Minister, are having a field day picking on a small number of dedicated, competent senior administrators employed in school districts throughout the province. If you were so concerned about the high public sector wages, why did you lift the freeze that we had put on all public servants making over $70,000 a year?

Hon. G. Clark: As the member knows, in the budget we've just introduced we have imposed a freeze on senior civil servant wages above $100,000 in the public sector proper, and we have called upon school boards, hospital boards and the broader public sector to follow the British Columbia government's lead of freezing salaries of the senior-most civil servants. We are engaging in a review -- through the auspices of the Korbin commission -- which I'm sure the member opposite is familiar with and has been briefed upon.

This is a broad review involving all parties in British Columbia to establish a rational form of compensation for excluded managerial staff -- something which is sorely needed in this province -- so there's some equity across the public sector for senior management salaries.

C. Serwa: British Columbians are becoming very confused with your type of policies, Mr. Minister. You define anyone in the province making over $60,000 as wealthy and have imposed an income surtax on them. You removed the wage freezes we'd put in place, you allowed major increases, and now you place a new cap on public servants of $100,000. Will you stop this on-again, off-again, gone-again Hannigan mixed bag of policy, and simply restore the $70,000 wage freeze that we'd imposed on all public sector wages?

Hon. G. Clark: What we need in this province is a rational way to end the leap-frogging from school board to school board, from hospital board to hospital board, hospital administrators, and across the sector. We had no rational way of managing broad public sector wage negotiations for the unionized sector or compensation practices for the management sector under the administration which that member was a part of. We're attempting to bring some order, rationality and equity to public sector management compensation. We've established a commission of inquiry into that.

It has involved broad consultation in the sector, including consultation with a Social Credit caucus. And we're embarking upon a review, which means that from now on, government will have a say, there will be some fairness across the public sector, and we'll have a mechanism for controlling costs which were out of control in the previous government.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

C. Serwa: Will the minister commit to table for this Legislature the cost to the British Columbia taxpayer of lifting the $70,000 cap on all public sector wages?

[ Page 5512 ]

The Speaker: The minister, for a brief reply.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, in the last three years before we took office, the spending growth under that administration was 12 percent, 12 percent and 12 percent. We have brought the rate of spending growth down to half of that. It's the lowest spending growth of any British Columbia government since 1987. We have made more progress in reducing the deficit through spending controls, and we continue to make that progress.

BOUNDARY BAY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA

F. Gingell: The member for Delta North has tabled private member's bill M202,

an Act to Establish the Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area. The Delta Farmers' Institute are incensed that this will be done without consultation and are concerned that it will....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair hesitates to interrupt the hon. member. I hope you'll address the question to a minister and not anticipate a bill that is on the order paper.

F. Gingell: The Delta Farmers' Institute are concerned that it will endanger the Boundary Bay area planning process. Recognizing that a private member's bill has not passed in many years, can the Minister of Environment, who is the minister responsible, echo the words of General Petain at Verdun in 1916, "Ils ne passeront pas," which in rough translation means, "This shall not pass"?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I will defend to the core of my being the right of any member of the government back bench to bring in a private member's bill -- a perfect right. Certainly it's a right that I have exercised many times in bringing forward very positive bills to the House, and I will continue to do so. The fact is that the Boundary Bay planning process is carrying on. There will be a wildlife management area. The consultations are going very well. We welcome this hon. member's input, and I urge him to continue to cooperate with that process. I know that by his question he is really indicating that it is going very well.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to raise a point of order with the Chair about the management of the order paper, and in particular with respect to written questions on the order paper. Standing order 47(1) clearly allows members of this assembly to seek information from the government of the day -- a government that claims to be an open government, has passed freedom of information legislation and says it practises the government in that spirit. Written questions on the order paper -- questions 2 to 33 -- standing in my name have been on there for up to six weeks now.

They relate to the issue of public opinion research that is funded by taxpayers' dollars. The government has refused to answer these questions. I wonder if, pursuant to standing order 47(1), the Chair could give some direction to the government with respect to providing the information that is requested here under the standing orders.

The Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: This is clearly an abuse of House time for a frivolous point of order on this question. If the member wants to ask a question in question period, he can; if he wants to refer to written questions on notice, he can ask them during question period. The member knows full well that the record of this administration is better than any previous administration in this province in terms of answering written questions. It's an abuse of House time for him to make a frivolous point of order at this time -- in the Orders of the Day.

The Speaker: I thank both hon. members for their comments on the point of order. While it may be a point of concern to members, it is not the role of the Chair to advise or guide any members of the House in terms of the written questions. Therefore I will have to leave it to the House to deal with those written questions as it wishes.

[2:30]

Before proceeding to Orders of the Day, I wish to comment on a matter that was raised yesterday at the afternoon sitting. The hon. member for Richmond East applied under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent and public importance. The hon. member raised the matter of the health care accord and the fact that the Health Labour Relations Association has rejected the accord in a recent vote.

The Government House Leader submitted that the issue does not come within the scope of urgency as defined in the standing orders and that the House would be moving immediately into the Ministry of Health estimates, affording an early opportunity to discuss the matters raised by the hon. member for Richmond East.

Firstly, I wish to thank the members for their submissions, and the member for Richmond East for complying with practice recommendation No. 8 in giving the Speaker notice in writing before raising the matter in the House.

The prerequisites for a motion under this standing order were outlined to this House in a decision given by the Chair yesterday, at which time it was noted that an application under standing order 35 will fail when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly, or in time to discuss the subject matter. As anticipated during submissions on this application, the Ministry of Health estimates were proceeded with during the same sitting in which the standing order 35 matter was raised, thereby providing an opportunity to discuss the matter in question. Under these circumstances the hon. member's application cannot succeed.

[ Page 5513 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark:

Section A will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the main House, I call second reading debate on Bill 3.

BUILD BC ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: I rise to conclude my comments, and I'm happy to see the Minister of Finance here, because that's who all the comments will be directed to. Earlier today I was pointing out that in my mind Bill 3 represents proof positive that this government doesn't have the courage or the vision to make the kind of necessary spending cuts the people of the province have been calling on the Minister of Finance to make in order to meet the obligations of government and to reduce government spending.

This government, who have brought this bill forward, who are not participating in the debate, should at least be trying to justify why it is that they've not only brought this heinous piece of legislation forward, but why it should not be hoisted for six months. If this government has found -- contrary to what the opposition has found -- that the people of the province would like to amortize capital projects, that they would like to incur further debt, that they are lining up and lobbying the government to increase the size of the debt, then this opposition will be the first to endorse this bill.

If we could have a six-month hoist of this bill and have a series of public meetings, where people could actually be informed about the fact that this government is quietly changing the structure of financing for the province....

If the people of the province would realize that not only is the structure of the financing changing, but that, as the leader of the Liberal Party pointed out earlier, this bill will now make the government a real estate agent, a banking institution with the ability not only to expropriate capital and private property from the people of this province and sell, lease or give it away but will be participating in, one could argue, a form of theft, just as the corporate capital tax is a form of theft of private assets....

The Minister of Finance during question period was making reference to reckless comments. As the leader of the party and many of the members of the opposition have mentioned, including the hon. member for Richmond East, this government has had a record of reckless spending. This government is trying to brag about the fact that they have brought the growth in government spending down to just below 6 percent. Well, hon. Speaker, that's nothing to brag about.

Not only that, it's a false image that's being brought forward, because even though a $1.5 billion deficit was tabled, just as the Social Credit government before them hid a lot of the government debt in the Crown corporations, so now we see in Bill 3 a new Crown corporation to do exactly what the Social Credit government used to do, and what this government used to criticize them for: that is, to take government debt and hide it in a Crown corporation. This Minister of Finance, more than any other, should be the last to be pulling this financing gimmick.

This Minister of Finance should, if nothing else, be participating in the debate on the amendment and trying to justify why this bill must come forward so quickly. Is it, as the leader of the party mentioned earlier...? We have information to suggest that there are a number of megaprojects in the interior that this government is waiting to bring on board. The Minister of Finance is nodding and saying that's true. Well, I hope the Minister of Finance will come forward and tell us why there is a sense of urgency.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The Minister of Finance is asking if I'm opposed to that. What I'm opposed to is the sleight of hand. This Minister of Finance, under the pretense of having public meetings before the budget, had a nice little tour of the province and chatted with people who were very irate and angry. Without exception, they said to him: "Cut government spending."

Hon. G. Clark: We did.

J. Tyabji: I disagree.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: We take great exception to the borrowing. We believe that even if government spending occurs through borrowing, it's still government spending. Even if we're going to have government spending through legislation, without public debate, it's still spending. Whether we do it through the estimates debate, which has now been shuffled off to a back room of the Legislature; whether we do it here, which is where we'd like to see it happen, with full and open debate and participation; or whether we do it through amortization, which is through this bill, it's still public spending.

[ Page 5514 ]

I think it's really unfortunate that the Minister of Finance tries to brag about a reduction in the growth of government spending when it's still almost 6 percent. That's significant. If this minister was in opposition to a Social Credit government that had repeated increases in the growth of government spending, he would be the first to say that a 6 percent growth in government spending is a shameful record, particularly when you take into account that the Social Credit administration approached almost a 12 percent growth in government spending for three years in a row.

That's 12 percent on 12 percent on 12 percent. Then this government came in last year with a 10 percent increase, and now it's 6 percent. That's unbelievable. That's unheard of. It definitely lends credence to the quotes from the Taxpayer about British Columbia having the fastest-growing debt in Canada and the fact that government spending is out of control. The last thing the Minister of Finance should be doing is bragging about a 6 percent growth in government spending.

I would like to see this Minister of Finance on his feet in the House to tell us why he didn't have the courage to cut government spending. Why is there an urgency in getting this bill passed so quickly? Why can we not have some public debate on this -- as he sees it -- essential change? This is an essential part of how we govern the province: that is, the financial structuring, the financial administration and the public debate on it.

When the people of the province realize the implications of this bill, they are going to be knocking down the doors of the Legislature, not because of environmental legislation or tax revolts but because they will not stand to have their children's future mortgaged without having any public input. That's what we're seeing here. This is why we're trying to argue some sense into the government, to let them see the wisdom of at least having some kind of public input. Go for the six-month hoist. If not, for goodness' sake, let's have some debate from the government side.

If this is a defensible position and if it's defensible to rush it through, please tell us why. The silence from the government side is deafening.

F. Gingell: I tried to be slow in getting to my feet -- I'm getting pretty slow these days. I was hoping that perhaps the speech from my colleague would have encouraged the Minister of Finance to stand up in this House and tell us what the rush is. This is a very important bill, and we are faced with the problem of trying to get some form of response from this government to tell us what the hurry is. Why do they wish to push this through? They have this bill on the order paper. We have three or four other very small bills in dealing with the issues of putting some of the budget changes through.

We haven't had any other government bills tabled. The Minister of Advanced Education made a valiant attempt earlier today to table a bill, but it wasn't with success, and we certainly wish him luck and good fortune when he tries to table it in the near future.

Why do we think that this bill is important, and why are we now in the midst of a protracted debate on a hoist amendment? We are concerned and we believe that this bill is important because we see it as a route by which government expenditures that in the past have been included in the general revenue expenditure estimates can now be determined, approved and made without coming to this Legislature, without going through the proper process of being included in the estimates and of being debated for all to see and all to discuss through the Legislature.

This government speaks of a deficit this year of only $1.5 billion. But we really don't know what the true deficit is going to be, because at the time they bring the $1.5 billion estimate forward they also bring in a bill that will allow them to make expenditures that are normally included in that calculation -- the construction of roads and bridges, work done in the field of silviculture, work done in the field of advanced education, training and technology -- and instead of putting them on the table, dealing with them in a forthright and open manner, they're going to slide them in through the back door.

And where do they slide them into? They slide them into exactly the same package of debt that our children will have to pay in the future. So we don't know if this government really does intend to try and keep their deficit to $1.5 billion, or if it's going to be $3 billion, because of an additional $1.5 billion -- or whatever their plans are -- that is going to be spent through the Build BC Act.

[2:45]

They haven't told us. They have not told the people of British Columbia how much money they intend to spend. We know there is an initial funding of $100 million; we know there is an amount of $78 million, I think, that's a transfer to the fund from the Highways budget. There is discussion about silviculture; there is discussion about Crown corporation expenditures. But nowhere is there a complete, concise and understandable list of expenditures that we can expect them to be making.

This government was the first to complain when the previous administration brought in things like the BS fund, which they considered a means of pushing deficits and surpluses forward and back to suit their own purposes.

The BS fund was a very open and patent.... I mean, everyone was well aware exactly what was being done, and nobody was being fooled. But in this case, the government is giving itself the authority to order-in-council, to make major expenditures and to do work normally done through the ministries. They are going to set up a complete new bureaucracy. There is going to be another CEO. There's a place for a board of directors who will be appointed from outside. You can be assured that those directors will be appointed from their friends and insiders, because the bill also contains the ability to pay them, of course, their just, reasonable expenses and some indemnity for their time.

We spend a lot of time in this Legislature talking about the size of government. We spend a lot of time talking about the need for government to be shrunk. We spend a lot of time talking about the need of government to be responsive to the concerns of British Columbia taxpayers. But this bill, as it presently exists, flies in the face of all the concerns that people have. It creates a new bureaucracy. It has a means by which the

[ Page 5515 ]

government can go out and borrow substantial sums of money, without it coming through this Legislature and without it being voted on -- to do those things which in the past have come through the processes here.

The budget estimates of the 1-cent-a-litre tax and the $1.50-per-day tax that are going to be the revenue sources for the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, amount to an intended annual income of $52 million a year. The B.C. savings bonds, issued by the Minister of Finance in late 1991, were renewed earlier this month -- although we haven't been told how many people cashed them in -- at an interest rate of 53/4 percent, I think.

If this government can continue to borrow money from British Columbians at 53/4 percent, and they go on a 20-year amortization basis, that allows them at this moment in time to go out and borrow over $600 million. In fact, the amount of money that payments of $52 million a year, with interest at 53/4 percent over 20 years, will buy is $604 million. Added to that $604 million is the possibility that there will be an additional $100 million, because that is the original funding.

It looks to us poor mushrooms, who are kept in the dark about much of these matters, that at the very least there's an expenditure plan of some $700 million, in addition to the $18 billion-plus that the government plans on spending this year.

The government comes in and brags, talks about their intention and their hard work to bring down the amount of the deficit, but at the same time they bring in legislation that allows them to do an end run. Hon. Speaker, the proper thing for this government to do is to allow this bill to be hoisted for six months; and for them to think about it again and to have time for responses from the British Columbia community.

I'm not suggesting at this moment in time that they should have committees travelling around the province, but I'm sure that if it were known that this bill would be hoisted for a period of six months, British Columbians who have concerns about the amount, rate of growth and compounding of our debt that will be paid for by taxation in the future would take the opportunity to make sensible and thoughtful submissions to this government, encouraging them to think this through again.

I know that we in opposition often say: "Think about this. Don't rush it. Hoist the bill. Give the people of B.C. an opportunity to tell you what they think about it." One of the disappointments for all of us on this side of the House is that they don't take our advice. It surprises me, because it really is given with the very best of intentions.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's why you're there and we're here.

F. Gingell: No, that's because of a quirk in the voting patterns in this province -- 40 percent of the vote and 100 percent of the power. What a deal!

We asked them to hoist Bill 84. We talked at great length about our concerns with Bill 84 with respect to whether or not education should be treated as an essential service. They wouldn't listen to us. Although we put forward amendments to hoist the bill and motions to have it go to a committee for consultation, they didn't listen to us. One of the first things that happened in 1992, and one of the first actions taken by this government, was putting into place exactly what we suggested they should do last November.

They designated that education -- I think they've now limited it to grade 12 only -- would be an essential service. You would think by now they would begin to recognize that although we in opposition may not have any responsibility or authority, we do have some ideas that are worth listening to. It's unfortunate that the minister isn't here. They're all busy reading. Oh, the Attorney General is listening. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

We are just simply going in the wrong direction. It's the old way of the NDP of adding to the bureaucracy. It just goes on day after day. We need a job for a friend, so let's set up the Build BC Act. If this act is going to be in the business of collecting tolls on highways, which it sounds like it may very well do, I'm sure there will be a lot of jobs at toll gates for the Robin Hoods of this province.

I really do sincerely encourage this government to allow this amendment to pass, and if they do that and reconsider all of the consequences of this bill, allow fair and open discussion with all members of the House and take cognizance of the concerns that we have, we would deal with the re-presentation of this bill at a later date in a much more receptive manner.

But we see this bill as a very important piece of legislation. We see this bill as a means by which this government can, on a moment's notice, start spending money, doing public works and doing all kinds of things without coming through the legislative process, without those expenditures being included in the annual budget presented both to this House and to the people of British Columbia.

So why are they doing this? One would hate to think that it was for some crass political opportunity that they might wish to pull at a time when they thought their prospects were good for re-election. But the people of this province will understand clearly what this is all about. When they realize that this government is intent upon expending money that has not been voted on in this House, they will ensure that this government is not

[ Page 5516 ]

re-elected. They promised open, accountable government. This is the exact opposite.

[3:00]

It is a sad day, because this party in opposition did a first-class job of holding the government accountable, of always trying to ensure that things were done in an open and accountable manner. Now that they're in office, one of the first things they are doing is trying to subvert that process and find means around the back door for doing things that they want to do for political reasons, without the expenditure being approved by this Legislature.

I would like to just finish, if I may, with some words that were in the paper, but it puts our concerns in a very concise manner: "But there's nothing in this bill to indicate why the thing is needed or how another government agency will add one iota to genuine economic activity in the province. On the contrary, Bill 3 is a recipe for waste, duplication of effort, patronage, debt and evasion of the duly elected Legislature." There you have it, folks: Mike Harcourt and this government's vision for the future of British Columbia.

L. Krog: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Krog: Today in the gallery, visiting from my constituency, are approximately 55 grade 6 students from Rutherford Community School, accompanied by their teacher, Glenda Ryall. They are a most enthusiastic bunch of young Canadians, and I'm very pleased to have them here today.

F. Gingell: I also seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: It's a great pleasure for me to introduce my long time friend, Mr. Bill Pattison, the original founder of the Delta Hotel chain -- one British Columbia business that spread its way across the country from the west. Mr. Pattison is visiting here from Toronto, and I ask the House to make him welcome.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise today and support the hoist motion before this House. As other opposition members have stated, the purpose of this enabling legislation is to create, in effect, a Crown corporation designed to circumvent the scrutiny of the Legislature. On that basis alone, I would like to see this bill defeated.

During the election the now Premier went around the province, saying: "We will not spend what we cannot afford." This government has added $5 billion to the direct debt of the province in two short years. It has doubled the debt in two years. This government now wants to create a vehicle to hide a further mountain of debt, with no accountability to the people of B.C.

Bill 3 sets up the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority with a board of directors and the Minister of Transportation as the chair. On closer examination of this bill, there are no functions that cannot be handled by the existing ministries. Will the ministries of Transportation, Economic Development, Advanced Education and Social Services have their budgets reduced proportionately by the moneys being spent by this new authority? If not, we are moving into a pattern of double financing.

One of the powers and capacities of the authority is to create subsidiary corporations to carry out the purposes of the act -- more spending, more bureaucracy. The spending rate of this government is twice the rate of inflation, and it doesn't matter if we have the second-lowest level of combined taxes in the country. This government is sending the worst possible message to the international business and financial community and to ordinary taxpayers. What happened to the now Premier's promise of "we will not spend what the people cannot afford"?

In this bill Crown corporations will spend more than $900 million this year in every region of the province, including $500 million in new projects -- an accelerated government spending program for social capital facilities in health care, education and justice. These projects will cost $1.42 billion this year. That's an increase of 30 percent over 1992-93. A new B.C. Transportation Financing Authority is authorized to borrow $80 million to finance and construct new highways and other high priority transportation projects, plus an additional $100 million in new expenditures in 1993-94 to develop innovative approaches to investment and job creation.

This Build B.C. -- or Bilk B.C., as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has accurately dubbed it -- is even more of a scam that BCRIC was. Frankly, I didn't think that was possible, but here it is. Bill 3 is the most outrageous and ruinous piece of legislation to come down the pike in a very long time. I find it absolutely astounding that this government shows no recognition of the level of public concern over the enormous debt burden this province will face as a result of Bill 3.

I support this motion because it took B.C. 125 years to accumulate an operating deficit of nearly $5 billion, and over the last two years the Harcourt government has almost doubled that. Bill 3 establishes a new Crown corporation with unlimited spending and borrowing authority. It also means new administration costs, a new burden on the taxpayer and -- more importantly for this NDP government -- more patronage appointments for its friends and insiders. Hon. Speaker, our very serious concern is that this new authority can take on long-term debt with no public accountability.

Because we already have in place ministries and the annual budgetary process to handle the functions outlined in this bill, I very strongly support this amendment to hoist this bill for six months.

I have here a publication from the Vancouver Board of Trade in which they call for a public hearing into Bill 3, the B.C. 21 initiative introduced in the March 30 budget. Says David McLean, the chairman of the Vancouver Board of Trade: "'The Harcourt government's rush of Bill 3 is irresponsible and unnecessary. Why are they in such a rush to spend our money'?"

[ Page 5517 ]

The Speaker: A point of order has been raised by the Minister of Finance.

Hon. G. Clark: A rather minor point, but the member repeatedly refers to another member of the House by his last name. I'd appreciate it if we could just try to bring it to the member's attention.

The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member will be reminded of that.

L. Stephens: I do apologize, hon. Speaker, and thank you. "Bill 3 is represented as being 'self-supporting,' but the money ultimately comes from the taxpayer....' What's more worrisome is that there are no safeguards for spending limits or accountability. It's an open invitation for fiscal mischief." The implications of Bill 3 are too far-reaching to be rushed through this Legislature, and the board is therefore calling for a legislative committee to study, review and give full opportunity for public input into Bill 3.

Hon. Speaker, I reiterate that I strongly support the amendment to hoist this bill for six months, and I encourage all members of the House to vote for that amendment.

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, I don't think this side of the House is making any secret as to why they're so concerned about this particular bill. There are some very pressing questions as to what's motivating the government to introduce a bill of this sort at this time in their mandate. The questions that we ask on this side of the House are: Why are they introducing the bill? Why are they burying it in a Crown corporation? Why are they not using the bureaucracy that's in place? Why is there a special funding system and a contradiction of the normal financial processes?

It isn't only members of this side of the House that are questioning the methods of the government. One of the reporters and commentators in the gallery wrote a strong

article on April 16. Members must know that the people who work in that part of this House are not my favourite friends, but in this case the

article is so much to the point that I must bring it to the attention of all members. I quote from Vaughn Palmer's column of the April 16:

"Premier Mike Harcourt says his government's 'long-term economic strategy for the twenty-first century' is to be found in initiatives like Build B.C., a proposed law now being debated in the provincial Legislature. If he meant what he said -- and the words are taken from a government press release -- then the New Democrats are in more trouble than I thought. For the Build BC Act, Bill 3 on the legislative agenda, is as obvious a piece of tomfoolery as anything cooked up in the last desperate years of the Socreds. Liberal Dan Jarvis dubbed it 'Bilk B.C.,' and from my reading, he was right on the money.

"Ostensibly, Bill 3 ushers in the NDP plan to borrow more than $1 billion to build roads, hospitals, schools and other public works. A plan, I should add, which is so confused it has gone through three names in six weeks.

"When presented to cabinet February 23 it was known as the jobs and investments fund. Then it was Build B.C., and after that name was leaked to the press the New Democrats added their third moniker, B.C. 21, under which Premier Harcourt introduced it to the public three weeks ago."

Vaughn Palmer goes on to say....

Interjection.

C. Tanner: The members must remember that I'm quoting directly from an

article in the newspaper in which all the names there were mentioned. Why would speakers now object to the fact that we mentioned names? However, Madam Speaker, you can be sure that I will try not to mention names again.

"Bill 3 preserves this state of confusion nicely, and not just because it continues to go under the former name of Build B.C. The entire thing is muddled, all 15 pages and 38 clauses of it, though by the end one gets a glimpse of the Premier's vision, and it is not anything that one would care to boast about on a public platform.

"First we get a statement of purpose. The bill will establish agencies to facilitate 'economic development, job creation, investment, training and regional diversification.' Never mind that there are already four government ministries, three cabinet committees, four legislative committees, a half-dozen Crown corporations and two multimillion-dollar cabinet secretariats, all dedicated to the identical purposes.

"Next the bill establishes a committee -- it's the NDP; there has to be a committee -- 'on building B.C.'s future.' And since the first obligation of any government committee is to look out for its own interests, the members will be paid 'reasonable travelling and incidental expenses necessarily incurred in carrying out the business of the committee.'

"Third, there is to be a start-up fund consisting of $100 million derived, through the miracle of government bookkeeping, from the provincial treasury."

The

article goes on:

"The New Democrats insist this account does not add to the long-term debt of the province, but since they are currently borrowing at the rate of $250 million a month, the claim has approximately the same worth as the Premier's famous: 'If we don't have the money, we won't spend it.'

"Fourth, the bill establishes yet another Crown corporation, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, to 'plan, acquire, construct or improve transportation infrastructure throughout B.C.' And yes, that statement completely overlaps the mandate of the existing Ministry of Transportation and Highways, which has a budget of $762 million and has 2,572 employees."

Quoting further from this fine article:

"But for all the superfluousness of the new entity, it will not lack for all the trappings of other NDP creations. The bill provides for a board of directors -- four new patronage jobs, appointed by cabinet and paid the usual 'expenses and remuneration.' The company will also have a chief executive officer, who presumably will be paid the going rate -- in excess of $125,000 a year -- plus an unspecified number of other employees, all of whom will be made eligible for government benefits and pensions, according to Bill 3.

"Nor will this patronage vehicle lack for power. The bill gives it the authority to borrow money, spend money and impose tolls on provincial roads and

[ Page 5518 ]

bridges, apparently without further recourse to the provincial Legislature.

[3:15]

"The only practical limit on this sweeping authority is the cabinet itself, which contrived the whole scheme in the first place.

"But there is nothing to indicate why the thing is needed or how another government agency will add one iota to genuine economic activity in the province. On the contrary, Bill 3 is a recipe for waste, duplication of effort, patronage, debt and evasion of the duly elected Legislature.

"And there you have it, folks, the Premier's vision for the future."

Let's just see how the members of this government understand what the bill is. The member for Cariboo North said that Build B.C. is going to kick-start the economy of British Columbia, which begs the question: what do you think the government has been trying to do for the last year and a half? The Finance minister has been bragging that B.C. has the best economy in the land; if he is right, why does he need to kick-start it?

The member for Cariboo North went on to say that the opposition cannot criticize the lack of scrutiny opportunities for this bill, because it is their job to scrutinize every piece of legislation. The spending provisions under this legislation will be made by cabinet, and unless the NDP is planning to have a lot of leaks, which would be pleasant, the opposition and the public will not know about the spending decisions until after they are made.

Every member on the other side of the House, when they were speaking -- they've given up on that now, because they want to rush this bill through -- promised solutions to all of our problems: money from nowhere to build schools, hospitals and roads, and not one of them accounted for in this Legislature. This is a horrendous bill that all of us should be very wary of.

Why are the government backbenchers continually accusing members on this side of the House of not caring? Of course we care. We have a different way of solving the problems, but to say that we don't care is absolutely ridiculous. How does this bill create money? Where does the money appear for this Crown corporation that wasn't there in the first place? If you couldn't do it last year, how does the government create money to make this bill work this year? It's a myth. If the money wasn't there last year, it isn't there this year.

In fact, I suspect there is even less this year, because at the rate this government has been borrowing, they've got nowhere to get the money unless they borrow it. And if they're going to borrow it, it should be in this House that they have to stand and account for it, not in a Crown corporation.

Why is the government so protective of this legislation? Why are not only cabinet members but members on the opposite side of the bench so protective of this legislation? Why did they make it Bill 3? Why are they pushing it through now? Why are we sitting tonight? So they can push this bill through. What's the hidden agenda here? What is it they're trying to hide? Members on the other side of the House have been standing up and telling us that it's going to solve the problem. We don't think so. And because we question them, they say we don't care. We do care. We're elected to care.

We care for our constituents; we even care for some of your constituents. But we certainly do not care for the attitude whereby the government is trying to make us the bad people in this procedure. We are not. We have a different way of raising money honestly in this Legislature, not hidden in a Crown corporation.

Why did they come up with this fatuous name, this B.C. 21? To me, twenty-one is the name of a famous French card game -- vingt-et-un -- where you gamble, and I think that's what they're asking us to do. We used to call it pontoon in Britain; some members will recognize that name. The name in Canada is blackjack, scoop, hit-and-twist, and that's what we've got here. We've got a gamble by the government to find some more money out of nowhere. The trouble is, they're using our tax money to gamble with, and they're gambling on odds that are poor.

If they lose, it's our money gone; and if they win, we don't know about it, because they keep the money to build a bunch of fictitious schools, hospitals and roads that aren't going to appear.

They are telling us it's simple. "We make the rules. We'll play your cards. We'll play our cards too, but don't worry about it. But you must not look; don't look at the cards. Trust us. We'll let you know if you win." We in this province are rapidly finding ourselves in the same situation as New Zealand. A letter from the publisher of British Columbia Report, March 29, has the most astute comment that I've heard:

"The way who wins the Stanley Cup matters, or which Hollywood star gets the Academy Award, but such concerns instantly lose their importance when something really serious happens -- a grave illness in your immediate family, for example, or an accident or a death. Then you will discover that these are the things that are really important. The same is true in politics. When W5 took its crew to New Zealand last month, where nine years ago a country seemingly secure, prosperous, stable and resource-rich as Canada is today suddenly found out what really matters in politics, and it's called debt.

It's debt that is accountable in this House, not in the pale imitation of the Socreds many years ago, that master of financial manipulation, Mr. Bennett, when he used to hide all his debt in what he called contingent liabilities. They improved on that in the last government when they called it the BS fund. But this government has outdone anything that the Socreds have ever tried to do in hiding their debt. If you didn't happen to see the W5 program about New Zealand, on February 28, there were things you should know, and you aren't likely to find them in the Southam newspapers or on CBC.

"Up until 1984 New Zealand was something of a socialist paradise, almost on a par with Sweden. Its medicare system covered even drugs, and had been instituted 30 years before Canada's. It had led the world in feminist legislation. Women got the vote there a hundred years ago. It was a haven for Greenpeace, and it had divorced itself from the international fight against communism, denying bases to the U.S. Navy. It had broken off relations with South Africa. And it had the third-highest standard of living in the world. Like Canada, it was financing itself by borrowing.

"The politicians of all parties deplored it, just as they do in Canada -- or as they pay lip service to in Canada -- and solemnly vowed to make this economy and the

[ Page 5519 ]

deficit their number one priority. But just as in Canada, nothing seemed to work. Then one day in 1984, shortly after the new socialist administration took office, the finance minister delivered the news to the thunderstruck cabinet. Without warning, New Zealand's credit had been cut off. Its latest bond issue would just not sell. The money was needed to retire an old bond issue, upon which the country must now default. So New Zealand could no longer borrow. This didn't mean trouble down the road; it meant trouble that very day. Meeting the civil service payroll would be a problem, and money for unemployment insurance, pensions and farm subsidies simply wasn't there.

"The cause of this crisis is no mystery. New Zealand, like Canada, had been heavily borrowing foreign money. Its foreign debt had reached 47 percent of its gross national product; Canada's now stands at 44. Its total government debt stood at 62 percent of the gross national product, and Canada's now stands at 88. So our situation is in fact worse than it was in New Zealand in 1984. Like Canada, New Zealand hoped to grow its way out of debt, expecting that the economic expansion would spare the necessity of cutting spending. It didn't. Taxes were raised but the deficit kept getting worse, just like in Canada."

The letter from the publisher of that goes on to describe the details. But we're seeing in this House with this bill a repetition of exactly the same thing that this minister won't accept is happening in British Columbia. We are getting to the point when the decisions made in this House will not be made by these members; it will be made by the international bankers. When that minister next goes to New York, Montreal or wherever to borrow money, particularly if he goes for international money, they're going to say, "Mr. Finance Minister, we're glad to see you again; here's the money; the rate is." -- and it's going to be a horrendous rate of 6 or 7 percent above the going rate.

And the minister will rightly say: "We can't afford that money; it's too much; it's way higher than anybody else."

The bankers will say: "Well, that's fine. There are lots of other people who want to borrow it, at lower rates, but they're more secure. So if you don't want to borrow it, we'll give it to somebody else. You better go home again, young man. Go home and tell the people back there, whom you've been conning for the last year and half. You've been not giving them the truth, and then you're trying to hide the way you're financing. When you go back to your Legislature and tell them...."

The Speaker: Order, please. Just to clarify for the House. The comments that the member is making: I would like to clarify that he's not addressing those comments to any other individual member in the House. If the member could please confirm that, then I would invite him to continue with his debate.

C. Tanner: Not to any particular member. I assume that the members on the government side are a group. I assume that the members on the other side make decisions in concert. I assume that those decisions are leading to a bill like we've got in front of us today.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

C. Tanner: What concerns this side of the House, Madam Speaker, is the fact that even if the government doesn't buy our premise that they shouldn't be borrowing any more and that they should be cutting costs, they should be.... There are only three things you've got to do when you're in debt and going in debt further. You can cut programs, you can cut staff, or you can sell assets. We're not doing any of those things in this province. We're not saying: "this program, I'm afraid, has got to go because we can't afford it." We're not reducing the people who work for us, who implement those programs. I haven't heard of us selling any assets. So what is the government going to do?

Apparently they're going to continue to borrow money. Maybe the rate of borrowing is a little lower, but it's our contention that because of the liabilities they have in their Crown corporations, they're borrowing more money. That's what worries us about this legislation. They want to set it up so it's not in the purview of this Legislature so that these members can't easily see it until some president or chairman of a Crown corporation chooses to make their annual report. In their discretion this then can happen six or eight months after their financial year-end.

It could be a year and a half down the road before we find out what's happening. The power that's given to this corporation is far greater than many others.

Our question to the Minister of Finance and the government is why you need to go this route. We haven't had any explanation as to why they have to use this particular vehicle to finance government projects nor have we had any explanation from the back benches, who apparently have been sold a bill of goods saying: "All your problems are solved. We'll have roads, hospitals and schools for you in your constituencies. Trust us. We've got it all set up in Bill 21; I mean B.C. 21." It's such a confusing name, it's even hard to keep track of it.

The members on this side of House don't like it. We're suspicious of it. We think the government should at the very least give it a six months' hoist as we're suggesting in this bill so that there can be more time to consider it. You get feature columnists like the two I've quoted, plus the members of the Vancouver Board of Trade and other organizations -- like the ones I'm interested in, the tourism organizations -- all saying: "Why are you going this route? Why don't you lay your cards on the table instead of playing blackjack with our money? Why don't you follow the normal route? Why do you have to change the course of things?"

The only other time we've ever seen this happen in British Columbia is when the Socreds had charge of the government many years ago and they called them "contingent liabilities." They had nonsense like going up to Kelowna and shooting burning arrows into barges full of bonds, and the debt disappeared. That sort of nonsense is coming back again with these people after all their years in opposition when they sat and criticized the Socred government about the things they did wrong -- particularly in their financing attitudes -- and now they're coming back with this nonsense. The province doesn't deserve this.

It deserves a straight answer to a straight question: are you going to raise more debt, and

[ Page 5520 ]

how are you going to spend it? Not with bills like this. I urge every member of the House -- but particularly the backbenchers from the other side of the House -- to think very carefully before they commit this province to this sort of nonsense.

R. Neufeld: I rise to support the amendment to hoist Bill 3 for up to six months. In fact, if I had my way, I'd just like to deep-six Bill 3. I think probably most people in British Columbia feel the same way. This government is not listening to the people of British Columbia. We are all aware that we need more money for roads. There's no doubt about that. You could borrow all the money in the world, and there would still be a need for more roads someplace else, because somebody would not be satisfied with what's being spent.

You have to take your priorities, put them into place and decide where you're going to spend that money for the betterment of all British Columbia and the future taxpayers of British Columbia.

[3:30]

This bill allows the government to take debt, deficits and operating money. Previously, highways were built out of the operating budget. I'll admit that there were years, of course, when the operating budget did not match the revenue, but there were also years when the revenue was higher than what was expended. Contrary to what my friend for Saanich North and the Islands said.... I believe he talks about shooting arrows into burning hulks and those kinds of things. I wonder at times.

In fact, I'm convinced more and more every day when I hear members opposite -- the government -- take potshots at the Social Credit Party, who are the third party, and continually harass us, that you'd think we were in government. Obviously the official opposition is under that same impression today. That's basically what I heard from quite a number of their members this morning. They weren't taking issue with what the government was doing; they were taking issue with the Social Credit Party.

I guess it's obvious that there are things that are biting them a little -- the same as it bites the government every once in a while. I can understand that.

Creating a new Crown corporation to do the same things that we're doing now -- just to hide deficit spending, put it into long-term debt and try to cloud it over and tell the people of British Columbia that we're going to build hospitals, schools, fire halls and infrastructure in communities to encourage economic development, just to cloud the issue and to make people wonder how they did it before -- is untruthful. They're not being honest. I'll use that word because the Premier used it quite often, and so do members of cabinet. They talked about being open and honest.

They, along with all of the backbenchers, are being far from open and honest when they get up and talk about all the wonderful things that they're going to build under B.C. 21.

B.C. 21, Bill 3, is there only to build highways that used to be built out of the operating budget. They now want to transfer them into long-term debt so they can get their deficit under control. It doesn't matter how you do it -- when you put it in a long-term debt, somebody is going to have to pay. It's going to be the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is getting tired of paying.

Having said that, we still have to build highways in the province. I realize that. We can do it exactly as we have in the past -- out of the operating budget. It may be a little slim. There will be competing priorities within that operating budget for highway construction. Let's just look a little at this government's preferences in 1991-92 and where they spent more money and which ministries they spent less on. We'll just start with the Premier and the executive council operations. We've heard the cabinet and the Premier talk about the frozen salaries.

They took a cut in pay, and they did all these great things for the people in the province. Yet from 1991-92 to 1993-94, they increased the office of the Premier by $6.8 million in two budgets. The government's priority lies with the creation of all the energy councils and everything involved there and with no end of patronage appointments. Hydro is the latest one. It's absolutely amazing that they can stand in the House and justify what took place in the hiring of the CEO for B.C. Hydro.

We go to Aboriginal Affairs, and that's up $7.4 million. I'm not going to go through every ministry, but I'm going to go through a number of them. From '91-92 to '93-94, they increased the expenditure in Advanced Education, Training and Technology by almost $43 million. In the same period of time they reduced expenditures in Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by $22.4 million. In Economic Development, Small Business and Trade -- and this is part of what they talk about, building infrastructure for economic activity and encouraging economic activity in British Columbia -- they've cut the budget by $113.7 million.

Education has gone up by $372 million in the same period of time. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, another revenue-generating part of the government, is down $3.8 million.

I agree that Social Services is a difficult ministry. There's no doubt that it would be a hard one to administer. I've talked to a number of previous cabinet ministers who have said that it is hard to administer. There are people out there in need -- there's no doubt about it. But when we have a Minister of Social Services who stands in the House and condemns the Social Credit government for an increase in expenditures of 10 and 12 percent over the last two years of their administration and then in the next breath talks about the fact that we didn't spend enough in Social Services, you wonder where they're coming from. They've increased Social Services by $900 million.

This is all relative to Bill 3, the Build BC Act.

F. Garden: Oh, come on!

R. Neufeld: What I'm trying to do is talk about priorities within your budget and how you spend. But it's typical of that member that he doesn't listen, and when he does, he still doesn't catch on.

Tourism, another revenue-generating ministry, has been cut by $9.8 million over two years. Transportation and Highways was cut by $221 million over two years. That $221 million used to build highways, but it was

[ Page 5521 ]

changed around because of priorities in the budget. Probably all of that $221 million got shuffled into Social Services. One never knows. I'm just trying to relate the thinking of this government. What we're going to end up with is having to borrow money for everything and only being able to afford probably three or four social services. Women's Equality went up $16.1 million in two years.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The management of public funds and debt: this is not for the Crown corporations, but this is for deficits -- their own deficits, not anybody else's. No Social Credit or Liberal member had any hand in this. No one had any hand in this but the NDP, and they've increased those costs by $344 million a year. Do we wonder why we can't build highways out of the operating budget? It becomes very obvious why: it's a matter of priorities. Now we see where your priorities are.

The Minister of Economic Development said it very well when he spoke to Bill 3. He said: "We have reduced the operating deficit. They're going to deny investment in this province. We have the ability to pay. If we reduce the operating deficit, we then have the ability to pay off long-term debt." What the Minister of Economic Development is talking about is transferring debt that used to come out of the operating budget into long-term debt for highways so that they can balance their budget.

In a couple of years they're probably going to be coming in with a deficit well under $1 billion, and they'll be paving the province of British Columbia. But it's all in long-term debt, and guess who's going to pay. It's the same taxpayer -- there's only one of them. And let me tell you: they're getting scarce; they're getting upset.

C. Serwa: And their pockets are only so deep.

R. Neufeld: Their pockets are only so deep, as my colleague says. And they've only got one left, because all the others have been ripped off either by the federal government, the provincial government or municipalities. Everybody is going after that same pocket, and people only have so much they can pay. Business people and people in the workforce have told me lots of times this last year that they wouldn't mind paying a bit more tax if they could just see where it was going -- not into another Crown corporation; not to hire another 1,600 employees, as they did last year.

F. Garden: You had them hired.

R. Neufeld: It's amazing; the member for Cariboo North woke up again, hon. Speaker, and he says we had them hired before. My goodness, they weren't on the payroll. How in the world did we do that? They hired 1,600 people -- not in the first year they were in government, but the second year. In the first year all they did was spend a little time upping our deficit. This year they are going to put in another 1,200 people, and that is what the people are upset about.

Whether that member or that executive chooses to believe it or not, the people of British Columbia are saying "Whoa!" They are saying "Whoa!" all over Canada. Even Mr. Rae in Ontario is catching on, Mr. Romanow is catching on -- all Premiers are catching on. But where are we in B.C.? "No, we're going to spend more. We're going to create another Crown corporation and see if we can't hire a few more people." Obviously there are a few more out there they have to get on the payroll at around a hundred or two hundred or whatever is going to happen.

I talked about the debt charges increasing to $344 million, and he tells me that's a bunch of b.s. Well, I took it right out of his budget manual. Maybe he ought to read it; maybe he should take it right out of there. That's where the numbers come from -- from the Finance minister's own numbers. So I'm using government numbers -- not mine, not the Liberals'. I'm using the government numbers.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I can understand why the member for Cariboo North would be confused about that. I think there are a lot of people, and a lot of people in the back bench, who are confused about where this government is going.

[3:45]

Also last week the Minister of Economic Development talked about the way that schools and hospitals were financed before. I'd like to remind the Liberals that this is the second time I've had the opportunity to speak to this bill. Some of their members spoke a little earlier about no one from the third party being in the House to speak to the bill. I think I'm the last one, out of the six members, to speak twice.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: We've got some funnies coming out of the Liberals now.

It's no wonder the government is confused. The Minister of Advanced Education tried to introduce a bill right after question period and couldn't get the words right -- and he's in government. The Liberals are over here in one corner telling them to tax and in the other corner telling them to spend, so it's no wonder that government's confused. They can't operate themselves and are being coached by an inept opposition.

The Minister of Economic Development spoke last week about how schools and hospitals were financed. I think I said last time that Shaughnessy Hospital was built a long time ago and it was financed publicly. Every member of the government back bench or the executive council who speaks in support of Bill 3 talks about building all the hospitals and schools -- "We're going to replace all the portables" -- as though that never happened before; as though there was nothing in place to do it. There's one member of the executive council -- but maybe he's not forceful enough to get his viewpoint across -- that does know how it happened before.

There's a long history in this province about capitalizing major investments. I quote the Minister of Economic Development from Hansard: "For example, the

[ Page 5522 ]

B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority, the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority and the B.C. Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority were all established by Social Credit in the sixties and seventies." So those facilities for financing that type of construction are all in place, and always have been.

So why do the government members continually talk about this? Why don't they just deal with the very truth of the matter, be truthful with the people in British Columbia, and say they want to shuffle some money out of the operating budgets? "We can put it in long-term debt for building highways. We need a place for a few more people. We have to create a Crown corporation." Running a Crown corporation is not cheap. When all systems are in place and the public is saying "enough is enough," what do we have? We have an executive council that still wants to spend more and create another Crown corporation to hide a little bit of debt.

I'm just going to go back a few years. I didn't want to use the 1991-92 budget, because somebody would have said it was the wrong numbers; I'm going to use the '93 budget. These are the government's numbers, going back to 1990. The Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority has been in place for a long time for building schools and such, and getting rid of portables. It's probably the same thing with portables as it is with roads. It would be nice to have paved highway everywhere in the province we could imagine, and it would be nice to have brand new schools for all our children.

But there comes a time when you can only afford so much, and that's exactly how each one of those members, I would hope, runs their household. We should be seriously thinking of that in government too. It would be nice to have a beautiful school, but maybe we have to just go a little bit longer with the old school or the portable.

In 1990, $425 million was spent on capital in educational institutions; in 1991, $481 million; in 1992, $607 million -- rounding it off; in 1993, $762 million; and in 1994, $928 million. Obviously the government of the day is using that financing authority to build schools. So when they really talk about Build B.C., B.C. 21 and Bill 3 for building schools, they're telling an untruth, or else these numbers are wrong. Something's not right.

In 1990, $789 million was spent in British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts; in 1991, $916 million; in 1992, $978 million; '93, $1.49 billion; and '94, $1.14 billion. Those financing authorities are being used at the present time for building schools and hospitals, obviously. Why do we have members opposite standing up and trying to tell the public of British Columbia that they're going to do it through Build B.C., B.C. 21 or Bill 3? It's the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. It's all about removing debt from the operating budget into long-term debt. It's just a matter of reallocation.

When we stand here and continually oppose what the government is doing and how it's doing it, we should have something to give them -- some ideas of how they could do it. I say: go back a few years. See how highways were built at that time and where the money came from, and do it much the same way. It's just a reallocation from within the budget.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: Why the rush? It's interesting. All of a sudden, we have four bills in front of us. We've been in the House for five weeks. We finished the Ministry of Education's estimates. We're on the Ministry of Forests, we just started the Ministry of Health and now we want to go until 10 o'clock at night for a couple of nights, until Thursday, to get this bill pushed through second reading. For what reason? Is it, hon. Speaker, because they don't have their homework done?

An Hon. Member: Is the reason honourable? That's the question. Is the reason honourable?

R. Neufeld: That is exactly right. Is the reason honourable, hon. Speaker? Is it because this government does not have any more legislation to bring forward? Is the Minister of Health maybe not ready for her estimates? What is it? Are there commitments made somewhere? We know that the Minister of Finance just returned from New York. He has made some promises, obviously. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on here. We have to push this through. We can't bring any more legislation in, but we have to push this bill through so that we can get on with some megaprojects.

I wonder where those megaprojects are going to be. This government says it doesn't believe in megaprojects. I find it interesting that all the person who they hired to run B.C. Hydro knows is megaprojects.

An Hon. Member: Megasalaries.

R. Neufeld: Megasalaries. It leaves the opposition wondering: why the rush? We feel that the official opposition is right in what they say: this bill should be hoisted for six months; it should be put out to the people for six months. In fact, that isn't even where it should be. It should be deep-sixed, as I said to start with. You go back to square one; back to the basics. Look at the budget and decide where you can maybe cut some spending within the budget and spend some money on highways, as has always been done in the past.

The member for Nanaimo said the other day that we should be happy to support Build B.C. and Bill 3. He went through a long story about how he supported the Freedom to Move proposal put forth by the last Social Credit government. There are two fundamental differences. Freedom to Move was not a package that incorporated a Crown corporation to borrow the money; it was a priority of where money should be spent on highways, such as the Island Highway, in the province. Some of the Island Highway was built. This government -- I forget the number of days, but I heard it earlier -- could have probably two years left in their mandate, something like that. Would that be correct?

C. Serwa: If they're lucky.

[ Page 5523 ]

R. Neufeld: If they're lucky? If they're not tarred and feathered by then?

They have maybe two years left in their mandate, and they want to finish the Island Highway. They don't have the bill in place yet. They don't have the financing in place yet. They'll have some of the engineering in place but not all of it. It's a government that doesn't believe in megaprojects, yet they're telling their people that they're going to build the Island Highway. I've heard members in the government talk about how we'll have the Island Highway built. I wonder how they're going to do that without megaprojects. It's all a bit of a fallacy.

I will say that it's not easy to make those decisions about where you're going to spend the money you have, which you tax the people for. The people have said they've had enough taxes. You cannot spend all that money in the social part of the budget -- all of those increases there -- and disregard the rest of the budget. Economic development is a very important part of this province. We can't continue to cut its budget. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is another one. When we left office, we left the second-lowest income taxes and sales taxes in Canada. We left the lowest per-capita debt in Canada.

We left the strongest economy in Canada and the highest rate of capital investment. Nearly half of all the new jobs in Canada were created in B.C. That's what we left for the NDP. We left them a fine infrastructure of highways through the whole province. Not all of them were up to snuff, but I will guarantee that your government could stay there for as many years as they want and all of the highways wouldn't be perfect. But we left a good infrastructure.

In fact, when I talk to members of the NDP outside of the House, they tell me they're really happy. Members over there say that they're really happy with what W.A.C. and Bill Bennett did. They weren't happy with Bill Bennett's restraint program, because they don't believe in that, but they were happy with the other parts of what happened...

An Hon. Member: Happy with the results.

R. Neufeld: ...and happy with the results. Obviously they paid off, because it left the Finance minister room to move in increasing taxation and spending in the social part of the budget, and cutting back in the parts of the budget that really count -- the infrastructure of the province of B.C. When you cut back $200 million in highway construction in two years, it's certainly going to show up. There is no way that I can support a Crown corporation for building highways.

I can support building highways; I can support reallocation of funds within the existing budget to build highways; but I cannot support further debt on the people of British Columbia. I accept capitalization of debt for schools and hospitals, and for Crown corporations such as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail, because they have a way of generating funds to pay off those debts. I have no problem there.

[4:00]

It will be interesting to hear from the Liberals at some point on how they would expect to run the province. I listened to one of their members talk about how we shouldn't be capitalizing any debt; we should just pay for everything out of the operating budget. It would be interesting to hear how they feel it should be done. Some members and the leader have said that it was all done wrong in the past, and no, we shouldn't borrow any more. Then the Highways critic stands up and says that they believe in tolls and we should be capitalizing highways. It's no wonder that the government opposite, the NDP, is doing whatever they feel they should be doing.

K. Jones: It's a pleasure to rise on the continuation of the debate on Bill 3 and the hoist motion put forward by the Liberal Party to put this bill over for six months. This has really been done for the purpose of allowing the government to reconsider the serious implications of this bill and to withdraw it. That is the whole intention. We want the government to recognize that it is not in the best interests of the people of B.C. and that it is a means of trying to hide a very large additional debt to the people of B.C. They are doing it surreptitiously and not out in the open like they claimed they would when they were hoodwinking the public during the election process.

They're now coming forward and showing their true colors: their desire to have a secretive government and to have a dictatorship run by the Minister of Finance, with a bunch of puppets that he pulls strings on, including the Premier and other members who he has to stand up and bail out. He's got a bunch of wimpy dogs down at the far end saying "Yes" whenever he wants to get a bill passed. That's all this government's about. It's a power trip for this government and for the Minister of Finance: the NDP's power broker, master of mime and surreptitious actions, who tries to control everything.

He won't let any of his people make mistakes, because he will have to get in there and bail them out. He's got to treat them as though they're just there to run according to his agenda.

This bill is really about a power grab by this government. It's a real opportunity to change the whole process of democratic government in B.C. We have such fine examples of how they're getting the people of British Columbia more and more into debt. We just can't see a bottom to the process. They're making no attempt to stop this outflow of money from the taxpayers' pockets. They are literally vacuuming it out of people's pockets in order to get their agenda and power trip accomplished.

When we look at the statements in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance, he talks about the government debt being only $10 billion. But in his own report, the total direct and guaranteed debt of the province is listed as $26.379 billion. I submit that that is only a portion of the debt that this government already has. There is an additional portion, which the auditor general has brought to the attention of the public and members of this House, of close to an additional $4 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. This government is taking no action to resolve that. They are not admitting that it is part of their debt. They're not doing

[ Page 5524 ]

something to resolve the indebtedness that every British Columbian has.

They want to take on more debt for which they won't be publicly accountable. The general public won't know what that debt is going to be, because it isn't put forward in the budget and isn't put forward available to the public accounts. Only is that brought forward to the public if the Minister of Finance so chooses. In

section 18 it says that the Minister of Finance may direct the comptroller general to examine the operations of the authority that's set up to administer these funds. It doesn't even give him the authority which he would normally have to inspect the books of the government and the ministries to make sure that they are operated in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. It gives him the arbitrary control even as to whether there could be a watchdog checking into the way that he is operating and that this government is operating. It says: "The books are to be made available at all times, open for inspection." By the public? By the people of British Columbia? No, definitely not.

Interjection.

K. Jones: To the hon. member who said, "There's nothing wrong that," he's absolutely right, if it was going to be open to the public. But it's not open to the public; it's open to the minister or a person designated by the Minister of Finance. The public does not have a right to have access to the books of this authority that's generated under this bill. It's absolutely shameful.

The Minister of Education just finished stating that her ministry will be taking some money out of this bill. She reported in estimates that there may be multiministerial money coming from this. It's not accounted for in this bill; it's not accounted anywhere. She wouldn't relate to it, but she said there would be additional money coming outside of the money that's in her budget.

That's the kind of surreptitious government that we're getting with this bill. That's why this official opposition has taken such a strong position with regard to this bill. This is the crux of the whole direction of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia, and this is why they are rushing this bill through, because it's going to be the linchpin to all of the rest of the legislation they're going to be bringing through. It's the linchpin to the open purse, to the pockets of the people of British Columbia, that access that they're going to be using through this vehicle.

There are a couple of committees established under this bill. There's the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future. It states that the chairman of that would be the Minister of Finance. The interesting part about it is that the bill is very permissive. It states that the minister and no more than four other members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- that's our cabinet; that's the government on the opposite side of this House -- are going to be controlling the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. I'm sorry, that's the Minister of Highways, not the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance is in charge of the additional body that's overseeing the funding for this, and that's the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future. The setup of this structure is such that the minister in both cases, both these committees, can be the sole person. There is no requirement. It's at the pleasure of the cabinet that additional people are appointed. Who runs the cabinet? The Minister of Finance runs the cabinet. Let's face facts.

It's at his pleasure that he can choose to have a sole person running the whole operation or he can bring some of his buddies in to be a very small board -- all in the control of the cabinet.

There are continuous problems with the way this is set up. We have a situation that this government has said in the past is a problem that previous governments exercised. It's one that they've also practised this past year and a half since they've taken over as government, and that's the question of providing capital for buildings and structures, but no operating money to go with it. Where is the complementary operating money that is supposed to go with the proposals in this capital investment debt program? Nothing in the ministry's funding complements the proposed expenditures coming from this.

I would like to extend forgiveness to the member for Peace River North for his attack upon this caucus. I think he has been misguided, will soon see the error of his ways and will learn....

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair please, member.

K. Jones: I was just trying to verify the member's presence to the Chair. I wish to say to the member that regardless of how he spoke to us, we will always keep an olive branch open to the Social Credit to come and join us in the near future. The opportunity is there. We know they're hurting a little bit. The public slapped them pretty hard back on October 17, 1991. They made a decision then to hit this corrupt Social Credit government that was the government of the day. They wanted to have a change, and that change came about on October 17, 1991.

Unfortunately, the rump of six has its up- and down-days. Some days it wants to work as members of the opposition, which is what its role is. It's no longer government; therefore it shouldn't be getting in bed with the government of the day. It seems to have a tendency to do that, but it should carry on its role as opposition.

I know they are trying to survive as an entity, and therefore they're feeling that it's important for them to attack the very effective Liberal opposition -- the true official opposition in this government; the only opposition that is continually attacking and finding the faults and errors of this government; the only opposition that is bringing this government to accountability. We in this caucus have been doing an excellent job as the official opposition, and we will continue to keep this government accountable.

[4:15]

We invite the members of the third party, members of the Social Credit, to join us. We invite the members of the back bench of the NDP to come and join us. They're certainly welcome. If they want to join the Liberal Party,

[ Page 5525 ]

we're only too happy to give them a chance to have more voice in this government. We recognize that they feel frustrated on the back bench, and they feel like puppets on a string, being told when to yelp and when to keep their mouth shut. That's part of the problem of being on the back bench. It's very difficult to feel like you really belong in this parliamentary process when you have to spend all your time at the behest of the Minister of Finance whenever he pulls his chain.

We have with this bill an opportunity for the government to move into funding an awful lot of programs. These programs could be such things as put forward by the Victoria accord: maybe some nice trolleys going through town and some new buildings in Victoria. Perhaps these are intended to bail out the failing fortunes of the NDP mayor of Victoria and to buy their friends back into office, with the elections coming up this fall. Maybe that's why they're rushing this bill through, to get the funding out there.

I haven't heard any comments as to whether there will be additional costs for the Commonwealth Games. Perhaps some of the structural costs for that will come from this bill, bilk B.C. or Bill 21, the gambling game this Bill 3 legislation provides for. Are we going to get an Island Highway built with this? How many billions of dollars is that Island Highway going to cost?

N. Lortie: Are you opposed to the Island Highway?

K. Jones: I think that the Island Highway needs to be built within the limits of the taxpayers ability to pay for it. Maybe we can't get it all built in one fell swoop, and create a boom-and-bust economy like this government is proposing. Maybe this is an opportunity for them to rebuild the interior highways, so that the promises made by the NDP members in their ridings can be fulfilled. They've been out there ever since this bill was coming forward, making promises that there would be new roads, new hospitals -- you name it -- new capital structures, with lots of money available.

Maybe we're going to get the transit built in Vancouver, or the transit in all of the communities paid for out of this funding. Is that where the capital cost for new SkyTrain cars is going to come from? Is that where the new extension to Richmond, or the new extension to the Coquitlam area, is going to be funded out of? Are we going to have a massive major projects program going, much like the W.A.C. Bennett days, when big dams were built and big buildings were put up, all for the sake of government?

I think the people of British Columbia want to see their government a little bit less intrusive into their pockets, a little bit less into their lives. They would like to see necessary things built -- not just frivolous things or whatever wish-list the members of the government and their back bench can put together, but some realistic looking at what we need. When I talk to the people of British Columbia at these meetings, people are complaining about more taxes that this government is putting upon them. They feel that the economy is weakening because of this overburden of taxation.

The people who were previously encouraged to come to this country on an investment basis are now wondering whether it's worth their while. Are these the vehicles that we want to discourage these people? Do we want to provide the disincentives? That's what this bill and this government are doing.

Let's look at some of the other things that we might be able to build with this money. Who can come up with the wildest dream that this government might come forward with? I'd like to encourage the public to use their opportunity to write to this Legislature and come forward with "Guess what the next project of the government is going to be under Bill 3: Build B.C. -- Bilk B.C." Confuse the people, bury the facts. Maybe we're going to have a site C on the Peace River Dam and destroy the lowlands of Alberta. Maybe that's what their next agenda is -- B.C. Hydro making a whole bunch more money -- because this government is desperate.

It's desperate for money, because it's spending the money faster than it's coming in. It claws the money away from the charities under the Lottery Corporation and it takes it into its purse. And where does it go? It goes into a sinking black hole that has no bottom. But the money just keeps flowing in; they keep clawing it in. That's a typical NDP socialist government: no accountability to the public; just take the money and put it into programs that they think are helpful to people. They haven't even assessed the value of the programs as to whether they're helping.

Have they got any accountability for those programs? They just hand it out, like grain being tossed out. It's just a wide-open disbursement of funds like they're going out of style. To this government, it's not going out of style. There's more and more money that keeps coming in, because they can find another place to grab some more money. They can even tax our children. That's what they're doing with this bill: they're putting a tax on our children, our children's children and their children.

It's going to keep on going through future centuries for the people of British Columbia and for their little play-game this year and next year so that they can get re-elected. That's really what we're after; that's what this bill is all about. It's a buy-the-vote bill -- one that this government doesn't even question anymore. They know that what we're saying is the truth. They know that the people of British Columbia are going to pay whatever they can put through in this bill, because with this bill, the people don't have any way of keeping this government accountable. This government is sleazy.

Interjections.

K. Jones: And here's the Minister of Finance....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I've listened to your.... Take your seat, please. I've listened to your words with care. Some of them border on the unparliamentary, and I would suggest you choose your words from parliamentary language, please.

K. Jones: I fully accept your suggestion, and I must assure you that I have been choosing my words with great care and accuracy. I'm afraid that's probably one

[ Page 5526 ]

of the problems: the words are exactly the truth and the proper description of this government. It is sleazy, and I'll repeat that again. It tries to bring forward legislation that....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat.

On a point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the language is clearly unparliamentary, and he should withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken. I would remind the House to use proper parliamentary language, and I would urge all of us to be careful in how we couch our language. At this time I'll just ask the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to keep that in mind in his remaining remarks.

An Hon. Member: "Scandalous" is allowed.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate your comments, and I will continue. I will make a notation that this government is definitely scandalous in its administration of the people's money. It is totally without control. It is trying, through very manipulative legislation, to take control of this Legislature away from the people of British Columbia and give it to a dictatorship of a very small number of people, if not one person, that is really running this province.

It will dictate to the people of British Columbia everything that they will spend their money on and will determine from birth to death that the government knows best. The government will provide everything for you if you don't want to work; and if you want to work, it will take everything from you that you do gain through your hard work. That's a typical socialist government, a typical NDP government. We have that situation over and over in previous legislation as well.

I'd like to look at aspects of this bill that look after the interests of those people working on this authority more than they take into consideration the interests of the public. They've made sure that there is board remuneration and benefits for the officers. They've made sure that the officers and employees of this authority are covered by all the benefits of the Public Service Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Benefit Plan Act and the Pension (Public Service) Act. All of those are provided, making sure that these very private appointments are going to be well looked after.

[4:30]

It's interesting to look at some of the powers given to this authority. It has the ability to act as an agent of the Crown. All properties are excluded from taxation. There isn't even a provision of taxes in lieu, as there are with other Crown corporations; it's totally exempt from taxation. It has the ability "to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure...." Now that's a very broad thing. It's not just a highway or a transit line; it's any type of transportation facility that you can think of. They could even be in the airline business.

They could use it for building airports. It can be used to "acquire property by expropriation or otherwise." I don't know what the otherwise to expropriation is. I guess it's theft. But that's provisioned in this.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, your time has expired.

R. Chisholm: This bill is atrocious. There's no other word for it. It's a super BS fund. It has the capability of bilking British Columbia taxpayers of up to billions of dollars. This Bilk B.C. or Build B.C. allows the government to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to Crown corporations, and when the debt goes to Crown corporations, it is not accounted for in the deficit.

At the same time, this sneaky policy allows the government to skirt the normal legislative process by funnelling money into political blacktop projects. How it works is that B.C. 21 and the newly created B.C. Transportation Financing Authority will artificially reduce the 1993-94 deficit. Only $100 million in B.C. 21 spending will actually appear on the books this year as an appropriation to the Build B.C. special account. Another $80 million in borrowing power for the Transportation Financing Authority will show up as part of the province's accumulated debt, which will be reported apart from the annual deficit.

Another $166 million for the education institutions building authority, $93 million for the Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority and $281 million for the School Districts Capital Financing Authority will be borrowed this year but not included in the deficit.

The fact is, the total accumulated debt of our government, Crown corporations and agencies will increase this year from $23.2 billion to $26.3 billion -- a 32 percent increase since 1991 when this government took office. This is the largest debt increase in the entire history of the province, and this is a scam. Only half of this year's $3.1 billion in new debt will actually be credited to the minister's so-called $1.5 billion deficit. Not quite offsetting the burden of the new B.C. 21 debt will be $33 million in revenues to the Transportation Authority from taxes on fuel and vehicle rentals.

The minister claims that much of this accumulated debt is secured, an argument, like I said in my budget speech, that is nonsense too. When was the last time the provincial government sold off a stretch of highway to cover a loan?

The plain truth is that the NDP is running up debt at a historically fast pace, and no amount of creative accounting can hide that fact. Our debt is not being reduced or even held in check. This government believes in higher taxes, bigger spending and more debt -- just the opposite of their election platform, I might add. This bill will give the minister sweeping powers. There will be no debate and no scrutiny of the moneys that are being spent. They have borrowing authority, and technically they have taxation authority, too. They could put tolls on your road; it's just another form of tax. Whichever way you spell it, you're paying taxes.

All of these facilities are being duplicated. Each and every ministry involved in this is already doing the job.

[ Page 5527 ]

Why are we duplicating the same work? Why are we putting up these umbrellas? It's very similar to the Ministry of Agriculture, where they have different committees and commissions, and all they are is an umbrella to protect the minister at a time of trouble. They end up firing the board, the committee or the commission. We do not need a super Crown corporation to do the minister's job; we already have line ministries to do that.

I'd like to quote a couple of statements that were given to us earlier, and I'd like to respond to them in a like way. I'd like to quote the member for Cariboo North when he said: "Build B.C. is going to kick-start the economy of British Columbia." The Finance minister has been bragging about British Columbia having the best economy in the land. If he is right, why does he need to kick-start the economy?

Interjections.

R. Chisholm: I'll speak to the Speaker and the member for Vancouver-Hastings. Her statement was: "The future of our kids is actually at stake in this province." My response to her is that this is not so much a defence of Bill 3 as an admission that the NDP have already mortgaged the future of the next generation, and it's time it stopped. The same member said: "The opposition focuses on money; that's all they can see." The millions of taxpayers in British Columbia also focus on money, and do not want schemes such as Build B.C., which will spend money they can't see. They've had enough, and it's time that this was all straightened out.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds also wanted to get in on the debate and stated: "I don't see anything wrong with borrowing money, providing that there is a provision to generate the cash to amortize those loans." My response to them is that the provision to generate cash -- to which the member refers -- will take the form of legislated tolls, which are really taxes to be imposed on the people of the province. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money if the borrower makes the payments. In this case, the borrowing will be done behind closed doors by the NDP cabinet and the taxpayer will be stuck with double taxation to pay the bill. It's time that stopped too.

The member for Skeena stated that the opposition is suggesting that they will be unable to hold the government accountable for another Crown corporation or for what happens in B.C. Hydro. The response I have for him is that the NDP government in Ontario is now paying the price for ignoring Crown corporation debt. Just ask the Premier of Ontario. The Hydro monster created in Ontario by Marc Eliesen has driven the industry out of the province, and now the NDP is forced to have a fire sale of assets and sack thousands of employees.

Not only has this government in British Columbia refused to learn the lessons of their sister government in Ontario, but they have hired Marc Eliesen to preside over B.C. Hydro. That's not exactly a very wise move, considering his track record.

I'd like to quote what the Taxpayer newspaper states about it and what StatsCan states about British Columbia and our debt; and they are not very impressed with it either: "British Columbia has the fastest growing debt in Canada, according to a recent report published by Statistics Canada."

Interjections.

R. Chisholm: This government has got to realize that they are the government and they are responsible. The former government may have made mistakes -- and undoubtedly so -- but now you are in the driver's seat and it's time you took responsibility for it and did something to correct the problems.

"The study revealed that between 1981 and 1991, British Columbia's per capita gross debt -- which includes liabilities -- increased by a shocking 569 percent, rising from $1,144 to $7,657 for every man, woman and child. In 1981, B.C.'s per capita debt was 43 percent of the average of all the provinces, but by 1991 it had increased to 98 percent. With the exception of the Yukon, the fastest growing per capita debts are found in western Canada, with British Columbia leading the pack at 569 percent, Saskatchewan 354 percent, Alberta 301 percent and Manitoba 278 percent."

There are solutions for this. The member on the other side said: "What's the solution?" I gave a couple of solutions in my budget speech, but they are failing to listen. One thing we must learn is that we have to invest in this province, at the same time as cutting government expenditure; and of course, we'll have to tax to a degree, but not to the degree this government has. I can guarantee you we won't have a Bilk B.C. fund.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

From the same newspaper, it states that over an 11-year period from 1981 to 1991, the British Columbia government's balance sheet has shown the worst deterioration of any Canadian province or territory. Like I said: 569 percent. I say this to the hon. minister: I have a note from the taxpayer; he's speaking to you; you should read it.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: I'm sure that the minister's words weren't meant in truth, because these are the taxpayers talking to him. It states here: "B.C. government revenue this year will be $16.191 billion of which you will be paying $19,228, and that's $1,603...equivalent cost of a family for four months."

The British Columbia government expenditures are somewhat higher than that, unfortunately, which means we are going to owe money. They state from their figures that we will spend $17.98 billion, which means to the individual family of four, the cost will be $21,355 per family, and that comes down to $1,778 per person per month.

They've broken these figures down: health, for instance, is going to cost us $5,935,800,000; equivalent costs for that same family is going to be $7,050 per year, or $587 per month. For education the family will pay $4,263, and that will be $355 per person per month. Social Services will be $2,808, which will cost each

[ Page 5528 ]

member $234 per month. That adds up to roughly about $12 billion of our $17 billion expenditure.

Another amazing figure is the debt servicing. This year it's going to cost $795 million, just to pay for the interest on our debt. When you take a look at this piece of paper you see a couple of obvious problems. These ministries I'm talking about do not generate very much in the way of wealth. The wealth-generating ministries are going to have budgets such as $93 million for Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods; $93 million for Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; Tourism will have $60 million; and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources will have $42 million.

There's an obvious inequity here. You break those numbers down into the family unit, and all of a sudden you find out that we're investing in our wealth-generators, for instance in agriculture, $111 a year, to the grand tune of $9 per month. It's no wonder we're in trouble. We are not investing where we can generate funds to pay for all of these bigger debts. Look at Economic Development; it's exactly the same numbers: $111 per family, $9 per month. Again, we all know that small business, economic trade and development is what generates jobs, and we have 73,000 single males on unemployment and on social welfare. It's time this stopped.

[4:45]

Tourism costs every family $72, to the tune of $6 per family per month. In Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, $51, and $4 a month. It is no wonder that our industries are not generating any taxes to pay for the social services we wish to have. It's time this government realized that before we are going to solve our problem, we have to invest in our own province. Once we invest in it, we will be able to pay for all of the services we want.

As I said at the beginning, this bill is unconscionable. I don't know how they came up with it. It's a super BS fund. Unfortunately, the taxpayer is not going to have any control over what happens to it. Like I said, it will not be accounted for in the debt for the year.

If we take a look at the actual bill and start going through a few of the clauses, clause 21 allows for tolls or charges to be paid for the use of any property or authority. What they're talking about is taxes. Clause 20 says that the authority will collect the net revenue from tax revenue collected under

section 2.5 of the Social Service Tax Act. This is the $1.50 car rental tax. So we have a Crown corporation collecting and levying taxes. Clause 19 refers to authority revenue from the gasoline tax. This will allow, at the most, for a 1-cent-per-litre gasoline levy to be directed to the authority. This

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

section 11.1 of the Motor Fuel Tax Act. In other words, it has the right to tax the individual citizen. Since when do Crown corporations have the right to tax citizens of British Columbia?

Clause 22 is another interesting clause. The authority, with approval of the Minister of Finance, may invest or loan money of the authority which isn't required for the immediate purposes of the authority. If we take a look at the Mac-Blo situation, we could call it insider trading if we really wanted to get technical.

Clause 23 sets out the borrowing powers of the authority. It allows for any sum of money it considers necessary or advisable, and it may issue securities. In other words, they control themselves, and they're allowed to borrow any amount of money they so wish.

If you take a look at clause 12 regarding the powers and capacity of the authority, it has the capacity to plan, build and improve transportation infrastructure. I thought that was a responsibility of the Minister of Highways, not of a Crown corporation. It has the right to acquire property through expropriation or otherwise. I'm sure the citizens of British Columbia will be really appreciative when a Crown corporation expropriates their property. It can provide financial assistance by way of a grant, loan or guarantee -- I hope patronage doesn't come into this one.

It can create subsidiary corporations to carry out the purposes of the act. In other words, this monster can become bigger again; it can give birth to more corporations.

Clause 14 defines the powers of the board of directors. These people are not supposed to be government employees. But clause 16 defines the officers and employees who may be hired by the chief executive officer, whose office is established under this section.

These employees will also come under the Public Service Plan Act, and the Pension (Public Service) Act is also applicable. In other words, they are public employees. I might add another little point to that one. Every 1 percent increase in public service compensation is equal to $108 million on our deficit. It's something for the members on the opposite side to think about when they give BCGEU 6 percent. They're not giving them 6 percent; they're giving them $648 million, roughly.

We have a few other problems here. We look to clauses 6 to 8. It says the opening balance will be $100 million, which can be increased by a vote under the Financial Administration Act. It will be used, supposedly, for community-level capital projects, employment and job-training initiatives, resource-enhancement initiatives, infrastructure initiatives and costs associated with the administration of the special account. That leaves an awful lot of room for this government to plan for the next election.

We'll bounce around a bit to keep life interesting here. Clause 24 allows for the creation of sinking fund accounts or other arrangements for the repayment of the outstanding authorities. Sinking funds are sums of money which are set aside out of earnings each year to provide for the repayment of all or part of the debt issue by maturity. The sinking fund is a convenience to the issuer, as some of the issue can be paid off prior to maturation, thus lessening the cash drain when the eventual maturity is reached. This is beginning to sound like a real monster, isn't it?

Clause 25 sets out the limitations of outstanding debt able to be carried by the authority. It sets out that the outstanding debt may not exceed the limits set by the L-G-in-C; however, it does not specify exactly what the limit will be. So in other words, they have no restraints. This limit will not be set in stone, as subsection (

d) specifies that the limit can be changed by

[ Page 5529 ]

adding or subtracting other amounts as prescribed by the L-G-in-C. In other words, they can change whatever limit they want; they can go up and down; they can manoeuvre it around. This monster can become overpowering in this province. This debt of ours is going to be hidden, and how many billions are we going to have that we don't know about come the next deficit?

This Bilk B.C. or Build B.C. fund is a giant re-election slush fund, and it's time it stopped. Fuel taxes and tolls, for instance, are supposed to be spent on the roads against the cost of construction and maintenance of our highway system. By taking the construction component out of the Highway ministry, the government is ensuring that our fuel taxes go into the black hole, or general revenues of this government, instead of the construction of our highway system and improving the infrastructure.

In addition, this fund will have the ability to make recommendations to Treasury Board on specific funding proposals. In other words, they will be telling Treasury Board what they're going to do. A Crown corporation! Now who controls what over there? The Crown corporation can control this government? That's the way it's going to end up at this rate. It's very obvious when you read this bill. These authorities have the ability to raise capital outside of the purview of the Legislature. We're on pretty dangerous ground at this point, because what does the public of B.C. know at that point?

They don't know, because their Legislature won't be able to tell them. This is in large part the determining factor of the creation of this new body. Because what will this do for this government? It's going to give them unlimited resources to do whichever they want and not answer to anybody. We had a former government that tried the same thing; it didn't work. We now have this government doing exactly the same thing, except they've now got a super BS fund.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: If anybody is corrupt, I wouldn't be the kettle calling...you know the story.

This government has got to realize they are no better -- if anything, they are far worse -- than the former government, because at least with that government it was common knowledge. With this government they're