1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 8, Number 22
[ Page 5181 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me this morning in welcoming 90 students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in the Vancouver-Langara riding. They will be here in two groups at 11 and at 11:30. Will the House please make them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: Before I call debate on Bill 3, I have just a couple of other matters. Members have expressed great interest in making sure that the committees proceed. I would ask leave of the House to allow the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries to meet while the House is in session today.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Sihota: As well, members expressed great interest in making sure that the Select Standing Committee on Women's Equality has the opportunity to sit. Therefore I seek leave of the House again today to allow that committee to sit.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Sihota: I know that there's great interest in continuing debate on Bill 3. Accordingly, I call second reading debate on Bill 3.
BUILD BC ACT
(continued)
V. Anderson: Yes, there is great interest in the debate on Bill 3, both for those who are promoting it and for those who are questioning it. I would like to promote some of what it's attempting to do, but I suggest it's not succeeding in doing what it attempts to do.
It is a very interesting proposal that has been brought forward, but, unfortunately, it's another whitewash similar to the one in the labour bill that was brought to us in the last session. On the surface it looks good -- or it might look good. But as you look at it, it looks like the iceberg: most of the dangerous part of it is below the surface and hidden away from view until you dig into it.
We have here a philosophical statement of social engineering, by which control is centralized and the management of people's lives is taken over on their behalf.
When I first spoke in the House a year ago in response to the throne speech, I had a request from members opposite to join them on their side of the House. Then this week some of those same members were asking why I had changed so much over the year. I have to reply to them that, of course, I haven't changed; what has changed are the activities, designs and proposals of this government. If they look in the mirror, they will see where the real change has taken place.
This bill, like so many from this government, denies the very principles that NDP members put forward as they prepared us during the last election campaign. Instead of the reasoned government they promised, based on the social principle of equality for all, it is now a government based on social regimentation -- a very significant difference. The current stance of the operations of this government causes grave concerns about the colossal government that is being built. It clearly demonstrates their agenda: to remake British Columbia in their social image.
Fortunately the public is now seeing through this disguise. They are seeing that the government has a calculated plan and goal to place B.C. in a social straitjacket and to be Big Sister and Big Brother to the rest of the population. Build B.C. is a clear and blatant attempt to put forth their vision, the grandiose nature of which is seen in the simple act of forming a committee called the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future, which is a committee of all committees to solve all the problems of all the people in British Columbia. The messiah has arrived! It is my understanding that it is the people who will build British Columbia, not a committee of this NDP government.
Unfortunately, I believe that this government misunderstands. What we have in this extraterrestrial non-legislative committee is one which is unaccountable to the Legislature, and unrepresentative of the Legislature in its totality. What is being set up here is a legislative clique with unlimited powers and privileges. Once put into place, there is no way that they can be controlled or held accountable in a legislative way. We must look through the glossy framework of the wording to the realities of the actions which are portrayed.
This government keeps reminding us -- as if we needed any reminding -- that the province is short of funds. In their shortfall, they are putting $100 million aside into a "special" account -- unaccountable, then, through the regular budget -- hiding away this money, and in the future we will have difficulty finding out how, when or where it is spent. As well as the $100 million, there will be other specified moneys, yet to be clarified: taxes and tolls.
How is this huge bonanza to be spent? The details, of course, are not available. It is a great big blank cheque. The open-endedness of this account is in fact -- so sure of themselves are they that they put it up front -- suggesting there are four areas in which it might be used. This sounds plausible on first reading, except when you read that these areas can be extended, without limitation, to cover whatever the government would like to include within it. It is an unlimited cheque and plan without specifics -- totally open-ended, totally unpredictable. Under this act the control is separated out from the regular ministries of government and from the oversight of the Legislature. It is a mammoth monster which has many arms. It's trying to be all things to all people: in community-building, in
[ Page 5182 ]
employment and job training, in resource development, in infrastructure renewals and administrative costs. This program is Build B.C. Along with it, there is a replacement program for the regular activities of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and replacement programs for the Ministries of Education, Advanced Education, Economic Development, Health and Social Services. All the activities of this government have been welded and passed over to this new Build B.C., with all of its implications.
[10:15]
Perhaps it might have an advantageous side. Perhaps, without saying so, they have decided to do away with the majority of government ministries and to replace them with only one ministry: Build B.C. If so, that could be a real saving of finances and confusion. There is the implication that they're doing that. But the reality is that they're not doing away with anything; they're just adding another megacommittee to what they already have. We might liken it to a new Titanic: they're changing the chairs on the deck, but the skin is very thin and will easily rupture.
We indeed have here another major level of government like we have not seen before in restructuring. Without even saying that they're restructuring, this is what they're about. So they put before us not a decrease but an increase in the whole B.C. transportation and highways megaproject. And within this there are only five persons -- and we're not even sure who these five are -- who will be running this major undertaking, and they will have almost complete authority to dictate to the citizens of B.C. in almost every realm of their living: the future as these five would have it, controlled only by the government members themselves. As we've already seen, that in itself is a frightening prospect, particularly when we find, hidden within this program, provisions for expropriation and the opportunity to sell what they have expropriated -- the opportunity to market and to horse-trade with what they have taken from private citizens for their own....
Hon. B. Barlee: Innovation.
V. Anderson: Oh, they call it innovation. Yes, it is an innovative way to go: expropriate the land, sell it, and use the funds in your own way. I agree with the hon. minister opposite that it's innovative, but it's not very honest; nor is it acceptable to the people of British Columbia.
Hon. B. Barlee: It will be.
V. Anderson: It will be, he says. They feel they can brainwash the people of British Columbia, but I'm sure they're sadly mistaken, as they're only beginning to discover. This is a continuation of the threats put to the people over the last year and a half, threats to freedom itself. Totalitarianism comes in many forms.
Also hidden within this act is a multiplying virus: the proliferation of subsidiary corporations without number and without limit, in any direction that this committee of five might choose. The additional bureaucracies that are going to be formed by this monolith and the increasing administration costs, bureaucratic regulations and social manipulation will be beyond our understanding.
I appreciated the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs yesterday bringing forth a poem that I learned in grade 5; it has been a very good guide over the years. The essence of the poem is that something that can't be done, often can be if you try it. When I got involved in politics some 12 years ago, they said you couldn't defeat the Social Credit government. I said: "Let's try it." And so we did it. They also said that we couldn't defeat the NDP government, and I've said very clearly to them: "Just wait. We're trying, and we will." The words will come back to haunt you.
Perhaps it's a minute side issue, but for some it's very significant. Even the equestrian community needs to take a special look at this act, because those who are trying to be environmentally sound and recreationally viable by using their four-footed friends, their horses, for travel will be charged tolls by this act as they travel throughout this province. We need to keep this in mind. It's there, hon. Speaker; you look at it and that's what you'll discover.
Another issue to note. The unlimited borrowing powers in this act give them the increasing possibility and probability of increasing the debt in this province even beyond our greatest imagination. One possible plus I might acknowledge in this act -- and it is great to find at least one within it -- is that we shall expect the government corporations in this province to be more accountable to the government purse. Whether this accountability will be shared with the Legislative Assembly is yet to be seen.
Once again, I find myself agreeing with the stated objectives to help people and communities, but I must strongly disagree with the centripetal, controlled approach to a centralized government system. Further, I disagree with the granting of power to a select few who operate out of the public eye in the back rooms. This government has the right words, because they have learned these words from listening to the people across the province. I will give them that credit. However, having listened, they do not understand the meaning of the words they hear, and they only put in that part of what the people have said to them that applies to their philosophy. They take only what they believe will respond to their plan. They do not deal with the real wishes of the people; they only pretend to.
However, the means by which they choose to follow up on these words is by acting contrary to what they have heard. The words and the actions do not match, and this government cannot or will not see the difference. But the people are beginning to see and understand this basic difference. It is a hard lesson, though, for those who bear the brunt of this mistaken righteousness. They are the ones who suffer. People in all walks of society are being affected negatively by the growing community unease and uncertainty which is creeping across this province.
People do not really believe that Big Sister and Big Brother can solve their problems. What the people of our communities want is the opportunity to do their own thing -- to do their own planning and to make
[ Page 5183 ]
their own decisions. Yes, they will build B.C., not the government. They would ask for government support to do those things which are important to them. This is not what they are being offered in this bill. The government needs a new model that, I suggest to them, would be very important to the people of British Columbia: a free-to-choose model. That's what will build British Columbia.
This bill will not do what this government intends to do by it. This bill is flawed by the righteous essence of those who have stood up in this House and again and again told us, one speaker after another, how great they are, how wonderful they are, how perfect they are and what a wonderful place B.C. will be because of them. This bill, apart from their words, is not a bill to build B.C.; it is a bill to destroy B.C. I cannot support it.
R. Kasper: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Kasper: A group of over 40 students from Ockley Green Middle School, Portland, Oregon, are in attendance. Will the House please make them welcome.
It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of B.C. 21 -- Building Our Future. Unlike the previous speaker, I support this government initiative. I would also like to point out to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara, that perhaps he should get in touch with the Leader of the Opposition in regard to this endeavour by the government.
I quote the Leader of the Opposition from Hansard, March 27, 1992, in particular the reference to Peat Marwick, which recommends that the government should move towards capitalizing physical assets. He states: "Peat Marwick dealt at length on the need for a long-term, integrated financial plan for the province and, in the long term, a balanced budget. This budget ignores Peat Marwick's recommendations." He goes on to say: "The budget should form the basis of an economic plan for this province -- a central pillar in our reconstruction and prosperity."
I'd like to point out to the member that this is what this bill does. It's action that's needed now. The short-term vision of the opposition will not be tolerated by the citizens of B.C. I stand in this House to give my views as to how this bill will benefit my constituency and others throughout B.C. I would hope the hon. member would take heed of my comments -- from a philosophical point of view -- and discuss these issues with the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps they should both be getting their stories straight.
B.C. 21 is a document which is going to build our future, particularly in four key areas: fast-track highway and transportation construction; accelerate building and improving key community facilities; focus Crown corporation capital investments to ensure they deliver maximum long-term economic benefits; and target $100 million of new moneys for regional diversification, equity and training priorities.
I'd like to touch on the highway and transportation aspect as breaking new ground. The establishment of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority represents a new approach to building highways and transportation links throughout British Columbia. In the past, most highways, roads and bridges have been funded as a current expense of government.
[10:30]
As a member of this House -- and in the past, as a local elected representative -- far too often I've seen previous administrations make announcements on major capital construction projects when they were politically expedient for the vision of that government, so that perhaps they thought they could use it as a vehicle to get re-elected, and not necessarily in the interests of the community for the long term. That has to change. Our government was elected on change, and we're initiating change, despite what the opposition members contend.
It's a more businesslike approach to the planning and development of needed transportation projects. It's a page out of the private sector, and most other public sector capital investment programs. We have hospital and health planning; we have initiatives by hospital boards. They capitalize major improvements to serve the citizens of British Columbia when the money isn't there. I would contend that the majority of people in British Columbia -- and I dare say most of the members of this House -- have had to go out and make significant purchases and investments, be it for their business or for their home, and the only way they can do it is to borrow the money over a long period of time. It's an accepted practice; it's a way of fulfilling the needs of themselves and of their businesses so they can get on with greater economic prosperity. I support that approach. I've had 14 years of business experience, and that's the way business is done. People don't utilize all their valuable capital in a way that is not expedient for them to accomplish their long-term goals. It's a page out of the business community; it's a page out of what other public sector agencies have been doing as an accepted practice for many years.
As for Transportation and Highways, as far back as 1984, the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, which I was a member of for nine years, noted very loudly and clearly in studies they had commissioned on their own that the Island Highway was a number one priority. They put forward recommendations to previous governments on that issue which fell on deaf ears; there was no action taken. I participated, in my elected capacity, in a program administered through the previous government to deal with long-term transportation issues on Vancouver Island. As a result of those studies, we recommended to the previous government that, again, the Island Highway was the number one priority, the number one project, for the citizens along Vancouver Island. For far too long, Vancouver Island has been neglected. Those studies showed that on per capita spending, Vancouver Island received the least per capita funding of any region throughout British Columbia.
This program gives us an opportunity to get on with the job to help fulfil the needs of the citizens of British Columbia, so that we -- the business community, residents, tourists -- can have a safe highway, a highway
[ Page 5184 ]
that's going to be built not on the basis of political expedience, but because that's what the people want. We're going to get on with the job, and this is a way that we can do this.
As far as these highway projects are concerned, there will be considerable consultation with the public as to what is the best way to construct these highways. The planning process will take place; the design work will take place. The bottom line is that the minister responsible, this Legislature and we as hon. members will be accountable to the public for that decision-making process. I stand by this method as a proven vehicle, both in the public and private sectors, to deliver major capital projects within British Columbia.
B.C. 21 will accelerate capital investments in the communities and supply facilities that are vital for all British Columbians in areas such as health care, education and justice. We will see the expansion of community colleges and the construction of new community health centres this year. I have to point out to the members opposite that this isn't anything new. This is something that was recommended by the Seaton commission report on delivering health care services closer to home. It's something that's been long overdue in British Columbia: decentralizing the facilities so that the taxpayer's dollar can get the biggest bang and it's done to the advantage of the people who are going to utilize these services, not government's advantage. For far too long decisions have been made that have been to government's advantage and not to the advantage of the citizens of British Columbia. This is a way of readdressing the problems that have occurred in the past, the attitudes that have occurred in the past and the short-term political vision of the past.
Areas such as improving and building new courthouses will also be addressed.
One item I think should be noted, which is dear to my heart in the community of Malahat-Juan de Fuca that I represent, is that there will be a major commitment to eliminate the backlog of portable classrooms within ridings such as mine. There are some 43 portable classrooms within my constituency. I have to commend the Minister of Education, who has taken the necessary steps over the past year and a half to address those issues. Here's a way that we can prioritize and get on with the job. These are issues that were raised before and during the 1991 election, and our government is committed to addressing those issues that were raised. As far as classrooms are concerned, it's important that students receive an education in an environment that is conducive to getting a good education. By eliminating those portables, that will be done.
I'd also like to point out that there will be a new focus for Crown corporations, on how they invest their capital dollars throughout British Columbia, to make sure that maximum long-term economic benefits are provided for key regional areas which in the past have gone without, instead of having the big megaprojects that really serve no one except a few corporate interests and perhaps, if I may say so, interests that revolve around a political agenda from previous governments.
We have a wide variety of goods and services -- electricity, ferry service, public transportation, rail service and automobile insurance. Those Crown corporations delivering those services are now going to be directed in such a way that, as I pointed out earlier, those dollars generated by the public will be put to their best use to make sure that we have greater employment opportunities. Instead of half-time employment opportunities, we need full-time employment opportunities for all the workers within British Columbia.
These corporations also represent an important source of economic activity. They provide high-quality jobs for British Columbians, a large market for B.C. products and a major source of capital investment. The fact that the opposition can ignore that reality boggles my mind. It's a reality that's been going on in this province for almost three decades. I think that when the members wake up and smell the coffee, they're going to perhaps -- and I wouldn't want to prejudge -- quietly support this bill. They can do nothing else but, because those members as well as the members on our side of the House know that this is a sensible way to go, so that we in British Columbia can address the needs of the twenty-first century throughout the 1990s, to make sure that we have full employment.
B.C. 21 will ensure that Crown corporation investments are sensitive to regional needs, not to the past visions of previous governments; are sensitive to the needs of local communities; make sure of meaningful, full employment -- not half-time employment or short-term employment opportunities; and focus on adequate training and development of skills that each and every one of us needs throughout British Columbia.
It's also an opportunity to complement other government and private sector investment activities, because when projects are initiated.... I have to go back to the transportation issues. The roadbuilders of British Columbia have advocated this type of action by the provincial government: to get on with the job and replace the degraded infrastructure that has been ignored by previous governments. The roadbuilders are going to benefit as members of the private sector -- and there are many in my riding -- and will be jumping at the opportunity to participate in this program. This program will benefit small business people, entrepreneurs and individuals who own dump trucks, excavators or any type of road construction equipment. Construction crews, large and small, are going to reap the economic benefits. Those individuals are fulfilling their goals of earning dollars to employ people who will pay taxes and help circulate the dollars within the community. That will create additional incentives for other private sector opportunities.
Government is here to lead. I make no apologies for supporting the vision that this government has, because I think it's time to make a decision and get on with the job of dealing with the issues that have been ignored by previous governments. We have to encourage the use of goods and services supplied by B.C.-based businesses. Is the opposition against that? Is the opposition against the utilization of the resources within this province? Is the opposition against employment of working people throughout British Columbia? Is the opposition against economic opportunities and against B.C. businesses?
[ Page 5185 ]
We have to realize that by taking this initiative not only will we supply business opportunities and encourage public and private investment opportunities that are sensitive to regional needs, but we will also incorporate new approaches to job training and skills development. As a tradesman, I've benefited by economic opportunities throughout British Columbia over the past 20 years. Activities that I've participated in were initiated by both the public and the private sector.
When economic opportunity is available to all workers, all workers stand to benefit. Companies stand to benefit; government stands to benefit. When you have full employment as opposed to half-time employment, employment that could be viewed as politically expedient is not the way to go.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
As for the regions throughout British Columbia, this is an opportunity for us to target employment opportunities for those in need. B.C. 21 will direct an additional $100 million in new money in this budget toward developing innovative approaches to investment and to creating opportunities for new jobs. Provincial government ministries spend millions of dollars each year on programs related to investment and job creation. These programs cover a wide range of activities from reforestation and environmental protection to job training. Our government is committed to obtaining more value for these expenditures, particularly in the training of people and economic revitalization in British Columbia's regions.
The focus of the projects will be on economic return, combining job creation and investment in physical assets, which I'm sure every member will agree have been ignored for too long. Projects funded in this program under the new expenditure will be aimed at improving the way business is done and money is spent in the public sector.
[10:45]
Hon. Speaker, I'll touch on an area that affects my riding. There will be enhanced silviculture affecting areas that, again, were neglected by previous governments, in order to make sure that the plunder and neglect that have occurred in the past are addressed and that we have comprehensive training programs with greater community participation. Redirection of those programs will ensure that people on income assistance receive the training opportunities they deserve. They duly deserve those opportunities. Those issues have been neglected for far too long.
How can the opposition ignore the fact that funding for these capital facilities is going to be $1.42 billion? That is a major slice of economic investment in the citizens of British Columbia. That is an opportunity for the business community, both small and large, to get their workers back into meaningful employment on projects that will be completed over the next three years. Those projects will be amortized over the life of the assets -- a practice that is taken from the private sector. I find it hard to believe that members on the opposite side, who supposedly have a private sector background, a free enterprise bent.... We've taken that approach. We've recognized that the private sector has demonstrated this is the way to go; and the public sector has also demonstrated this is the way to go. It's an opportunity for people throughout British Columbia to get on with the job of replacing and upgrading the infrastructure necessary for the projected growth of this province -- growth that has not been recognized by previous governments.
I'd like to go over some of the initiatives that we have to support, and I congratulate the government on what it has proposed. As for employment opportunities, we will see a new silviculture project, which will combine forest enhancement with a comprehensive training program and greater community participation -- long overdue; a redirection of programs to ensure that people on income assistance receive opportunities and training they need to participate in other B.C. projects; a new housing pilot project to address problems of homelessness, while providing training for young people; student employment programs for the summer -- something that I don't think anyone in this House can ignore; new initiatives by the B.C. Trade Development Corporation to help develop markets for regional exports; and new community initiatives to provide cost-shared, small-scale capital projects at the local level.
We also have to provide stimulus for private investment. B.C. 21 will be complemented by other major initiatives to encourage private sector investment, such as: a new British Columbia Investment Office to cut government red tape; additional use of the British Columbia Endowment Fund to lever new private sector investment in B.C. businesses; and a new high-tech link between government and its suppliers to ensure faster payment and increased use of local companies -- all of which cannot be ignored by the opposition benches. Regardless of one's political beliefs, when we have a business community that is encouraged by government and that works with government, we have a good investment for all citizens of B.C.
B.C. 21 is building our future. It's an action plan that focuses government energies and will make the best use of our tax dollars. We will make an investment in people and in physical assets to ensure economic growth and job stimulation. We will accelerate investments in schools, health care centres, transportation facilities and other key areas. Portables will be replaced, something that must be done in my riding. Major transportation projects such as the Island Highway have been recognized for many years as issues by the business community, local government and the citizens of Vancouver Island. Government recognizes those issues, whereas previous governments failed dismally to take action on such projects. We will ensure that new health care centres are established, bringing health care closer to home.
I would like to close by saying that I pledge my full support to this initiative, an initiative that is practised in both the public and private sectors.
G. Janssen: Much has been said about the economic benefits of Bill 3's initiatives, but very little has been said about the human and social benefits that this
[ Page 5186 ]
bill will bring to British Columbia. Over the last ten years the Alberni riding has suffered job losses totalling almost 4,000 people. As of March 15, 3,939 people are on unemployment insurance; as of the end of February, 2,200 employable people are on the welfare rolls. This bill will go a long way toward eliminating those numbers, not just in Alberni but in other areas of the province.
A human tragedy has been bestowed upon communities in this province by previous governments with their spend, spend, spend deficit projects year after year. Spending went forward at 12 percent while revenues were coming in at 6 percent. When the former Finance minister said the deficit would be $400 million and the Premier of the day said it would be $1.2 billion, Peat Marwick confirmed that it was $2.4 billion. That money will be owed by our children. That money, which should have been invested in this province, is gone forever. Dollars that should have been invested in communities are being used to pay down the deficit. That's why there is unemployment. That's why there is despair. That's why families have no future. Build B.C. will invest in those communities and provide those jobs.
I am totally amazed by both opposition parties' ranting against this bill. If they have criticism, and if they believe their own words, let them say no when schools and hospitals are to be built in their areas, when roads and bridges are proposed for their ridings. Let them stand up in front of their electorate and their constituents and say: "No, this is a bad bill. We spoke against it in the House and we don't want that kind of building going on in our ridings." I can tell you that I will be there to remind them of the words that they speak so boldly in this House.
An Hon. Member: They're cooking the books, as a matter of fact.
G. Janssen: They say they have business expertise. Well, the present Leader of the Opposition -- and I say present because I'm not sure exactly how long he'll be there -- is a director of Mohawk Oil.
An Hon. Member: He is not.
Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour.
D. Jarvis: The present Leader of the Opposition is not a director of Mohawk Oil. He is wrong....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, with respect, that is not a point of order. The information presented may be disputed in the debates, but that is not the purpose of a point of order.
Please continue, hon. member.
G. Janssen: Thank you, hon. Speaker. He may in fact be a former director, and if he is, I apologize for that. However, he should know full well, if he looked at the books of Mohawk Oil, that capitalization of projects is a business opportunity. It is not simply a business fact; it is a business opportunity to invest in the growth of a corporation, of a province and of people in this province. We are investing and leading the way. While other provinces across this country are laying off workers, cutting back on investments and trying to balance their budgets, we are investing in a province. We are investing in its people so that there will be growth and no debt and so that we can provide services for the people of this province. New money, $500 million, is to be invested by Crown corporations. B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Hydro and B.C. Buildings Corporation, to name just a few, will invest money that will create jobs and infrastructure that private enterprise and entrepreneurs in this province can take advantage of. It will provide jobs in construction, manufacturing, millwork shops, glass shops; equipment -- tires -- will be bought; repair shops will have jobs. We can utilize the logging equipment that sits idle today because of the overcutting that took place under the previous administration. That logging equipment and those jobs can be used to build roads, transportation links and airports in this province. Communities will be revitalized.
I'd like to just quote the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast who, in Hansard on March 19, 1992, on page 22, said: "...unless we are prepared to invest in the infrastructure that such an economy will be dependent upon. ...I refer also to the maintenance and construction of our highways and our highway services, which are the arteries through which the economic blood of the communities flows."
An Hon. Member: They're cooking the books.
Deputy Speaker: Order please, hon. member.
G. Janssen: We believe in that. We listened to the then-Leader of the Opposition say that pumping blood through communities was the way to go. B.C. 21, Bill 3, is the heart through which that blood will be pumped. It will drive the body of the economy.
An Hon. Member: It certainly will: more taxes, more patronage.
G. Janssen: B.C. businesses welcome this bill. I am amazed that the opposition parties who profess to be on the side of free enterprise and business will stand up and speak against the investment in this province that the business community has called for. The Vancouver Island roadbuilders recommended that we capitalize highway projects and pay for it through an increase in gasoline taxes. Again we listened; we are responding to what people in this province are asking for. The investment that will be created will be returned a hundredfold by the private sector. It will create not part-time jobs, make-work projects or summer jobs, but long-term jobs, and it will provide physical assets such as schools, hospitals, ferries and civic centres in this province that can be utilized year after year. These are hard assets that will provide an economic return over the years which other provinces will envy.
[11:00]
[ Page 5187 ]
We have asked mayors who as far back as five or ten years ago said that the infrastructure throughout Canada must be rebuilt, and that the provincial and federal governments should share with the municipalities in rebuilding that infrastructure. We are providing the incentive to do that with this bill.
As in business, this is an investment. Having been in business most of my life, I can tell you, hon. Speaker and other members of this House, that to make an investment is to seek a return. Businesses do not go out and borrow money or invest assets simply for the good of the community; they look for a return. In business the return is in fiscal, economic dollars. With the province the return is to families, to communities and to the children who are looking for work. We have students lined up at college doors because there are no spaces. When we offer to build more colleges and to increase the infrastructure, the opposition parties say: "No, it's not the way to go." Last year they called for that infrastructure. We listened and provided it this year, and they say: "It's the wrong avenue to take."
Perhaps after both parties have a convention and choose a proper leader and after they explore proper policies, they will be saying the same thing one year to the next and one week to the next. Perhaps then they will recognize what British Columbians have been saying, and that is: "We want jobs, infrastructure, hope and incentive, and we want a future for our children."
We will continue to go down this road to show that British Columbia can lead the rest of Canada. There is a reason that people from across Canada and around the world are moving to British Columbia. They are here to seek employment opportunities, a better way of life and security for their families, and they believe in this government. They're not moving to Manitoba, Quebec or Nova Scotia; they're moving to British Columbia. They can see what this government is doing with initiatives such as Bill 3. They're coming here, and they're investing here. They are seeking employment opportunities here, and we are answering that call and that challenge.
Business has invested in British Columbia. With this bill we are providing an infrastructure that business can take advantage of in order to make even more investment, to put dollars to work and to put people to work. They will reap the returns of those dollars that will be flowing into the wallets of British Columbians who are not on unemployment or on welfare, but are working.
The member for Richmond Centre, the Transportation and Highways critic, said in Hansard on April 23, 1992 on page 935, almost exactly a year ago: "I would urge the government to consider expenditures on roads and alternative forms of transportation as essential rather than discretionary." Again, this government listened. We are making those investments. The Liberal opposition is changing its mind and its direction again. But when a new road system is proposed through the member for Richmond Centre's riding, I wonder if he will stand up in front of his constituents and say: "I voted against this bill in the House, and I urged the government not to build this infrastructure." Is that the message we will hear? I rather doubt it.
I think that those members will be the first ones at the Build B.C. special account committee saying: "These are the projects needed in my riding, and this is what people have asked for." Whether it be for hospitals, replacing school buildings or modulars that children are now using, bridges or road systems, they will be there. I suspect that they will be there first and that they will be yelling the loudest, and they will be screaming with glee when those requests are answered. I expect them to thank this government. I expect them to say to their constituents: "This government has done good work in the province." But we will be there to remind them about their speeches in the House regarding this bill and about their opposition to providing jobs, instead of welfare, for British Columbians.
This is not new. The former Premier of the province, Bill Vander Zalm, announced a similar program in his 1990 address to the Social Credit convention, but they didn't have the fortitude to carry it out. We have recognized what's necessary in this province, and we are answering the call. We are spending dollars. We are investing in the future of British Columbians, because we believe in them. We believe that people want to work and that they want a better life for their families. We believe that British Columbians will support this bill. When it comes to the next election, we will see whether they will support the opposition naysayers who say no to building British Columbia or whether they will support this government.
J. Dalton: It's certainly entertaining to hear the twist that the government side is prepared to put on this bill. I think it's clearly obvious that this is just a subterfuge to hide money for the wrong reason, diverting money away from the ministerial responsibility.
G. Janssen: Say no to hospitals.
J. Dalton: Members are continually pointing out that they're so proud that they're building hospitals, schools and colleges and roads and bridges. Is this something new and remarkable? I think not.
The main issue here is accountability. How is public money being spent? It's not a question of whether the government is going to undertake such projects; it's a question of whether this Legislature will feel comfortable with the fact that there is full accountability for the public money, which is very precious at best.
One of the principal concerns of the public has been precipitated by the budget which we've just dealt with in this House. What is giving rise to the avalanche of protest -- the rallies, meetings and numerous letters and phone calls? I think it's clear that it's government spending and the issues related to that spending, the deficits and growing debt that this government is not addressing, a lack of fiscal responsibility and spending without accountability. I would suggest that that's what we have to address in this and other comparable legislation which this government will be bringing forth. Clearly Bill 3 fits within the scenario of spending without accountability.
[ Page 5188 ]
What do we see in Bill 3? There's more bureaucracy. That's certainly a way to reduce spending and make the taxpayer feel more at ease. There's less accountability and ministerial responsibility in this bill. There are certainly more taxes, and of course taxes take on various modes and themes. For example, in this bill we have the prospect of tolls being imposed. I'll be making some specific comments on that later. The government may not wish to directly deal with or talk about tolls as a user-pay concept, but that is a form of tax, and it is certainly one of the elements in Bill 3.
There is certainly less opportunity for legislative control and more executive council and Treasury Board control. Of course, that also translates into more Bob Williams and Tom Gunton control, and taking away from this Legislative Assembly the right to scrutinize and ascertain how public money is being spent in the province. Bill 3 is a diversion away from that concept, and it's certainly unacceptable in its format.
We're told by the members opposite, by the flowery press releases that they put out and the flowery statements that the Finance minister made in his budget speech, that Build B.C. will enhance economic growth in this province. Actually what this bill does is provide for more revenue producers -- revenue producers, by the way, is a euphemism for more taxes -- and a cabinet-controlled process to spend this new-found revenue. This is without question a deliberate cabinet-controlled process -- taking away from ministerial responsibility and placing it in the hands of the executive council and the Treasury Board. This House will not have the proper opportunity to scrutinize how those moneys are being spent. That is the essence and the heart of the problem and the difficulty with this bill.
The bill produces more committees and government authorities. Isn't it encouraging for the taxpayer to think of the growing bureaucracy and the growing opportunities for the government side to control the public purse without the opposition having a full opportunity to ascertain how that money is being spent and where it's being diverted.
What do we see in this bill? In part 2 a committee is created for building British Columbia's future. Well, that's certainly a nice flowery thing. The Minister of Highways suggests it's a good idea. I don't suggest that another committee is a good idea unless it has a very specific and worthwhile purpose. What is this committee? It's a committee established by the executive council, consisting of the Minister of Finance and other members of the Legislative Assembly as may be designated. I guess we can speculate that those will be other members of the executive council and certainly other members from the government side. It's a committee structured and controlled by government, to spend the public money, and that is unacceptable.
It can be pointed out that part 2 of the bill provides that this committee may be created. I don't suppose there is a remote possibility it may not be created; that's highly unlikely. That's one difficulty from the bureaucratic side -- creating another committee to deal with government operations.
[11:15]
The bill goes on to create the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. So now we have a Crown corporation appearing out of the bill which will be chaired by the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'm sure he's delighted with the prospect of controlling this avenue of spending. I have to wonder -- and perhaps a point of conjecture for the minister -- why his ministerial responsibility has been taken away and put into this Transportation Financing Authority. I suggest it's because of the lack of opportunity for proper scrutiny of the spending that will come out of this authority.
I also have to come back to the point that more bureaucracy, naturally, will surround this authority. Any time a government operation is created -- whether it be an agency, commission, study, what have you -- you have to produce more bureaucrats to keep track of the process. And clearly, in the public opinion, more government bureaucracy and spending is what is not needed. What we need is a downsizing and a proper restructuring of government. This bill does not do that. In fact, it does quite the opposite. Instead of addressing the real concerns of government spending, it's creating another avenue to produce more government spending, with more bureaucrats to attend to the issues of that spending and less accountability as to how those dollars will be spent.
It's a very interesting creature. It's almost self-defeating in a way, but the government is obviously not prepared to recognize that. This government is prepared to defend this bill as being some great new economic initiative. I suggest that there is very little true initiative in this, other than some very intriguing creativity. If that's initiative, then I applaud the government side. But I don't believe that this so-called initiative is truly designed for the seeming purpose, which is economic growth. It's designed as an intriguing bookkeeping exercise -- a diversion of moneys and a diversion of opportunity to properly account for how those moneys are spent.
So what do we see from this aspect of the bill? We have a committee created out of cabinet, a transportation financing authority created out of cabinet, controlled directly by cabinet ministers, and no opportunity -- as, for example, we'll be dealing with in the estimates -- for this House to ascertain the spending of those moneys and the direction in which any future spending should take. This is unacceptable. We're really dealing with a bill that is producing more deficit and hidden taxes and very little of the accountability that any minister in this House should be put to through the proper estimate process.
I might also point out -- as far as the creation of the financing authority, with the possibility of not only the Minister of Transportation chairing it but other cabinet ministers being involved in the direction and process of that authority -- it's becoming somewhat incestuous in nature. We're creating a government authority out of the executive council, and I think we might speculate that this is for the wrong reasons. Who or what will watchdog this new trough that is being built by Build B.C. -- this new authority that is created out of the bill? How many ministers can line up at this trough,
[ Page 5189 ]
collecting the expense allowance provided in the bill? Again, more opportunities for government spending.
Also created in the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority we have the Minister of Highways in charge, at least four other members who will be part of that committee, and another trough is therefore the only result coming out of this. Certainly the taxpaying public of British Columbia does not need to see more government troughs, projects, schemes, committees and things of that nature, because that only adds to the burdensome tax level, to which the taxpayers of this province have said: "We have had enough." That is a very clear message.
I hope the members opposite have had the opportunity to attend some of the tax rallies and the protests which have been taking place throughout this province. I would also add that these are not just lower-mainland-initiated or, as some people might think, one-or-two-people-only-initiated protests. That is anything but the truth. When the public hears that bills such as Bill 3 are being debated in the House, their unsettled feeling and their level of protest is, I would suggest, only going to rise. It is only going to get worse.
What are these committees and corporations and other entities of Bill 3 and similar legislation doing with the public money? Nothing more than the ministries should be doing. But unlike the ministries, the Build B.C. process lacks the accountability and the scrutiny that the legislative process provides. The committee and the corporation will undertake projects on a tax-and-spend basis. It's no different from what this government did last year and, I have no doubt, will do again next year, although it would be nice to think they may want to change their line of thinking. The difficulty is that it lacks the watchdog of the estimate process. So we have the very serious opportunity for government to spend public money and no opportunity for a proper watchdog process, which is what this Legislature has the responsibility for.
The Finance minister, when he presented the government's B.C. 21 plan in the budget speech, made some very interesting statements. He pointed out the creation of the two authorities that I've already commented on. I want to draw a couple of comments from the budget speech. "In prebudget public forums, many British Columbians told me they are willing to pay more taxes if they can be assured that revenue will be dedicated to worthwhile investments." I read that into the record because it is rather intriguing to note, in the aftermath of that statement introducing the budget, that one of the taxing measures the Finance minister was so confident would be acceptable to the public was anything but. I would suggest that the taxing and revenue-producing mechanisms in Bill 3 are certainly not going to be acceptable to that same tax-paying public.
The Minister of Finance went on to advise the House that the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, which I have commented on, in the words of the Finance minister: "will be self-financing, with dedicated provincial revenues." I would draw to the attention of the House these "dedicated provincial revenues" as found in the bill. There is a 1-cent-a-litre gasoline tax; there is a $1.50-a-day sales tax on car rentals; and here is this unpleasant creature now raising its head -- tolls and charges, as set out in section 21.
Now I give particular reference to that because I used to have the pleasure of paying tolls. Maybe I'm one of the few British Columbians who, on a very regular basis, used to have to pay tolls. I am referring to the Lions Gate Bridge way back in the Dark Ages, and I'm going to come back to the Lions Gate Bridge a little later.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: The Minister of Highways is suggesting that tolls are acceptable. I would respond that the difficulty with tolls is: where are they going to be imposed? As a regular user of the Lions Gate Bridge, if we ever get to that happy state where that bridge will be repaired, rebuilt or whatever, and I have some reservations about that, if I'm going to be facing an imposition of a toll, and yet it won't be applied in other parts of the province -- and I suspect that's the case -- that is an unfair imposition. That is a tax that only strikes at the heart of a few.
The Minister of Highways is perhaps concerned about the toll on the Coquihalla Highway, but relatively few people use that. In fact, I can tell you, as a regular driver into the interior, I use the Fraser Canyon highway for the most part. I enjoy the scenery, and I don't have to encounter a toll on the Coquihalla if there are other opportunities. But I can't drive across Burrard Inlet. Maybe I could try walking across, but I don't think I've got to that stage yet. I certainly cannot drive across that bridge without using.... The Lions Gate is the only feasible method of crossing; and if there's going to be a toll, I suggest it's an unfair imposition on only one segment of the taxpaying public. And it is a tax; let's make that point very clear.
There's one other point I want to refer to as well in the comments made by the Finance minister when he introduced the budget. He was commenting on the special account set out in part 3 of Bill 3, the additional $100 million in new expenditures, "to develop innovative approaches to investment in job creation" -- now that's a flowery statement -- such as one that is itemized: a new silviculture initiative. I have to ask why the Ministry of Forests is not undertaking these projects. Why is that minister not accountable for such projects? That's the purpose of having the line ministries -- not to divert this money into a separate Crown agency controlled directly by the executive council so that it doesn't get the scrutiny that every taxpayer in this province is entitled to. That is one of the major difficulties with this bill.
I want to come back for a moment to some transportation issues that are of concern to me as a member for a North Shore riding. One I have already commented on is the Lions Gate Bridge. I'm hoping that in the estimates we're going to be able to get into some meaningful discussion as to the future of the first crossing of Burrard Inlet, because it is a very serious issue. If this bill goes through -- and that's an unpleasant prospect, but I suppose it's likely -- are we going to be looking at such an important project as the Lions Gate Bridge?
[ Page 5190 ]
I suppose I'm a bit cynical in a way. But having looked over last year's projects of the Highways ministry, there was relatively little, if any, money spent in a meaningful way in non-government ridings. It's documented that in 12 NDP-held ridings, $15 million was spent on interchanges and other projects last year, including one which perhaps some members will fondly remember. I recall that the Minister of Transportation and Highways made reference in a statement he made in this House to two bridges that were built to, as I recall, ghost towns and other tourist attractions, I suppose. I immediately interjected at that time -- and I've already commented on the Lions Gate Bridge -- regarding one of my favourite projects, the Westview overpass. Are we going to see the likelihood, under this authority, that the Westview project -- a much-needed enterprise -- will be conducted? Again I have some doubts. Westview is certainly not high on any project list that I've seen, whether from the Vancouver regional district or this ministry. If we had the happy prospect of the Westview interchange being built, will that become subject to a toll? That creates an intriguing aspect in itself. Will I have to pay a toll when I cross from my riding on the north side of the Upper Levels Highway to the riding of North Vancouver-Lonsdale immediately to the south? I can't think of why I would want to go to North Vancouver-Lonsdale, but I hope I'm not charged a fee to cross that highway.
[11:30]
Let's come back to the bill that's before us, which is clearly objectionable from many perspectives. This bill is an intriguing and deceptive method to shift ministerial responsibility onto cabinet-controlled committees and corporations. That's really the essence of it. We are no longer going to be dealing with the Minister of Highways, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Advanced Education or the Minister of Health in building needed public projects. We're going to have this new creation interceding and dictating which projects will go forward and what revenues will be produced. I have no personal confidence that we're going to see a lot of activity anywhere other than in government-held ridings and areas of this province. I hope that's not what Build B.C. is about, but I rather suspect that that is part of the philosophy behind it.
Of course, this government is looking down the road. There will obviously be an election sometime, unless they find a way to bypass that process. It's not unheard of for a government to get into pavement and other projects of that nature as a re-election policy. I like to think that this government would rise above such things, but perhaps not.
Is this what British Columbians want? I think not. They certainly don't want more taxes, and they certainly don't want less accountability. They want a downsizing of government so that expenditures match -- or don't exceed -- revenue. All this bill does is generate more deficit without the direct admission that it is a deficit. We don't need government control of economic development, which is what this bill provides. That's all it is, hon. members, government-controlled economic development.
What we need in this province is an economic strategy so that government revenues will rise to match needed government expenditures. Then the ministries responsible can undertake the requisite projects -- and I emphasize "the ministries responsible." Also, the taxpayer will have assurances as to how the dollars were spent, and by whom they were spent. This bill fails to do that. There is no accountability in this bill. This is hiding the debt away in another piece of legislation.
Bill 3 simply provides for creative bookkeeping and more bureaucracy. British Columbia doesn't need these gimmicks, and it certainly doesn't need Bill 3.
H. De Jong: Before I start my speech, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. De Jong: It's my great pleasure to introduce J.O. and Marlene Threthewey, who are sitting in the gallery. They are very involved with Ducks Unlimited, the chamber of commerce and many other community organizations, and they're indeed outstanding citizens of the Abbotsford constituency. I'd like the House to give them a very warm welcome.
We're dealing with the Build BC Act. The title of it seems very appropriate, because who could be against that? We're all trying to build British Columbia. The question is: does this bill do anything to build British Columbia? I have my greatest doubts.
In my opinion, this bill is nothing more than a means to hide reality. It's simply hiding -- or at least trying to put a cover over -- the ineptness of this government and the affairs that this government is actually to govern. In fact, had this government any common sense or business sense, they would have realized by now that you cannot spend yourself into prosperity. The government claims that Bill 3 will do this.
While listening to some of the members who spoke before -- and I'm specifically thinking about what the government Whip said -- I really sympathize with the backbenchers on the government side, because it would appear that they're not just simply ignorant but that on top of that they're too scared to speak out on what this bill really is. I'm not so sure that they're not kept in the dark on purpose, because this bill does far more than any of the backbenchers have indicated.
The government Whip said: "Who can be against building schools and hospitals?" Well, nobody can. I won't be against building those, and I'd love to see a hospital built in the Abbotsford area. But I'm not so sure that this couldn't be done without a Crown corporation. I think it could. It was always done. Hospitals and schools were built in conjunction with the local authorities. The local people took a share of their repayment, as well as the government, and it was always a part of the consolidated debt on the books of the province. That was open bookkeeping. It was debated on the floor of this House as to whether these expenditures would be made. Now you want to handle it through a Crown corporation. It's absolutely wrong.
[ Page 5191 ]
He spoke also about the accumulated deficit that the previous government left when they took office. To give you one example: included in the accumulated deficit of that particular year was a building built at the Abbotsford airport. It's not even six months old. It cost about $4 million. It serves an excellent purpose not only for our community but for the entire valley in terms of trade shows and many other activities. But it was written off to add to this accumulated deficit. That's how this government has been misleading the people of this province, and it is still misleading them.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Anyone in private business will tell you, in spite of what.... The government Whip says that business likes this bill. Business does not like this bill, because it simply isn't businesslike. There's nothing wrong with building these facilities. Some of them have to be built, particularly the hospitals, schools and, within limits, transportation, because of the growing population. But that doesn't mean it has to be done through a Crown corporation or some other authority. This is nothing but a shirking of the responsibility for which this government was elected. It was elected to govern, not to pass those things that rightfully should be debated on the floor of this House into a Crown corporation.
What is really changing in this bill? Government backbenchers seem to think it's opening up a whole world of new activities to the people of this province -- all the good things. Let's look at the purpose of the bill. First, "coordinating the government's activities to achieve overall economic development and job creation goals." There's nothing new in that statement. Previously it was done collectively by the ministries of Economic Development and Advanced Education. Why pass it into some other body? Second, "ensuring that all regions of the Province benefit from economic expansion and diversification." Same thing: nothing new; nothing added. And finally, "encouraging public and private sector investment." Well, what a laugh. It's going to be a hard policy to sell.
The Premier is going to China on a particular junket, and I'm not so sure that when he tells the business people in China that he's creating this monster of a Crown corporation directly in competition with investors, builders and all kinds of businesses that that will encourage development to come here. If he really intends to go through with this bill, as it appears he is, I think he'd be far better off to cancel his trip, because it's an absolute waste of money. It's not only going to be a hard sell but it's no sell at all.
Let's take a look at some of the other items in the bill. Part 2.... I'm not going to read all those things because it doesn't mean a thing. There is nothing more in all of part 2 than a duplication of bureaucracy that is within already existing ministries. Part 3, section 8(1)(a), "Expenditures from special account," says: "community level capital projects." What happened to Bill 88 and Bill 110, which were passed in this Legislature many years ago and served the province very well? Municipalities and regional districts were able to put in the necessary water and sewer systems. It was never rescinded, I understand. Why do we need something to duplicate this? "Employment and job training initiatives" have already been spoken of. On "resource enhancement initiatives," why was the funding cut back for the research centre? That's just the opposite of what's being proposed in this bill. "Infrastructure initiatives" -- same thing. At the municipal level there was always the opportunity to go through those particular bills, and they were the estimates within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that were debated on the floor of this House. This Crown corporation has no responsibility whatsoever.
There's an important saying about spending like drunken sailors. This bill will give Bob Williams and company that particular right and privilege, and that is far too much responsibility for a government to let go of. The government is elected. The people do not elect Crown corporations, and I don't think it is right for a Crown corporation to be allowed that broad a field of expenditure. But let's look a little further at the powers and capacity. It says under section 12 that they are allowed to "acquire property by expropriation or otherwise." They are allowed to "hold and maintain property acquired under paragraph (b)." They are allowed to "dispose of property acquired under paragraph (b) by sale or lease." They can "provide financial assistance by way of grant, loan or guarantee." Where does that put the people of the province?
[11:45]
Furthermore, they're allowed to "create subsidiary corporations to carry out the purposes of this act." I don't think I can accept that, and I'm sure the people of British Columbia do not accept these wide powers being bestowed upon a Crown corporation. For many years -- as long as I can recall -- those types of things were debated on the floor of this House, and they should continue to be debated there.
The government members have asked what we would change. I suppose that's a good question by the government backbenchers. But we have to remember -- and I'll suggest some changes -- what the Minister of Labour said last year in third reading of Bill 84. We were just into that process at the time, and he stated that he was not going to accept any amendments, in spite of 35 or 40 good amendments on the books. If that's the kind of attitude this government is taking about debate in this Legislature, what is the point in expressing some opinions for change? But I'm going to do it anyway, hon. Speaker.
Where would we cut? First of all, the government should have been more careful in the wage increases that they've given to the public sector. Second, they didn't need all the bureaucrats last year, and they don't need the additional bureaucrats this year. We didn't need the labour law, which puts very costly propositions on business. We didn't need the fair wage policy, as the government calls it. Yesterday the member for Cariboo North said that he's so happy with all this work to be done because of Bill 3, but even more happy because of the fair wage policy, which will make most of these projects 10, 15, or perhaps even 25 percent higher in price, all at the taxpayers' cost.
[ Page 5192 ]
The same member also asked what we would change. I've given those changes. Is the government really prepared to make some changes? Why not build all of these things through the private sector? There is such a thing as renting facilities. It appears that the government is determined to build more white elephants in this province at the cost of the taxpayer.
In normal business, if a farmer wants to increase the size of his farm and he hasn't got the avails to buy an additional 20 or 25 acres or whatever the case may be, he looks around and he can rent 20 or 25 acres. Is that so bad? Why not give free enterprise the opportunity to provide the facilities for government to rent? In fact, it would return profits to the government in many ways by taxation -- including the corporate tax, even if we don't like it. It would add to the revenues collected by the province, but this will not. The ambitions in this bill are simply and purely nothing else but a cost to the people of British Columbia -- an unnecessary cost.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
This is not a bill to build B.C. As I see it, this is simply a bill to further destroy the confidence that people have had in government. There is a certain amount of confidence placed in any new government, even though obviously there are people who do not vote for that particular party. At the same time, they are given a mandate. The Premier laid out a platform: he wasn't going to spend money unless it was there. That's a promise that's gone by the wayside, and certainly the people have lost respect for this government, simply because they have not operated the way they said they would.
Yesterday, the member for Skeena said: "Why should we wait and wait?" The government does not have to wait. All the government needs to do is be open and honest about what they're going to do and not hide it in a Crown corporation. Let's debate in this House these expenditures they're proposing under this bill. Why not?
This government was elected to govern, which is a tremendous responsibility placed on anyone's shoulders. But for lack of courage, this government has not taken the opportunity to govern. They have not taken on the opportunity and the responsibility that the public bestowed upon them. The activities proposed in this bill do not require a Crown corporation. The activities contained in this bill were always performed by ministers in charge of ministries, responsible not only to the public but also to the opposition benches. This is now going to be left alone. It's going to be missed in this House. The important issue is that this government promised open and responsible government, and they are not providing this by Bill 3. They are hiding reality. This government is not doing what it was elected to do. It does not carry out the mandate it was supposed to.
As the time of the day is getting close to lunch, and as I am finished with my comments, I would move that the debate now adjourn until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Priddy moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]