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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 8, Number 23
[ Page 5193 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
R. Kasper: Visiting us in the gallery today with their program director, Tanya Darling, are 13 Russian and Georgian exchange students, ranging in age from 13 to 18. They are living and attending school in Victoria, Sooke and Saanich. The purpose of the exchange is language fluency and cultural exchange. Six have been enrolled in high school since September, four of whom are on the honour roll. I would also like to mention that a 15-year-old is still looking for a chess partner. The Russian students are Eugene Arshinev, Sasha Kararayeva, Anton Kuznetsov, Mary Levina, Vladimir Ovchintsev, Alexandra Orlova, Sasha Romanovtsev, Alexei Yakushin, Dmitri Yurasov and Vladimir Karpunin. The Georgian students are Lika Dvali, George Manjavidze and Nata Manjavidze. Will the House please make them welcome.
Hon. T. Perry: I also add a welcome to the Russian and Georgian students from this side of the House.
I also have the pleasure to introduce to members of the House Mr. Keith Gray, who represents the Business Council of British Columbia on many advisory committees to my ministry, the Ministry of Education and various other government bodies. He has given very good, long service on those advisory committees.
Although I don't see him in the gallery, Dr. Fraser Mustard is in the precincts today. He is a very distinguished Canadian medical scientist and educator, and president of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
I would also ask members of the House to welcome two younger but soon to be equally distinguished visitors. Mr. Michael Bryant is a graduate of the University of Victoria law school and law clerk to the Hon. Madam Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, and is here as godfather to one of Jim Hume's children. Ms. Susan Abramovitch, of Montreal, is a graduate of McGill University and law clerk to the Hon. Mr. Justice La Forest of the Supreme Court of Canada. Would the House please make all of these distinguished visitors welcome.
J. Dalton: I would like the House to acknowledge a visitor, not to the precincts as such, but somebody who has just arrived on the planet earlier today. I'm referring to the first grandchild of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour. I'm also pleased to announce to the House that she is my newest constituent.
L. Krog: I have the pleasure today to welcome 30 of my younger constituents from Ballenas Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Richman, and several adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
W. Hurd: I am pleased to welcome to the precincts today a good friend and a hard-working member of my constituency association, David Martin, who is visiting us today. Would the House please make him welcome.
M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a group of students from Terry Fox Senior Secondary School in my constituency. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Bruce Kiloh. Mr. Kiloh and his wife Patty were named Mining Persons of the Year in British Columbia. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to the students and their teacher.
P. Dueck: I too am compelled to welcome the people from Russia to Canada, since I am probably the only one in this House who was born in Russia. I was three years old when my father brought me to this country. I don't think he has ever regretted it, and neither have I. I hope that the students in the House today will someday become citizens of this great country of Canada. Would the House please welcome them again.
U. Dosanjh: I can't say that I was born in Russia. However, I just noticed a friend in the gallery. I would like the House to welcome a colleague from the legal profession, N.M. Kassam, who now mediates, rather than litigating cases in the courts of British Columbia.
NEWSPAPER REPORT OF CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION
Hon. D. Miller: Madam Speaker and hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly, I speak today to correct the seriously misleading information which appeared on the front page of the Victoria Times-Colonist newspaper today, April 15, 1993. The information included a photographed map and caption about an area in Clayoquot Sound. The caption for the front-page photograph identifies the picture as Clayoquot Arm, "where strip of newly designated protected forest is dominated by already logged land in background." The information conveyed to thousands of readers this morning is completely wrong. Printing inflammatory allegations without checking the accuracy of the information is inexcusable, given the seriousness of the public interest in this issue. Readers have been presented with completely misleading information, which serves only to inflame an already heated issue. The Victoria Times-Colonist has today done a great disservice to its readers and the province of British Columbia.
In fact, the Times-Colonist photo shows the slope of Muriel Ridge and the west shore of Muriel Lake and not Clayoquot Arm, as claimed by the Sierra Club and indicated by the Times-Colonist map on page 1. This ridge and the body of water are more than four kilometres from the shore of Clayoquot Arm. Muriel Ridge is a well-known previously harvested area. This area and the foreshore of Muriel Lake are not "newly designated protected forest" but have been, and remain within, an integrated management area. I want to emphasize that the area was harvested eight years ago to standards that are not acceptable today. In fact, our government's decisions on Clayoquot specify that only the highest standards of forest harvesting will be
[ Page 5194 ]
allowed and enforced on that portion of Clayoquot Sound which is available as working forest, and we are increasing our staff in the area to ensure that those high standards are met.
It is vitally important that we deal in facts when discussing important issues of land use. That is why this government went to the time and expense to fly members of the media around Clayoquot Sound prior to the announcement and gave them a full technical briefing. We remain hopeful that this approach will help avoid manipulation and prevent the publication of inaccurate and misleading information. Providing accurate information on the complex land and forest use issues that our province is facing is essential. It is unfortunate that Victoria's daily newspaper has failed so miserably in doing that.
W. Hurd: It is a pleasant surprise to see a member of the government rise with a complaint about media coverage in the province. One would expect that the minister would choose to deal directly with the media outlet in addressing his concerns rather than use the floor of the House, but I think it illustrates the kind of disinformation...the kind of battleground that Clayoquot Sound has become. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister and the government that it was the opposition who sought to involve Stephen Owen and the CORE process in Clayoquot Sound, which -- who knows? -- might have eliminated some of the misinformation in the press coverage that the minister seems to be most concerned about.
[2:15]
I think it's more appropriate for the government to address their concerns about the media directly to the media. The opposition always likes to take that approach. As a member of the fourth estate in years gone by, I might say that I find the media very reasonable to deal with and always more than willing to correct an error when it's pointed out to them. I'm sure that in this case they will take the right approach and will express their appreciation to the minister for bringing it to the attention of the House.
L. Fox: First, I would like to agree with the opposition member who said that this issue was not a ministerial statement. This issue should have been dealt with by a letter to the editor. I think it points out....
Interjections.
L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, it just goes to show the difference in attitude of this government today. Two years ago it would have welcomed the misprint in the newspaper about the government.
More to the point, hon. Speaker, what disappoints me the most is the Premier's $30,000 junket. The Premier stood up in this House and told us that the whole purpose of it was so that the media would have the necessary facts to report the correct information. Obviously even that process was misplanned by this government. They couldn't even spend $30,000 to get the job done.
POSSEE CASE
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Attorney General. I hope he will bear with me for a moment as I ask it, because it regards a very serious matter that has become a concern of the public over the last few days. It concerns developments in the Daniel Possee case. Last year there was a drug raid in which Daniel Possee was shot and killed. At that time Kelly Possee's name was on the original warrant. On the same day the inquest opened this year, a second drug raid by North Vancouver RCMP was carried out in Burnaby by the same officers testifying that very day. This time Kelly Possee was arrested. It has been confirmed that the police invited a North Shore News reporter, who has been covering the Possee case from day one, along on this drug raid so he could be present at the arrest. There is also speculation that other media outlets may have been advised of this at the time.
My question to the minister is: given this string of concerning coincidences, will the Attorney General instruct his deputy minister to determine if a further investigation into these amazing coincidences is warranted?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that given the fact that the coroner's inquest is continuing, I should make no comment at this stage.
The Speaker: I'll recognize the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I hope he'll keep in mind the Attorney General's response.
G. Farrell-Collins: Clearly, the incidents which we're concerned with took place over the last 24 or 48 hours and are not tied directly to the items before the inquest itself. I'm asking the minister if he will commit to having his deputy minister look into this to see if the events of the last 48 or 72 hours warrant further investigation themselves.
The Speaker: Unfortunately, the Chair determines that is the same question as the first one, and the Attorney General has answered that question.
FOREIGN CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN B.C.
A. Cowie: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Yesterday in this House the Premier gave several erroneous statements regarding economic development, and that's why my question is to the minister. In regards to capital investment in this province, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada says that investment fell by 8.6 percent over the last year. Perhaps the minister may wish to inform this House why there was this loss of investment by foreign investors.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try to be short, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 5195 ]
B.C. has the strongest economy in Canada, and I think the answer to your question is that it may have to do with rates of investment. There was a peak of capital investment in pulp and paper, for example. That has tapered off; it's a normal part of the cycle of capital investment. We can't always be at a peak. If we were at a peak, B.C. would be right off the chart. But B.C. is on a roll with respect to economic growth. We will remain the strongest economy. I think the opposition should change their perception and change to the reality that B.C. is a good place to invest, the best place to invest, and it will remain the best place to invest.
A. Cowie: That was a little better than the Premier's erroneous statements yesterday.
I'll tell you why investment is down.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
A. Cowie: According to Lucy Roschat, president of the Hong Kong-Canada Business Association, the corporate capital tax and the poor labour situation in this province are the reasons investment from foreign investors is down. In the spirit of good faith, would the minister ask the Premier to kindly scrap the capital corporation tax before he goes away on this extravagant journey of his to Asia?
The Speaker: Order, please. Before the minister answers, the members need to recognize that it is not in order to ask ministers what advice they will give to each other. I just ask the minister in his reply to keep those boundaries in mind.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm sure the Premier will take advantage of his trip to Asia to inform people about the reality of the investment climate in British Columbia. I need to remind the member that business people from some jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, don't like taxes. They don't like taxes anywhere. But if they happen to know there's a good opportunity to invest in British Columbia, they will still come here. As the member knows, there was a rush of capital that left Hong Kong on the speculation that it would not be a suitable climate for their continued investment after Hong Kong's jurisdiction went back to China. But after that rush of capital, there was also a slowdown.
PRIVATE ADOPTIONS
L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Social Services. The minister has announced that this government is planning to outlaw private adoptions. She is reported to have said that fees to facilitate private adoptions should be illegal, because we're not selling puppies. Would the minister now apologize to the thousands of birth parents, adoptive parents and children who have been offended by that callous remark?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to make two statements. First of all, the introduction of legislation later on in the session will give the member an opportunity to look at the policy initiatives that are underway in this government. Secondly, the area of adoption is one that evokes a tremendous amount of emotion. Following the initiation of Bill 73 by your government, this government has chosen the values of true access for all families in this province, and those are the values that are driving us.
L. Hanson: Almost 50 percent of all adoptions are now handled privately, and I think the people of British Columbia -- and certainly those in this House -- would like to know why the minister wants to deny these birth parents their right to choose their children's future parents. Why would she even contemplate denying them that choice?
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the member's information, British Columbia is the last jurisdiction of 12 in Canada to regulate private adoptions. That is due to the blatant neglect of the previous administration. The fact of the matter is that through private adoptions, we cannot assure that children -- and this is our prime focus -- are safe and placed in a home where they can be assured of the lifelong commitment that they deserve. That is the work that we are doing, and we make no apology for ensuring that children in this province are safe and that all families everywhere in this province who desire to adopt an infant have that opportunity.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
L. Hanson: It's interesting to hear the remarks of the minister when she suggests that because all of the other provinces have it and we don't, that's wrong.
I think what people are concerned about is the fact that she is not going to regulate; she is going to outlaw it. But privately adopted kids aren't bought and paid for, as the minister implicitly suggests. The average cost is about $5,000 per child for doctors' fees, hospital costs, lawyers, etc. In view of the six-year wait-list for public adoptions and the two-year wait-list for private adoptions, what evidence does the minister have -- and would she table the evidence -- that publicly funded adoption is better, and better serves the interests of the adopted children? Surely the interests of those children have to be the major issue.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I will state again that the interests and the safety of adopted children are our primary interest. In addition, the fact that this province is the only jurisdiction that has not regulated private adoption indicates, I believe, neglect -- and that is neglect brought about by the previous administration.
Where we have adoption procedures in this province that are not regulated, we have a vast discrepancy in the way adoptions proceed. In private adoptions in this province we have very good and very dedicated practitioners who ensure home studies and counselling prior to placement. For your information, Mr. Member, we also have children placed in homes where there has been no home study, no criminal records check, no assurance that the families themselves understand the
[ Page 5196 ]
commitment that is central to taking on the support of children for their full lifetime. When those adoptions break down, Mr. Member, because of the lack of assurances of standards and regulations, it hurts those children. Those children are at risk, and this government is acting responsibly.
B.C. FERRIES BOARD MINUTES
D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. I would like first to ask the minister if he is aware that we're not currently at war and that the Cold War is over.
The Speaker: The member will have to state a much more specific question than that.
D. Symons: I think the supplementary to the same minister will make this perfectly clear. The minister may remember that two weeks ago I asked during question period for copies of the minutes of certain ferry board meetings that I thought might contain safety-related discussions. Yesterday I received what purported to be those minutes: piles of news releases, some of them even admitting there was a ferry accident; reports and...
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
D. Symons: ...minutes.... These are the minutes of March 4....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the member take his seat, please.
The member well knows, as all members know, that props of that nature cannot be brought into the House. I think this member will also appreciate that he has not yet stated a question. I would now ask the hon. member to.... The question, hon. member.
D. Symons: Simply, is this the government's concept of freedom of information?
TOD MOUNTAIN SKI DEVELOPMENT
W. Hurd: A question for the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Is the minister aware of any negotiations between the Premier's office and Japan's Nippon Cable Co. regarding the future of Crown land around the Tod Mountain ski development?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm sure the hon. member would be delighted to have an opportunity to go into a second question so that he can indicate to the House what he's getting at.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that Japan's Nippon Cable Co. is seeking to purchase or secure options on 4,250 hectares of Crown land, and can he assure us that this land is going to be properly tendered and that all British Columbians will have a chance to purchase it?
[2:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: I can assure the hon. member of appropriateness of process in all of our dealings.
W. Hurd: Would the minister welcome the opportunity, then, to explain that he will make a commitment to the proposal for ski facilities in the province and ensure that the land which the company seeks to secure will be available to all British Columbians?
Hon. J. Cashore: As I pointed out, the lands branch of the ministry has a very thorough process with regard to any type of development on Crown land, be it a ski development or whatever. It is a fair and open process. I'd be glad to make any information available to the member with regard to how that process operates. No prior commitment is given to any group, whether from this country or any other country. This information is readily available. In my opinion, this is an estimates kind of question.
SALES TAX ON LABOUR
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the House the other day the Leader of the Third Party asked a question that I took on notice concerning skate sharpening, which he considered an important and urgent matter, and I want to respond. He wanted to know whether it is taxable if done by hand and taxable if done with a machine. I have been advised by the Minister of Finance that effective October 1, 1993, the sales tax will apply to charges for services to "install, assemble, dismantle, repair, adjust, alter, restore, recondition, refurnish and maintain taxable tangible personal property." The tax will apply to skate-sharpening services, whether done by hand or by machine, because both fit the definition of taxable services.
For the hon. member's edification I am also advised by the Minister of Finance that virtually every province with a sales tax applies that tax to charges for services to taxable tangible personal property. Saskatchewan is the only exception. I know that the Opposition Leader is a good skater, but I suggest that if he can't read any better, maybe he should hang up his skates.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade for the period April 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading debate on Bill 3.
BUILD BC ACT
(continued)
S. Hammell: My colleagues on this side have spoken eloquently of the forthright manner in which the Minister of Finance has chosen to meet the challenges we face in reconstructing the British Columbia economy in the wake of the late, but not lamented, recession.
[ Page 5197 ]
Bill 3 is an example of the balanced approach this government is taking to the difficult choices we must make in the process of rebuilding our social and economic infrastructure for the future. I say "rebuild," because Conservative governments have spent the past decade purposely deconstructing our socioeconomic system. In the name of the free market economy, they have sold off publicly owned lands and resources, thrown out regulations and laws that have been in place through our nation-building period, run up a huge deficit, and undermined public confidence in the ability of government to serve the public interest.
It is one of the tragic ironies of this period in our history that the Fraser Institute prophets, who worship at the altar of Adam Smith, are either unwilling or unable to give equal weight to the remarkable moral philosophy that was written by their hero. Adam Smith pioneered the science of economics by describing the operation of the invisible hand that balances a market economy. But unlike his twentieth century followers, Adam Smith was also deeply concerned about the social bonds that make society possible. His moral philosophy was based on the notion of sympathy. He observed that we must be able to think sympathetically about the situation of others or we cannot live together in a civilized society. Smith did not advocate raw competition and an invisible government. He did advocate the moral virtues of sympathy and caring. Hon. members opposite would do well to consider Smith's teaching on this point. They would find that the government's balanced approach to the demands of the economy and the needs of the people reflect the best part of many political traditions.
I want to reflect for a few moments on some of the long-term implications of the way our New Democratic government approaches the task of managing the provincial economy. What is the role of government in the economy? This question has been debated for most of this century, and we will probably never stop debating the appropriate division of labour between government and business. But that debate has often been cast in terms that are at best confusing and at worst misleading.
In thinking about our provincial economy, I find it helpful to think of British Columbia as a big extended family. Our overall goal is to create conditions that provide each member of the family with the ability to be self-reliant and the ability to contribute to a strong and vibrant society. Some members are continually able to exercise qualities that enable them to go out into the world and make their way without much help. Others need our help from time to time, or in the words of Adam Smith, they need our sympathy. As a family we must try our best to equalize opportunity and to assist those who fall behind.
I have said that the economy is often discussed in other terms. For the past decade, as our own and other societies have fallen under the spell of Reaganomics, we were told that government must be like business, driven by the bottom line and justifying every move by the results of a cost-benefit analysis. We now know that this kind of thinking, this set of values, has in fact driven our community into debt. The rhetoric of fiscal responsibility disguised the reality of fiscal mismanagement.
It is now up to a New Democratic government to rebuild, and we will do so not only by approaching our task as a problem on a balance sheet but also, as a family, by planning for the future of our children. Our idea of success as a government is to enable our family members to get on with their life plans and to raise their children in a safe and nurturing environment. Good government enables people to meet their own needs. The most fundamental human needs can only be met if people have jobs in order to support themselves and their families. Bill 3 provides us with the means to create those jobs and to implement an overall plan for a healthy and successful province.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
When the beast of anarchy begins to rant on the radio that government is the source of all our troubles, I'd like to remind those who enjoy spreading hysteria that we all rely on government to provide our basic security. The basic need for security of the person requires the dedication of our resources as a society. When one of our family members is down, the rest of us help her up. The consequences of not doing so are evident elsewhere. I think of San Francisco or Los Angeles, where the poor and the homeless commit crimes -- often violent crimes -- in their desperation. I fully support the priority that our government has given in this bill to the provision of infrastructure for social services, health and education -- the pillars on which we build decent lives for ourselves and our children.
We live in difficult times, but we must not make the mistake of abandoning our family home because it is in need of maintenance. We are all responsible for the upkeep of our public infrastructure. This bill provides us with means to invest in transportation, in schools and colleges, in courthouses and other essential buildings, and in the silviculture industry that supports our forest management projects. This bill enables us to amortize the cost of these assets over their lifetime. We front-load the benefits rather than the costs; that is standard business practice. I suggest that those members opposite who find this concept so difficult to grasp might consider asking their advisers in the Fraser Institute for a lesson in public finance. What is good for British Columbia's corporate sector is good for the public as well, if I have been hearing retorts from the other side correctly.
I was impressed by the calm rationality of an editorial in our local newspaper last week. I want to read one passage into Hansard from the Surrey-North Delta Now on April 13, 1993:
"...we believe it is premature to come to any hard and fast overall verdict on this budget. While nobody welcomes the prospect of personally paying more tax, that is scarcely the point. We could of course slash the amount of tax we pay by half, and elect to erode public services to the standards our American neighbours receive. Clearly it is a matter of degree."
The editorial goes on:
[ Page 5198 ]
"Still, in the wake of the hysteria that met the budget...a few dissenting voices are starting to make the papers, although mostly tucked into the business section, far from the front page. Concerning the road-building program, for example, an industy lobbyist said the boom in construction should create 4,500 jobs.
"And is that not the point? ...that government can build momentum into the economy where the private sector is flailing?
"Who can be sure that it is better to help the least able and least fortunate...by leaving the money in private hands? Many..." -- of the unemployed -- "have been left behind by changing technology. In addition to retraining to make productive workers out of them, they may need help with family problems, substance abuse, and to overcome other symptoms of sustained poverty. Will the private sector come knocking on their door? Perhaps it is worth the gamble of some relatively short-term pain for decades of gain by avoiding the creation of a permanent underclass, or at least limiting its size."
This thoughtful editorial is characteristic of the reception that the budget of the Minister of Finance has received in my constituency. This bill promises to implement the general approach laid out in the budget. Surrey is home to ordinary working people who understand that our government is working within an extraordinary set of parameters. My constituents have called in to our office to express their support for our commitment to fairness. In Surrey we understand the urgent need for capital funds for new schools and more funding for operations. My constituents tell me that money must be found to provide access for our children to education at all levels. The principle of fairness demands that we provide facilities that enable people to develop their skills and to train themselves to work. That is what this bill is designed to do.
[2:45]
As the editorial in the Now reminds us, the consequences of abandoning our public responsibility for infrastructure are graphically evident in the major cities of California. By observing the desperate straits of Californians just 13 years after the success of their so-called tax revolt, we can see what would happen if we were so foolish as to adopt the agenda advocated by members opposite.
British Columbians know that every one of us is more secure when those who cannot help themselves are properly looked after. Victims of technological change must be retooled. Family members whose skills have become less useful must be assisted. This bill gives priority to those objectives.
When members of our family are successful, we all share in the pride that comes with their achievements. The other day, as I came across to Victoria on the new superferry, I talked with Lucille Johnstone.
Interjection.
S. Hammell: You should pay attention.
That's Lucille Johnstone of Integrated Ferry Constructors, the company that built the first superferry and is now hard at work on the second. Lucille's company used over 750 B.C. suppliers to build the ferries. There were pipefitters, furniture makers, plastic manufacturers, couriers, freight companies, suppliers of hardware, first aid -- anything you can think of. These two superferries were made almost entirely in British Columbia. Here is a woman whose view of her own work includes consideration for the prosperity of her neighbours. She is not concerned to maximize the bottom line at any cost; rather she recognizes that we are all stakeholders together in this province.
We have an opportunity in B.C. to demonstrate that government can be both sensible and sensitive. We can be sensible about the balance between spending and taxing, about the need to clear our books of red ink. We can also be sensitive to the needs of those who need a little help from their friends. Over the next few years we are all going to need more goodwill and less hatemongering. We need to concentrate our energies on efforts to restore confidence in our ability as British Columbians to provide for ourselves, to build for our future and to pay our way.
Hon. Speaker, I know I speak for the residents of Surrey-Green Timbers when I say this bill provides a strong foundation for the work that we will doing in the year ahead.
A. Warnke: The previous speaker is among many who over the course of this debate has focused on a number of issues that supposedly have something to do with the rationale behind this particular bill -- Bill 3, the Build BC Act, or the B.C. 21 act. Actually it's pretty hard to figure out which name they prefer. Some call it the "Bilk B.C." fund. It's been interesting how the previous speaker -- and I believe one other speaker on another occasion, the member for Vancouver-Hastings -- referred to this bill as somehow providing a foundation for our kids and all the rest of it. The fact is that it really has nothing to do with the kids and so forth. It's quite obvious that members of the government have been sold what this bill is all about, and now are in the process of selling the bill to themselves and of course as many friends and insiders as they can.
There are some fundamental features of this bill that deserve closer examination. What I intend to do is examine some of these statements made by government members, because there is a pattern here which I will focus on, and maybe -- who knows? -- I will build into some sort of crescendo. There is one aspect of this bill that I think deserves specially close examination. But since the member for Cariboo North is here in the House -- and I know he is listening quite attentively -- I will say that I am curious about one statement he made, that the Build BC Act is going to kick-start the economy of British Columbia. This sort of melds in with what the member for Alberni pointed out this morning, that Build B.C. is a mechanism to develop an engine which will drive the economy.
I find it very curious. If I were to take a look at those kinds of statements prima facie -- and many of them have been made -- I would say: "Gee, the British Columbia economy is in pretty bad shape." Yet it is precisely this government that turns right around and says: "We're in the best shape of all economies across Canada." I find it very strange. If we have the best economy in Canada, why the heck does it need a
[ Page 5199 ]
kick-start? Why is there somehow a necessity to develop something that drives the economy?
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Well, now, we get a further clarification by one member -- and a minister on top of that, which is good, because at least some of the ministers are thinking through this. They want to improve the economy, but improvement of the economy is a lot different than a statement made by a member who said that we have to kick-start the economy. That's the point. The fact is, whether it's from the member or from the minister, it seems there is a concession in those arguments that the economy of British Columbia is slowing down. If it is slowing down, perhaps it is worth their while -- the members and ministers of that government -- to reflect on why the economy is slowing down.
I'll give them a hint, because evidently some of the points made by this side earlier on the budget debate did not sink in. What I talked about in my particular statement on the budget was the relationship between savings, investment and economic growth. Hon. Speaker, if they want to focus on something called an engine that drives the economy, I would suggest that members and ministers focus on what constitutes savings and on what generates savings in the economy, which in turn generates investment in the economy, which then develops into economic growth.
Incidentally, once you have economic growth, it's surprising the number of economic problems that can be solved. It's regrettable that I have to mention it again, but I know that if the members and ministers opposite really stop to think about the problem for our economy and the reason it's going down, conceded by the members and ministers opposite that something is wrong.... I would suggest that they go back and re-examine the reasons for the slowdown in savings and investment and the slowdown in economic growth. If they take that into account, I guarantee you that the kids referred to by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, and some of the problems about the future generations spoken about by the previous speaker, will all be resolved. The future of those generations that succeed us will look bright provided you have economic growth.
Now we come to another aspect. Does this bill really generate economic growth? Remember what I said, hon. members. I suggested that savings equals investment equals economic growth. Where do the savings and investment come from? They obviously come from private investors. Never mind those greedy capitalists and all the rest of it; I'm talking about private people -- ordinary people who work hard, save their money and invest in their economy. Incidentally, some of the problems are a result of the fact that in British Columbia we have one of the lowest rates of saving and investment in our economy. Compare that to the rate in Japan or Germany, and you will see what I'm saying. So that is where savings and investment are generated.
There is a premise in this bill that is also reflected in the budget and in the infamous Peat Marwick report. It's a premise that shows up over and over again. This government, I suppose, honestly believes.... I don't think they're stupid; I think they have an idea. But the fact is that savings and investment does not come from government. Yet somehow there is this funny thinking over there. This goofy government tends to think that investment and growth can only come from government involvement in the economy. That premise is reflected in the bills and the budget that have been presented in this House. I would suggest that ministers and members should re-examine and rethink some of the underlying premises in those bills and the budget.
We suspect that what is being generated and put forward here is a socialist agenda. A socialist agenda stems from the basic premise that only governments can drive the economy. I know that one minister opposite disagreed with that, but I would invite that minister to look again at a statement made by a member from his own caucus -- that the engine generated by this particular bill, which focuses not on the private sector but on the public sector, drives the economy.
As I looked at some other statements, I was particularly struck by one from the member for BurnabyEdmonds, who said: "I have been to places in the United States where every day you go out and pay four or five tolls." It's interesting that somehow that was seen by that member as a very strong argument: if tolls exist in the United States, ergo they must be good; ergo they should be applied here in Canada. Yet members of this government are the first to condemn the United States on almost anything else. If one does posit a very positive argument about the United States, they're the first to say: "But look at their health system and the poverty and their inner urban areas." Hon. Speaker, you have to be consistent. I would suggest that just because a United States highway has four or five tolls on it in a day's driving through Ohio, or wherever you want to go through, that alone is not a very strong argument for introducing tolls in this province.
[3:00]
The member for Alberni, when talking about Bill 3 this morning, said that this is a great bill. I heard other members also refer to this government as having guts and fortitude. Well, if this government has fortitude and guts, that is a concession that this is a difficult decision to make. If it's a difficult decision to make, then why is this decision so great?
I don't want to run out of time by digressing onto members' statements, but over and over members have put forward statements that are full of contradictions. It would be most preferable if those members and ministers would re-examine some of their statements and maybe iron out some of the inconsistencies.
There are some other issues as we examine the bill. Let's take a look at the bill, address some of the issues and examine what it is really all about. As I suggested earlier, there is a basic premise that economic development can be stimulated only by government spending -- that somehow the state, and an agency within the state, is in the best position to essentially drive the economy. Again, it's based on what the member for Alberni said this morning. That's not acceptable.
[ Page 5200 ]
There is another aspect of this that we should examine further. When we begin to develop special accounts for particular committees, assume that they are somehow under cabinet control and that these special accounts and committees are the best way to go and we look closely at a Crown corporation and what it is supposed to do, we notice that the bill provides a mechanism for shifting the debt to a Crown corporation, which in turn means that any dereliction of duties by members of the government cannot be countered. It's a neat little trick, and by referring to kids, our future and our jobs and by saying, "Wouldn't we like to see schools?" and "Wouldn't we like to see court houses?" and all that stuff.... All of that is just a big selling job to get a system instituted whereby debt can be shifted into a Crown corporation so it makes a Finance minister of the future look good: "Oh, look! I have balanced the books." In fact, it is bound to drive the debt in this economy. This is repugnant.
But that's not all. There is the problem of accountability. The government has time and time again.... Somehow I think members on this side have given them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they're new in government; maybe they do not fully understand the nature and purpose of government. But I am beginning to question that as I look at this bill. This government is beginning to reveal, in various bills and legislation brought before this chamber, that it does not really believe in parliamentary democracy. Its objective is not ministerial responsibility and respect for that. They want to shift the debt in such a way that the minister cannot be held accountable in this House. That is repugnant.
There is a tradition of parliamentary democracy in which ministers must be accountable for every cent spent by the government. They have to be responsible in this chamber, not locked away where the Minister of Finance is in control of a committee and so forth. We have to suspect that. Who's going to serve on that committee? We have to suspect what is being hidden in a Crown corporation. We have to be suspect of the cabinet control over a special account.
Just before we adjourned debate last night, I was not pleased to hear the Minister of Energy say that there was the Peat Marwick report suggesting an honourable way of dealing with the debt. She said: "The people on the committee that will direct the agency and then the authority are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. They have to go to Treasury Board for funding." It really pleases me that Treasury Board, an agent of the government in the executive council, is somehow the final authority, not parliament and not the Legislature.
This is a minister of the Crown who posits such a case. Doesn't that minister understand that a basic principle in this Legislature is ministerial responsibility? Oh, no, the minister just sits there and assumes. "We know what we're doing, and all you guys have to do is just be reasonable; don't raise any questions. If there is a problem, we'll raise it among ourselves and sort out the problem in executive council."
I have seen it over and over again. Doggone it, we have seen in this province over and over again how an executive council can actually abuse -- if given an opportunity -- the Legislature, the legislative process and parliamentary democracy itself. As a legislator, my hackles go up when I see any prospect of greater financial control by the executive that is unaccountable to this House and to this chamber.
An Hon. Member: Speak louder, Al, we can't hear you.
A. Warnke: The shift of debt into a Crown corporation and masquerading the deficit has another problem. Apparently some members over there cannot hear, and I suggest they get the cotton out of their ears, get the brain in motion, and perhaps they can pick up a few points.
A point was raised by the member for Richmond Centre that this is the basis of a slush fund. As I reflect more on that argument, I believe that the member for Richmond Centre is dead on. The fact is that there is a committee, which is not responsible to this chamber, that has a device to take taxpayers' money and rationalize and approve in such a way that they can use it for election purposes. The closer I look at that, I really find it repugnant that after the passage of Bill 3 there will possibly be such a legislative device to get money into their ridings, into particular targets, which would in turn lead to the guarantee of their re-election. It really means that the cabinet wants control over this special account; and they will. It means that a small group of people will be in a particular situation to say: "This is where the money goes that will feather our nests, develop our interests and make sure that we are elected." On top of that is a slush fund of taxpayers' money that's not accountable in this chamber. I find that very repugnant.
As if it isn't enough, when one takes a look at the record of this government in the past year -- and I believe it is necessary to take a look at the record, because a pattern begins to develop -- there is not just one bill in isolation where there's something wrong with it, but a pattern of many different bills. Again, the reference to the Peat Marwick report was a neat little slip-up here. They're trying to pull together a whole package that is nothing more than an attempt to use taxpayers' money to feather the nest of NDP friends and insiders -- a nest that's already feathered now, after 18 months -- but if caught, allows the government to defer payment to future generations. Unless the member has thought through it.... I'll give the benefit of the doubt here again. But I find it very inconsistent, to say the least, that such a mechanism is available to defer payment. Once they're out of office, they'll defer all of that slush to future generations. That is looking after your kids? That is looking after future generations?
As a matter of fact, I do believe this bill is a perfect example of what the heck is wrong with this country, what the heck is wrong with this particular government, and perhaps with every government for the past few years. The idea is to set up some mechanism to shift debt out of the focus of people -- not only the public but members of this chamber, who perhaps are in the best position to take a look at it. How can we question
[ Page 5201 ]
some of the expenditures once the debt mounts up in Crown corporations?
After we've taken a look at the entire package of legislation that's been brought down in the past year, and then take a look at this bill, maybe it is fair to say that enough is enough. We have to put a stop. We have to send a very clear signal to this government that there is a threshold they have crossed, and that threshold is Bill 3.
I cannot even accept what they call a basic principle of the bill -- if the intent is to create a fund to feather their nest and essentially set themselves up for reelection. Indeed, it's not just a question of highways. I know some members opposite like to talk about: "Well, this is a situation where we can get highways constructed. Wouldn't you like to have a highway?" That too is nothing but a glorified scheme.
There are other aspects than highways, however, that are hidden in this particular bill. "Resource enhancement initiatives" -- now what the heck does that mean? I do not believe this government, in presenting the bill.... It was presented by the Minister of Transportation and Highways, which is a smokescreen in itself because this is a Minister of Finance bill, not simply a transportation bill. Very cute trick. It's a Minister of Finance bill, and I want the people of British Columbia to know that.
What the Minister of Finance has not done, and what no other speaker since has done, is define a resource enhancement initiative. And so as a result....
An Hon. Member: Silviculture.
A. Warnke: Well, yes, you can use silviculture. That hon. member will follow me in the course of this debate. I would like to see a precise definition of where the government is headed in areas such as this. But I'll make a prediction: I'll bet you that member won't address it.
Parliament and the Legislature must be the beginning and end of the governmental process. The Legislature must scrutinize and approve all legislation and all proposals. As I suggested, that has been a problem with governments in recent years: if they have a problem, they'll shift it out of focus of the people and, of course, out of the legislative branch of government. They'll shift it out of focus by creating a Crown corporation, whereby they'll hide their debts or play around with the books. I tell you, the people are fed up.
[3:15]
I found it very interesting that the member for Alberni said that the business community is behind this. I attended a breakfast this morning with the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, which is represented by.... Over a hundred businesses responded to a recent questionnaire, so it's a significant part not only of Richmond's economy but the economy of the lower mainland and of British Columbia. Those businessmen don't like the bill. They don't like the budget. They don't like the government. By cracky, anyone from that side who rises in the chamber and says that the business community is behind this bill needs their ears cleaned. That's clearly not what people are saying. People are mad. They're really very upset with this government. They're very upset with the budget.
I guess it still hasn't sunk in that people are upset about the budget. They're mad about the bills. They're mad at this government. It's about time that government members and ministers changed their attitude in such a way as to begin to understand what the people of the province are really thinking. If they got out and talked to British Columbians, not to their cronies or the various people who stop for coffee in their constituency offices, I guarantee they would hear a different message from what some members are introducing in this House.
With that in mind, I would like to move, seconded by the member for Chilliwack, that the motion for second reading of Bill 3 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."
Deputy Speaker: The motion appears to be in order. Does the member wish to continue speaking to the amendment?
On the amendment.
A. Warnke: Yes, hon. Speaker.
I believe it is essential not only for government but, I would suggest, all members of this Legislature to get out, as we in the opposition side have done, and talk to the people. The people have a different message for this government. Oh, it's very cute, very neat, to build up some of these superficial arguments and say that this bill is just jim-dandy. I want to put a message out there that this government is in deep and serious trouble. If we want to get rid of such repugnant bills as this one, then the people must be informed. When they get out, ministers opposite had better not do a superficial selling job, because we're going to watch every word they say in public, and we will cream them. We will cream them in such a way that they will have to have a full re-examination of the bill and the meaning of the bill.
If that isn't enough, I want to remind those members opposite that back in 1975.... Yes, there was another Premier. Yes, he was a Social Credit Premier eventually. Do you know how he got to be Premier? He got to be Premier by saying that you don't, as a government -- it was an NDP government at the time -- set up some sort of financial operation, some sort of financial system, that is unaccountable. No, no, no. Not a dime without debate. At today's rates of inflation, I would say not a dollar without debate. We need debate on this bill. We need public debate on this bill. The public is very well informed. The public wants to have some sort of input into this government and wants to put the government in its place. This is a fine place to start, because it's clear by the intent and nature of this bill that this bill is repugnant. I guarantee you, hon. members, that when you go out there, you'll find that this bill is repugnant. The public will not stand for it anymore.
H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment put forth by the Liberal opposition and to speak in
[ Page 5202 ]
favour of Bill 3, also known as B.C. 21 -- Building Our Future.
In response to the member who just finished speaking, I'd like to say that my constituents are telling me that the only repugnant thing around here is the Liberal caucus and the way they've been behaving in these chambers with their negativity and their doom and gloom, without any mention of their election promise to be a positive opposition. It's a shameful display by the Liberal opposition that we've been seeing for the last 17 months. They have not lived up to their word and have broken their promise, as they said they would not.
I was talking to one of the government caucus members, who said to me: "When you speak on Bill 3, hopefully you won't start mentioning all the grants and funding that have come your way." Well, I promise I won't do it in this speech.
B.C. 21 is a comprehensive, multi-year plan to improve the economy in every corner of our province. It will break new ground by fast-tracking the construction of much-needed highways and transportation links. B.C. 21 will accelerate the building and improvement of vital community facilities from classrooms to courthouses. B.C. 21 will also target new investment to the regions and to those people who need it the most. By accelerating investment in community infrastructure and social capital and by spreading out the payments over the long term, we will bring economic renewal to communities throughout this province. This isn't a program to benefit only the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island, like programs under the Social Credit regime for the last 15 years. B.C. 21 will benefit communities all over British Columbia that need new courthouses, new bridges, new roads, new schools, new health centres and new recreation centres.
B.C. 21 has four key components. The first one is the establishment of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, which will facilitate and fast-track the construction of essential transportation projects needed for the long-term development of the province's regional economies. The role of the authority will be to finance and enable construction of highways and other priority transportation projects. All construction projects undertaken by the authority will be self-financed and will be capitalized over the useful life of the assets.
Second is the acceleration of government investment programs in building the facilities required to support vital services in health care, education and justice. This component will speed up the completion of community facilities needed for the long term and will deliver the immediate benefits of increased economic activity and jobs. Because these investments must be made, the acceleration of these projects will not add to the province's long-term deficit.
Thirdly, it will focus Crown corporation capital investments to ensure that they deliver maximum long-term economic benefits. These benefits will complement other government and private sector investments and will encourage the use of goods and services supplied by B.C.-based businesses.
Fourthly, it allocates $100 million in new dollars for public sector projects with the greatest economic returns in the regions. Projects will be approved only if they contribute to the development of physical assets and meet regional diversification, equity and training priorities. These projects will ensure that the government's investment fosters an environment in which sustainable jobs are created.
As I travelled throughout my riding during the last election, people said to me that Social Credit had built two British Columbias: a prosperous lower mainland and a sadly neglected interior. However, I must give credit where credit is due. Going back a few decades, W.A.C. Bennett opened up the interior and northern British Columbia by building hydroelectric projects and new highways, and communities settled there. But between 1975 and 1991 the Social Credit government -- the party that is now sitting opposite -- created two British Columbias. The Social Credit MLAs from the interior who represented the government for those 16 years sold out their small rural communities. They sold out the people they represented. All the economic growth was channelled where all the votes were, in Vancouver and lower Vancouver Island, and they indeed sold out the people who had put them into power in the first place.
After Social Credit left British Columbia in shambles, this government -- my government -- was left, just like in 1972 to '75, to pick up the pieces and rebuild B.C. the way it should be. We've got strong representation on the government side from interior MLAs; 17 New Democratic MLAs represent the interior government caucus. In September we had a strategic planning workshop in Penticton with all 51 MLAs from the government side present. In the strategic planning workshop, the interior government caucus was successful in convincing all of the government caucus that regional economic diversification is the number one objective for this government, and it was identified as such. I can say with pride that B.C. 21 addresses that particular issue so that the fast growth taking place in the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island can be managed better, yet at the same time the high unemployment and declining population in the interior and northern communities can be stabilized. My constituents throughout Yale-Lillooet welcome Bill 3 because it will put people back to work -- the people that the last government put in the unemployment and welfare lines.
We've got some critics on the Social Credit and Liberal side who for some reason have spoken out again and again against Bill 3. They're opposed to economic development and job creation in the rural areas, in the same fashion as the last 16 years of their power when they created two British Columbias. And then there are the Liberals who can't tell the difference between a tree and a tree stump. With the exception of the member for Okanagan East, all of their members were elected from urban ridings. I'm willing to wager that most of them haven't even driven past Hope to go into the interior and talk to the people who actually live there and are excited about the prospects that are going to be brought about by B.C. 21.
D. Jarvis: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, the Capilano and Seymour watersheds are behind my
[ Page 5203 ]
riding of North Vancouver-Seymour, and there's more trees there than in his riding.
Deputy Speaker: With respect, hon. member, that is a piece of information you may wish to dispute in the debate, but it is not a proper point of order. Would the member for Yale-Lillooet please continue.
H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. That comment by the hon. member reminds me of a playground fight where one child says to another: "My daddy is bigger than your daddy." If he thinks he has more trees than me in the back yard of his riding, I'm not going to argue with him, even though I've got one of the largest ridings in the province. It covers 25,000 squares kilometres.
To continue the debate, the Liberals might understand unemployment if they had 20 to 40 percent unemployment in their ridings like we do in the interior and in the north. They might be able to address some of those problems if they knew what the problems are. But they're far from knowing what the issues and problems are that affect the people who live in the north and in the interior.
[3:30]
Under B.C. 21 there will be spending available for community college expansions, new classrooms to replace portables, health care facilities and courthouses, as I mentioned earlier, and also for rebuilding our forestry resources. We will ensure that Crown corporation investments are sensitive to regional needs, encourage B.C.-based businesses and incorporate job-training and skills development for British Columbians. In this fiscal year the government will spend $1.42 billion on construction of community facilities -- a 30 percent increase over last year -- to meet the increasing demands on government services.
Now I'd like to talk about some of the needs of the people and communities in Yale-Lillooet, which I represent. The new transportation construction authority will actually free up capital in the general Highways budget, because some of the larger projects in the scope of this authority will be in the lower mainland and on the Island to deal with the congestion problems. We're talking about major projects like the Port Mann Bridge, the Pitt River Bridge, Lions Gate Bridge, the Island Highway and some others that I may have left out. Financing these through the authority will free up capital in the general Highways budget, which will be available for some of the smaller projects in the interior and the north that range from $200,000 to $2 million or $3 million, such as rebuilding bridges, upgrading highways and repaving sections of road that have been deteriorating over the last ten or 15 years.
That kind of work is important for my constituents, because a lot of the small businesses in my community are dependent on tourism for their survival. In order to have safe circle routes, such as the one that originates in Vancouver, through Squamish on the Sea to Sky Highway, to Whistler and Pemberton into my riding via the Duffey Lake Road to Lillooet and Lytton, down the Fraser Canyon on the Trans-Canada Highway to Hope and then back to Vancouver..... In order to have safe travel routes for tourists, we need to upgrade some of the highways and bridges along these routes.
Of course, there will also be funds available for the construction of new hospitals or for upgrading old ones, such as the structure in Lytton which has been there since the turn of the century. It's a totally wood structure, and it's beginning to outlive its usefulness. Funds will be available through B.C. 21 for these kinds of projects.
The courthouse in Merritt is a completely wooden two-storey structure that was built at the turn of the century. It has wheelchair access to the first floor, but there's no elevator there. It's cramped with inadequate washroom facilities, and there's not enough space in the courthouse itself. I certainly will be talking to the Ministry of Attorney General and to the directors of B.C. 21, in order to access funds for the construction of a new courthouse in Merritt.
I also have some schools in my riding, two of which are very prominent. The one on Pavilion Indian band land was burned down and needs to be rebuilt. I've spoken in support of that over a year and a half ago, and I'll be talking with the appropriate authorities to access some funding for that. Merritt Secondary School, where I had the privilege of graduating, is a structure that is very old, and there is one major wing of that school that needs to be rebuilt. It's a $15 million project. I will be lobbying on behalf of the people of Merritt and the school board to access some funds that could possibly be available through B.C. 21 for that project.
My constituency is one of the largest in the province, representing 25,000 to 30,000 square kilometres of land, and forestry is the number one economy -- which I must say the last government let go to shambles. We've been taking positive steps now to try to rebuild our forestry resource. It's going to benefit those people who live in towns like Princeton, Lillooet, Hope, Merritt, Boston Bar, Yale and Spences Bridge, and in other communities, which don't readily come to mind right now, which depend on the forestry resource. We're going to be making a major jobs initiative in treeplanting and silviculture that is going to put people back to work who are on either unemployment or welfare right now.
There is a sizable aboriginal population in my riding that in the spring, summer and part of the fall months is dependent upon tree-planting and silviculture for its livelihood. They are going to be happy to see that this government is doing something to create jobs in that field.
In conclusion, I would like to state again that I speak against the amendment posed by the Liberal caucus, and I support Bill 3. I'd like to state that this government understands the concerns of my constituents and other constituents who live in other interior and northern ridings. This government has taken a bold step and shown courage by initiating change that is going to redress some of the past economic and social wrongs perpetrated by the Social Credit government between 1975 and 1991. This government has given its commitment through Build B.C. and B.C. 21 to redress those wrongs and start putting people back to work.
[ Page 5204 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The member's learning how to speak in the House. It's nice to see. He's taking his lessons from the member for Richmond-Steveston, I can see.
It's indeed a pleasure to rise in support of the amendment, which would bring some sober second thought to this Build BC Act. I think this piece of legislation is certainly, if nothing else, a masterful piece of communication strategy and a masterful piece of government propaganda. I am sure that the highly paid -- over-paid -- government patronage appointees in the communications bureau are more than pleased with the work that they've done on this bill. Unfortunately for the government, people are starting to realize the agenda of this government and the plans that they've set for the future. It's with a great deal of concern that members in the opposition have been listening to the debate as it has unfolded over the last few days.
We've repeatedly had members of the government stand up and say: "How can the opposition be against schools? How can the opposition be against colleges? How can the opposition be against hospitals? How can they possibly be speaking against roads, bridges and infrastructure?" Well, the reality is that both opposition parties, for that matter, certainly are not speaking against those things. We would love to be able to buy all the roads we could possibly find or need. We'd love to be able to have all the schools that we could ever imagine, with all the latest equipment and computer equipment for our students that we could possible imagine. We'd love to be able to provide bridges across the numerous rivers and bodies of water in this province to allow for better infrastructure and better communications.
Nobody questions whether or not those projects are good projects. That's not the issue here. There's no discussion from this side of the House to say that those things aren't good things, that those things wouldn't help to improve the economy in British Columbia, that they wouldn't provide a kick-start to the economy, that they wouldn't provide good jobs. That's not the question. The question isn't whether all of these things are good; the question is how we pay for them. That is one thing that this government failed to recognize in their budgets in the past. Certainly the last time they were in office in this province, and certainly this time.... Now that they're in office once again, we are seeing that they are failing miserably to realize that you can't always get everything you want, that we can't afford every little project -- every big project -- that we want. We can't afford all of the important things that need to be done all of the time.
I'm sure that every member of this House has been approached by members of their constituency and of their respective municipalities with projects that they feel need to be accomplished. I know I have been approached; I know other members on both sides of the House have been. They're all valid projects; they're all good projects; they would all contribute to the community. But there isn't some big pot of money out there that we can just dip our hands into, take out the cash, and turn around and pay for these things. This government fails to realize that. Throughout the budget and again in this piece of legislation -- which is timely, coming right on the heels of the budget debate -- we see again that the NDP does not recognize that while all of these things are good, somebody, somewhere, sometime has to pay for them.
We've heard the members of the government stand numerous times in this House and say things to the effect that it's the future of our children that we're dealing with here; it's the infrastructure of this province; it's the economy that we're going to give our children. In fact, the member for Vancouver-Hastings said: "...the future of our kids is actually at stake in this province." She went on to say that "the opposition" -- that's us -- "focuses on money; that's all they can see," and that the only thing that she and the government members are concerned about is the future of the kids in this province.
Well, it would be nice if we could make it that simplistic, if we could say that all we have to do to ensure the future of our children and the future prosperity of our economy -- so that there will be jobs, education facilities and health care facilities for them -- is to go out and spend money. We could provide a million schools; we could provide a million hospitals; we could provide all the roads and bridges that we wanted. But it's those very children that she and other members of the government talk about that are going to have to pay for those things.
We are borrowing more and more. At the end of this fiscal year, this government and the taxpayers in this province will be another $3 billion in accumulated debt from Crown corporations and the operating expenditures of this government. Somewhere, sometime, we're going to have to pay that back. Who's going to have to pay it back? Certainly not this government. They've made no attempt to pay it back. The only way it's going to be paid back is if the government -- either this one or the next government or the one following that -- goes back into the taxpayer's pocket, into the paycheques of those people who are now the children that the member talked about, and takes some of the money away from them.
The NDP think they can stand up in this House and list all of the wonderful things they're going to do for the economy of British Columbia, all of the wonderful schools and bridges they're going to build. Yet not one of them, throughout this debate, has stood up and addressed the other side of the equation: how they're going to pay for it. They're going to pay for it through increased gasoline taxes, which we've already seen.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, that's a start -- 1 cent a litre. We know where it's going to go. All you have to do is look at the things that this government has done with taxes, fees and licences to know exactly the course that we're embarking on. They're going to pay for it through tolls, which is another form of taxation. They're going to pay for it through any possible means of taxation they can find over the long term.
What we're doing now with this bill is taking all of the money that we would be able to invest over time in
[ Page 5205 ]
the economy of this province, in the infrastructure of this province, discounting that amount for interest, and spending a certain amount of it. We're trying to spend it all now, build all these projects before the next election -- because this government knows they're in big trouble -- and then we're going to pay for it thereafter. The difference, however, between paying as you go and lumping all the money now and borrowing the money now is that we're going to have to pay not just the costs of construction but we're also going to have to pay the dollars, the cents and the taxes that are going to pay for the interest payments on that money. In effect, we're not going to get the same value for the dollar. I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept for the New Democrats to understand.
Perhaps it's a little bit enlightening if we look at some of the economic statements that not only the backbenchers but, heaven forbid, ministers of this government have been making in this House regarding this bill. If you can believe this, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said: "Last year this government cut the rate of growth to 7 percent and this year to less than 6 percent." And here's the kicker: "The rate of growth in government spending is now less than the rate of growth in the economy, once you include inflation." I've never heard so much economic garbage in my life. The minister has shown his economic illiteracy, because what he has done is include growth in government spending as part of the growth in the economy, and then compared it to the growth in government spending. It's obscene; it's ridiculous. And the Minister of Agriculture is chuckling because he realizes that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs clearly didn't know what he was talking about when he made those statements.
[3:45]
That's only the start of it. The minister has also added inflation and GDP growth separately in order to make the government spending look even more reasonable. He has taken all these little economic numbers that he doesn't seem to understand the meaning of, clumped them all together and stacked them up like building blocks, compared it with the rate of growth in government spending, and said: "See, we're actually spending less than the rate of growth in the economy." Any grade 11 or grade 12 student of mathematics or economics can understand that. Anybody who has taken economics 101 -- Canadian economy -- will be able to understand what garbage that is, the economic trash of those ridiculous types of statements.
No wonder we're debating this type of legislation. No wonder the NDP can't understand what's included in this bill. No wonder the very members of cabinet who had to make this decision, draft this legislation, implement it and bring it before this House don't understand basic economic principles. No wonder they can't understand that somewhere, somebody is going to have to pay for this, and that in fact this process of spending before you've earned it is going to damage the future of our children, not help it.
There are a number of other things the government has been saying on this piece of legislation which I think are quite interesting. Here we go. One of the government backbenchers said: "I don't see anything wrong with borrowing money, providing there's provision to generate the cash to amortize these loans." That is exactly what this government has been doing with their whole budget. They have no understanding that the public is trying to tell them -- in a growing number of tax protests and spending protests around this province -- that it's not good enough to spend everything you can: spend, spend, spend, as long as you can raise taxes enough to pay for it somewhere down the line. They're saying that's not good enough.
In the last election -- it's ingrained in my mind, and I bring it up time and time again -- we had the Premier on his little television commercial with the pink piggy bank and the penny, saying: "If we don't have the money, we won't spend it." What he's saying is: "If we don't have the money, we're going to tax you to get the money so we can turn around and spend it." It's exactly the same process he used when he was the mayor of Vancouver. In order to balance his budget he didn't cut spending, he didn't make the civic structure more efficient; instead, he turned around and raised tax rates by 52 percent during his tenure. That's how he balanced the budget in Vancouver. And that's exactly how this government is planning to try and balance the budget in this province -- if they ever can -- not by cutting spending, becoming more efficient or rationalizing expenditures but by increasing taxes faster than the rate of spending so that they can cover their butts, so to speak.
I think the biggest concern that the public has with this bill is that it takes what has traditionally been the expenditure process of this government, the way in which the government builds capital projects through the various ministries -- primarily the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and certainly the Education and Health ministries -- and gives it to a Crown corporation. It's amazing. The NDP railed time after time when they were in opposition -- in the Public Accounts Committee, specifically, and certainly in this House -- about the need for better scrutiny of Crown corporations, because Crown corporations are a step outside of government. They are not susceptible to the same detailed scrutiny that regular line ministries are: they're set aside.
Bob Williams, who now sits on a throne just across the street and dictates the policies of this NDP government, was one of the most vociferous about the lack of accountability of Crown corporations. Now he's heading the Crown corporations secretariat. He turns around and brings in this piece of legislation -- this garbage -- that creates another Crown corporation that's going to go out and borrow billions of dollars and turn it around, when it will not be susceptible to any scrutiny in this House by the elected representatives of this province. NDP backbenchers' re-election chances rest on the performance of their cabinet, so I would think that they in particular would be very particular about ensuring that as members of standing committees and of this House they will be able to scrutinize those Crown corporations.
I have yet to see it, but I hope that one NDP backbencher will stand up in this House and say: "We want to have a close examination of ICBC." Thank
[ Page 5206 ]
goodness one member stood up a week or two ago in this House and said: "We want to have a look at WCB." Finally somebody in the NDP back benches had the backbone to stand up and say that sort of thing, and I give great credit to that member. But why aren't we seeing the same thing as it relates to ICBC and as it relates to Bill 3? Why aren't they doing the job for their constituents? All they are doing is creating yet another Crown corporation that's going to raise taxes. It going to raise revenues by dipping into people's pockets at the tollbooths, the gas pumps and elsewhere. It will turn around and use that money to pay the interest on the money this government is going to go out and borrow on their behalf. It is exactly the wrong way to go.
There was a tax rally, a tax protest, in my constituency last night, which the member for Langley and I hosted.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, we did host it. The NDP backbencher laughs.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I realize that the exchanges sometimes enliven the debate, but we must let the member get on with his remarks.
G. Farrell-Collins: The sensitivity of government members when it comes to tax protests and tax unrest in this province is amazing. There were 200 to 250 people there last night, and without a doubt, every single one of them said that this government does not understand that before they come back to us for more money, in whatever form -- whether it's licences, fee increases, income tax, property tax or a new provincial GST -- they better have their own house in order. We had a two-page, fine-print list for those people last night of all the stupid, ridiculous and obscene things this government has been doing with money, not the least of which is that this very day, probably as we speak, the Premier of this province and a bunch of his cronies are boarding a flight to Asia, where they are going to spend $250,000 travelling around so he can come back and produce exactly the same type of negative investment in this province that he did last year. That is the type of thing that offends these people. If the NDP backbenchers of this House -- or the cabinet ministers, for that matter -- would have the courage to show up at one of these meetings and listen to the anger that's pouring out of people in this province, they might understand why people are upset; they might understand why this bill is offending those people.
The member laughs; he's turning red, he thinks it's so funny. I can tell you that if one member of the NDP -- one member -- had the slightest bit of courage, they would show up at one of these meetings. If they had enough courage, they would probably host one themselves so they could hear what their constituents have to say.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Cariboo North says come up to the interior. I was in his riding two weeks ago, and I heard from people in his riding. I know we all are hearing from people in his specific riding, and it's wonderful that he would bring his name forward in this House to say....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, he's asking me to be the representative for his constituents. I'd be glad to do it.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's true -- they've given up on the member.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. We are debating the six-month hoist motion.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This is specifically why we need to hoist this bill -- for exactly these types of reasons: to give this government a chance to come to its senses, to gain the courage that it needs to go out into the constituencies, to go out into the communities and to deal with the people and answer to them for what they are doing.
The member says that we're out to lunch; the people in the interior are thrilled to death with the NDP government. That's not what the 800 people in Kelowna said the other night; I don't think they were all standing there having a big rally....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Cariboo North thinks the population of Kelowna is 800,000 people. It just shows you what he knows about the interior of this province.
There were 800 people at that rally, and they were not there waving NDP election cards and platforms or saying what a wonderful job they are doing. Isn't it interesting that every time someone in this province stands up and says something against this government, it says: "They're either Socreds or they're Liberals; they can't possibly be NDP supporters." That's very true. And you know why? Because the number of supporters of the NDP in this province -- just like the number of supporters of the NDP nationally -- is getting smaller and smaller. That's why they can say with such confidence, whenever somebody stands up in this province and says something negative about the government, that they must be Liberals or Socreds. They have to be because there are no NDP supporters left in this province.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's amazing how sensitive the members are on this issue.
[ Page 5207 ]
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: All the Minister of Agriculture has to do is to look at some of the government-supplied polls that his government pays for and refuses to release to the public -- or to disclose the cost of -- and he'll know exactly where his party stands both federally and provincially. Believe me, it is not a pretty sight.
I go through some of the ridiculous comments that this government has made, and I think that probably the funniest thing on this bill was the member for Surrey-Green Timbers standing up in this House and saying "This bill will allow us to give a little help to our friends." This is coming from the wife of the man who was appointed the patronage czar for the NDP. Every day she is giving a little help to her friends. Every day this government is giving a little more help to its friends in the form of patronage, in the form of appointments, in the form of board appointments and in the form of government commissions, etc. It goes on and on.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: The truth hurts, doesn't it? That we would have the member for Surrey....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's amazing. Had the member been here in the House at the appropriate time, she could be up speaking, but she's not. I assume it's because she's taking the time to prepare her remarks to try to come up with some reasonable argument that would allow them to support this bill and oppose the hoist motion.
[4:00]
The New Democratic Party has engaged in a patronage binge at the patronage trough beyond anything that has ever been experienced in this province or in this country before.
An Hon. Member: What about the Liberal government in Ottawa?
G. Farrell-Collins: I love this....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair observes that as we stray away from Bill 3 or the hoist motion, the interaction increases. Perhaps we could narrow our remarks down to the amendment. Please proceed, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll try and stick more closely.... I'm merely responding to some of the comments that have been made by the government members throughout this debate. I know that people having to hear what their colleagues are saying may perhaps be an embarrassment to them, but I think they should be able to back them up if they're going to make those types of statements.
All we have to do is look through this bill at some of the things it says. What is starting to cause people concern are some of the things actually written into this bill -- not just the philosophy of the bill, but the line-by-line material in the bill. I know we're going to get to committee stage a little later and have a chance to look at it, but one of the things in the bill talks about targeting traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups for employment. That was perhaps what the member for Surrey-Green Timbers was referring to -- "giving a little help to our friends." I don't know why the government should be in there targeting jobs to specific individuals.
I always thought that in this province people competed fairly and openly for jobs and positions, and that the best-qualified person was the one who was likely to win. That's a fundamental principle that I think most British Columbians would agree to. I find it interesting that this government is going to turn around and spend billions and billions of dollars on investment and use that money to target disadvantaged people.
I wonder if those disadvantaged people that the NDP is talking about are, in fact, the construction unions in this province. We've seen the way this NDP government responded to giving a little help to their friends with the fair wage policy. I think it was about $200 million worth of help that they gave to their friends -- the same people who contribute extensively to the NDP's election campaigns. We know who the friends are, and we know how much the little help is with one policy. We can only imagine what type of friends and what type of little help, in the form of millions and millions of dollars, this government is going to be giving when they have a whole Crown corporation set up to do just that.
Last year the Minister of Transportation and Highways stood up in this House during estimates -- and certainly with the press before that -- defending the fact that the budget for his ministry had been cut by over $100 million. Do you know what his response was to all those communities that the NDP members were talking about? The people around the province started screaming and yelling, and asking: "Hey, where is that pavement that you promised this year? Where is that bridge that's been scheduled that we've been waiting for for ten or 15 years?" Do you know what the government said to them? Do you know what the minister said a little less than a year ago? He said: "Blacktop politics are gone; they're history in British Columbia." It's amazing that a government that defends a $108 million budget cut in a ministry one fiscal year would turn around the next fiscal year and bring in a piece of legislation that allows them to borrow billions and billions of dollars to pave the province with blacktop just in time for the next election. Isn't that interesting?
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Interjection.
[ Page 5208 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Cariboo North seems to want to engage in the debate. I'd be glad to have him....
F. Garden: Read the bill.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Carry on, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm trying to continue. Obviously the member for Cariboo North hasn't read the bill in order to see what's in it. He hasn't seen the fact that his government is setting up a financing authority headed by a minister and four government appointees who will go around and set these levies for taxation and tolls, etc. Perhaps the member hasn't realized that the new committee his government is striking under this bill is going to ensure that the government is well represented in the placement of the expenditures.
Hon. Speaker, Bill 3 is no more than blacktop politics returning once again to B.C. and yet another broken promise by the NDP. Their friends and insiders will be paid off. Their best friends will get a little help from the government. Blacktop politics will reign once again in this province. In fact, B.C. is going backward. The NDP government is showing that they're going backward, not forward and into the future. They have absolutely no idea of what this type of legislation will do to the children of this province, despite their greatest protestations.
J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to speak against the hoist motion and in favour of Bill 3. I want to start by talking a little about what this piece of legislation does, because it's really clear to me that most of the members opposite have not read this legislation in their drive to criticize mindlessly. So I'll start by outlining what this legislation does. It's a good piece of legislation. It's very clear and well thought out, and it will target government spending. It will coordinate government spending to make sure that British Columbians get a little more for their dollars, and that's a very worthwhile goal.
First, let's look at the four pillars of B.C. 21. It allows government to accelerate construction of social capital facilities like schools, colleges, hospitals, courthouses and those kinds of things. The opposition seems to think that it's okay to leave children in portables that are clearly not the kind of facility for a young person to learn properly in. Apart from the social cost to those children, there's an economic cost which these people don't seem to understand. So rather than build those buildings a couple of years from now and leave those children in portables, we have chosen to speed up that process and do it now rather than later. Bill 3 allows us to do just that. We will accelerate construction of social capital facilities, and we will amortize the cost over the long term.
The second pillar of this legislation is that Crown corporation investments will be focused and coordinated. They will be used for the benefit of the people of B.C. instead of, as the previous government did, allowing them to haphazardly spend where and when they liked. We will now coordinate that huge amount of spending under the Crown corporations and make sure that that spending is targeted, that it's focused and that it benefits the regions and the people that need help the most.
The third pillar of this piece of legislation, or this program, is the Build B.C. special account. That account will have an initial balance of $100 million. The coming century will bring with it an awful lot of challenges, and government needs to be creative; it needs to be consultative. We certainly have been and we continue to be. The Build B.C. special account allows us to respond to the needs and the demands of the coming years in innovative ways, with long-term, productive investments in the skills of the people of British Columbia.
Again, the members opposite, especially those in the Liberal Party who live on the lower mainland and nowhere else, don't seem to understand that there is a huge gap between the skills required in industries such as tourism and the skills that we have, and that it pays all of us in the long term to fill that gap. Not only do we get people off social assistance and back where they want to be -- which is in the workforce -- which means that they can be part of building the future and not receiving social assistance, but it also means that our regions will have better-skilled workers, which allows us to build for the long term. Similarly, we can undertake some resource development projects throughout the province, and we certainly need those kinds of things in the regions.
Finally, I am just amazed to hear the Social Credit members and the Liberal member speaking against part 4 of Bill 3: the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. That authority will fast-track the building of the infrastructure in this province, and I know the people of my area will certainly applaud that.
This piece of legislation and the B.C. 21 strategy is the least-understood part of our budget and the one that is most misrepresented by the opposition. I suggest that it's not an accident that it's being misrepresented. We have the Liberals demanding an economic strategy; we have the Socreds demanding a plan for job creation and an economic strategy. We obviously want to do that; we want to see people employed and the regions developed. So we bring forward a good economic strategy, and none of them can figure out that it's an economic strategy.
An Hon. Member: Put it into the ministry where it belongs. Don't hide it in a slush fund.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please await his opportunity to enter the debate and show the courtesy to the hon. member for Cowichan-Ladysmith that I'm sure all members would expect when they are speaking.
Would the hon. member please continue.
J. Pullinger: This is a good piece of legislation. It does a number of things that are badly needed in this province, and it will begin to redress the balance. In the 1980s, under right-wing Social Credit philosophy,
[ Page 5209 ]
which we hear echoed like in an echo chamber all the time from the far end of the benches down there and the Liberal caucus, we saw British Columbia fall into two British Columbias. We've seen the regions collapse into the lower mainland and Victoria. We've seen those economies overheat and struggle to deal with excessive development, and in many cases we've seen the regions struggle to survive. This program, B.C. 21, will begin to redress that balance. It will begin to target and focus on the regions and on the people that need it, and it will begin to level out British Columbia so that our province is no longer two different, separate British Columbias: one that's working and one that is not doing so well. So it's building for the long term.
It's a realistic plan. It's an economic strategy that will bring jobs to the regions, but nobody's saying it's a quick fix. This is not like the previous government's quick fixes: all sorts of great schemes and BS funds and Music '91s. This is not a quick fix. This is the beginning of a long-term economic strategy to repair some of the damage we've seen happen under right-wing policies and to move us ahead into the future, to the kind of province we'll all be proud to leave to our children.
I've listened to the opposition, and I want to deal with some of the arguments I've heard from the other side. Other than by the fact that they don't recognize an economic strategy when they see one, I have been fascinated to listen to the Social Credit caucus, those six members over there, argue that they can't support this because it's not accountable. Well, let me remind this House of Music '91 -- $30 million! I stood in this House and asked questions of one minister after another about Music '91, and nobody was ever accountable anywhere. That was a fiasco that wasted $30 million of taxpayers' money -- and these people, amazingly, can criticize this piece of legislation, which is the beginnings of a real strategy to rebuild B.C.
[4:15]
The fourth pillar is about rebuilding the infrastructure, which was badly let go under Social Credit. But let me remind the Social Credit members and the rest of the House about the Coquihalla scandal. Remember that one? There was money sliding all over the place in that one. That whole thing was a disgrace. How fast they forget, but I know the people of B.C. do not.
Let me give a couple more examples of the Socreds' track record. How about the accountability of the old GO B.C. fund? How about the Bill Reid affair? Two hundred and seventy thousand dollars went to somebody who didn't even apply for it. But the best friend and the campaign manager of that cabinet minister just happened to be the principals in that company. And these people are now saying that this is not accountable?
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: They know all about that kind of thing, you're quite right. Of course, they were the architects of the infamous BS fund, which b.s.ed the people of this province or attempted to make people believe there was a $395 million deficit, when in fact there was a $2.4 billion deficit -- the largest deficit in the history of British Columbia, left by the Social Credit Party, who like to pride themselves on the myth that they're sound economic managers. So I am amazed that the Social Credit members over there have the audacity to talk about accountability.
This strategy is accountable. It's accountable through all the normal methods available to the members, and will be fully accountable. If anybody's worried about intent, let's not forget that we have brought in one of the finest pieces of freedom-of-information legislation around. We have brought in Public Accounts early. We have made every effort to be open, honest and straightforward with the people of British Columbia, in a way that was never seen under Social Credit. We will be accountable for the spending under this plan as well, and happy to be.
I also thought it was interesting to read in Hansard yesterday.... I drove up the Island to do something in my constituency. I came back and read the Blues, to discover that the Leader of the Third Party yesterday spoke against Bill 3 primarily because, as he said, it was a measure to facilitate the capitalization of highways projects. Yes, it is, and I am very pleased about that. But he argued that no way could he ever support something that would work to facilitate the capitalization of highways projects. Isn't that interesting? Let me remind the Legislature of the Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act brought in under Social Credit. What that act did was allow the Social Credit government to borrow money to build a highway -- one specific highway, mind you; not a highway that happened to be on a priority list and was needed based on real criteria, but a highway from Hope to Kamloops by way of Merritt. A piece of legislation was brought forward, passed, supported, and argued for by every member on the other side who was here. Certainly the Leader of the Third Party was here at the time, and now, with the most extreme hypocrisy, he is arguing against this piece of legislation that will facilitate the building of highways in this province.
Again, this economic strategy is a good, solid one, but the Liberals are doing their usual rant. On the one hand they're demanding an economic strategy. We keep hearing: "Where's your economic strategy? Where's your job creation strategy? Where's your plan for the future?" When we bring it forward, they don't know what it is. They don't recognize it. They don't understand it. They don't see that this is a good, solid basis for an economic strategy that builds for the future. They argue that they want one, and then when they get one they argue against it. That's not surprising, however; we have documented about five pages of demands by the Liberal Party for increased spending. They want to keep Shaughnessy open to the tune of an extra $40 million. They want more money for education. They want more money for just about everything. They certainly want lots of tax breaks for their friends, and on the other hand they want to cut spending.
An Hon. Member: They can't make up their minds.
[ Page 5210 ]
J. Pullinger: You're absolutely right -- they can't make up their minds. The Liberals want it both ways. They argue that they want more, but they want less. Quite frankly, after 18 months I don't think they have too much credibility left. They're all over the map.
I find it interesting, too, that they continue to say that they want us to cut government spending, yet they fail to recognize that in fact we have cut government spending. Under the previous administration it was a 12 percent increase, a 14 percent increase, and in the last year it was 12.1 percent. There was a 55 percent increase between 1988 and 1992 under Social Credit. We dropped it to 6.5 percent in the first year and again to 5.7, which is less than the combined total of inflation and population growth. It's a net decrease per capita in British Columbia.
We also don't hear the other side saying that not only has Canada been recognized by the UN as the best place in the world to live but British Columbia is in the best position in Canada. We have the second lowest tax rates. We are in a very competitive position in terms of business taxes. It's a wonderful place to live, and we're going to make sure that it stays that way. We're going to make sure there is growth in the regions as well as in the lower mainland and lower Island.
We have this interesting phenomenon of hypocrisy and "Yes, we do," "No, we don't," and misleading information coming from the opposition benches. They argue against the building of public schools, against highways....
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the hon. member clearly stated that the opposition was giving misleading information to this House, and I would ask her to withdraw that, please.
Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member imputed an improper motive to any member in the House, I would ask that she please withdraw it.
J. Pullinger: I would be happy to withdraw any comment that hon. members opposite might have taken offence to, hon. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.
J. Pullinger: However, some pretty strange comments are coming from the other side which have very little to do with reality or the truth or what this bill actually does -- or with what our budget actually does, for that matter.
An Hon. Member: Or the facts.
J. Pullinger: Yes.
So what we have is the Liberals and the Socreds arguing that we should balance the budget, that we should balance it on the backs of the working people of this province and that we should do it right now, rather than using the fair and balanced approach that we are taking and will continue to take.
But I am sure that my constituents will be very interested to learn, after 30 years of promises from Social Credit about the Island Highway and knowing full well that the Island, per capita, has had the least highways funding of any region in the province -- which may have had something to do with the fact that they haven't had any seats on the Island, or very few -- that we have some really funny pieces of blacktop in really strange places in this province. My constituents will be interested to hear them once again arguing against the building of the Island Highway and against our plan to make sure that we can build it now before there are more accidents and before there is more congestion.
But what they should be really interested in hearing, and I'm sure they will, is the Liberals again echoing -- the old echo chamber down there -- what the Socreds are saying. They're saying: "Don't do this. The sky is falling. For God's sake, don't build that Island Highway. Don't amortize it over the long term. Let them wait for another 30 years." And I would offer that if we were to have the Liberals in power -- God help us -- people on Vancouver Island would wait at least another 30 years to have the Island Highway.
I am pleased that we're undertaking to find a means to upgrade the infrastucture of our highways in this province, which have been badly distorted and badly let go under Social Credit, and that one of the priorities is the Island Highway, which is long overdue.
We need to recognize that we really can't expect much more from the Liberals, because they obviously have all of their seats in the urban areas, and they have absolutely no understanding of this province -- the diversity, the complexity and the problems experienced in the regions -- any more than they have any understanding of why it's fair to decrease taxes for those least able to pay and to ask the others to pay just a little bit more. They have no concept of why that's fair. They have no concept of why it's fair to start to redress the imbalances between not only socioeconomic groups but also between the regions of the province. But we on this side of the House do understand that, and I'm pleased that we're working to do something about it.
Actually it's interesting. It was about March 18, on the Gary Bannerman show or on one of the other ones -- one of those absolutely neutral commentators -- that I listened to the Liberal Party and the Social Credit Party argue for about 15 minutes on how they were no different at all. I thought that was fascinating, and all I can say is that they're absolutely right, and that's why they've been together since 1941. And they're arguing now whether the Liberals will disappear again into obscurity for another 20 years, or whether they will disappear under the famous banner of Social Credit.
[ Page 5211 ]
Deputy Speaker: The member for Prince George-Omineca rises on a point of order.
L. Fox: I recognize that the bill may be limited in philosophy and principles, but I really would appreciate, rather than a conversation across the floor, that the speaker stuck to the intent of the bill.
Deputy Speaker: The point of order is relevant in that we are on a hoist motion which is addressing the question of delaying passage of the bill for six months. All members should be mindful of that and address their remarks accordingly. Would the hon. member please continue.
J. Pullinger: I'm pleased to continue to argue against the hoist motion of the members opposite that would delay the Island Highway, schools and so on for another six months, or however long they could possibly delay it -- another six years.
I want to just mention a couple of things about my area, and the effect that this piece of legislation can have in my area. I heard the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove arguing in mystification about what we meant by disadvantaged groups. I would like to invite that member to come into my riding sometime to see what it's like in some of the communities, where years and years of Social Credit mismanagement of our resources has resulted in a whole lot of people and families suffering because they no longer have jobs in the forest industry; because the processing plants were overbuilt; because the Socreds -- sympathetic administration that they were, especially in the 1980s -- allowed their friends to overcut. We now have to grapple with the reality of that situation, which means decreasing AACs, throwing people out of work and a lot of distress for a lot of people. I would like to invite that member from the urban area to my riding to see the reality of what it's like, because it is not nice. I am very pleased that this government has the gumption to start to take steps to deal with those very real problems and those very real people's lives. It's about time we had a government that would do that, so I am pleased that we're doing that.
[4:30]
I look forward to seeing some pilot projects happening in my area, and I'm pleased that Stephen Owen is undertaking a pilot project. Under this legislation I look forward to -- and will continue to work for -- some innovative projects around the retraining of community forest workers, the community forest plan that's being set up in the area and a number of other really important economic development initiatives that the people in the Lake Cowichan, Duncan and Cowichan Valley area are working on to try to get that economy going again, get people back to work, put people's lives back together, make our communities economically viable and build for tomorrow. There are some opportunities under this piece of legislation to do those kinds of things, and rather than simply opposing them mindlessly, the opposition members -- especially Social Credit -- ought to be recognizing that, supporting this piece of legislation and voting against the hoist motion.
I am also pleased that this gives us an opportunity to put together a plan to complete the Island Highway, and I look forward to seeing what we're going to do with that once the committee is set up and the decisions are made. I know people in my area are very upset, and understandably so. They have a letter written by a former Social Credit cabinet minister in 1962 promising a new piece of highway by the Diamond; that has yet to be done. I look forward to our government being able to do those kinds of things, and I know we've been moving on it. We've done the detail design work on the south end of town. We're moving to the detail design on the north end of town this year, and I feel quite confident that that highway will be completed as quickly as is possible.
Finally, the people in my area have been working for some time on the whole issue of health care. They are working towards the kinds of changes that are needed. There is very little health care in areas like Lake Cowichan. Some needs are not being met in places like Ladysmith. Chemainus has a new facility and some opportunities to do some creative things there, and there are some very creative things happening in Duncan. Everyone is working hard to make sure that we work together, bring health care decisions closer to home and have the kinds of facilities and services that we need in our areas. I see in the information on this bill that those are the kinds of projects, like local health centres, that we have the opportunity to build under this piece of legislation.
I would like to close by saying that I think this piece of legislation is a good one. I think the people of B.C. have waited a long time for this kind of strategic plan and economic vision that builds for the future. It doesn't promise miracles, but it lays the foundation so we can begin to build for the future and make it the kind of British Columbia we want to have. It targets government spending and coordinates it, using Crown corporation spending for the benefit of British Columbians. British Columbians will get the best value for their money under this program, and the people in the regions of this province will benefit as a result.
I am pleased to support this bill, and I urge the members opposite to read the bill. Perhaps they'll change their mind and do the same.
L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise and speak in favour of the amendment. I was really amazed when I listened to the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. In the beginning of her speech, her advice was that the opposition should read the bill to have some understanding of what it contains. For almost half an hour we listened to that speaker talk about everything except the bill. I can understand that, because there's not much in the bill that is new to speak about. Everything in this bill has been allowed under the previous structure.
It's almost as if the government backbenchers went to a meeting and said: "Here's the theme, and this is how we should approach it." It's actually refreshing. Each one stands up and hearkens back to Coquihalla, the Socreds and the GO B.C. grants. They see that the Social Credit Party is rising, and they want to take a shot at it and renew old problems. The fact is that we
[ Page 5212 ]
are, and I'm pleased to stand here and suggest that. We have our ears to the ground, and we can hear the noise the people are making. Our heart isn't beating so loud that it covers up the noise, as it does for the NDP members.
B.C. 21, according to the government backbenchers, is going to solve all the social problems in this province. "It's going to put everybody back to work. We've got new, innovative ideas about how to build roads, schools, colleges, hospitals and courthouses, and we've also got a new process for planting trees. None of this was available before. This is all innovative. B.C. 21 is going to provide the opportunity."
I'll tell you what opportunity it provides, hon. Speaker. It provides the opportunity to hide debt; that's what B.C. 21 does. When we look at the budget speech on page 21, it says: "For fiscal 1993-94 we are increasing project authorizations for social capital facilities to $1.42 billion. That represents an increase of $350 million -- more than 30 percent over the previous year." Right there it tells us that $1 billion worth of deficit has been taken out of the operating budget of this government. One billion dollars have been removed from the statements of this government. That is proof that the real attempt behind this initiative is to hide those kinds of expenditures.
The backbenchers suggest that both opposition parties are opposed to the building of schools and that we don't recognize the importance of the infrastructure in this province. All you have to do, hon. Speaker, is look back at 37 of the last 40 years and see who built all the infrastructure in this province. It certainly wasn't the NDP in 1972-75. That was the reason they were chucked out of office after only three years. How can those people have the audacity to suggest that Social Credit members are opposed to building infrastructure to meet the needs of British Columbians when that party built British Columbia and met those needs for 37 of the last 40 years?
How did we do that, hon. Speaker? It was done upfront in the operating budget of that government, and it was debated in the Legislature. And if you liked it or didn't like it, at least you had the opportunity to give your input into the process. This particular initiative is going to remove that opportunity. We are now going to have it as one of Bob Williams's Crown corporations. I can only imagine that the czar of patronage has said to government: "Look, I'm running out of spaces to put any of our friends. Would you create another corporation so we can create some more positions for some of them? They're coming from Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and we've got to fill that need." That's one of the objectives of B.C. 21.
I find it absolutely amazing when I listen to government backbenchers talk about our Crown corporations. I had the privilege to serve on the board of a Crown corporation for four years, and I recall very distinctly what the opposition members said about the management of that structure. Just as a refresher, let me tell you how they criticized the vacant space in BCBC. We can all recall the Premier standing outside of a building and actually looking quite foolish, because he condemned BCBC for their vacant space only to go inside and find that it was occupied. I recall that situation extremely well, and I'm sure some of the government members will also.
All of a sudden, corporations are a tool with which to build the province. For years, that same party criticized Crown corporations. They suggested that it was not the vehicle which gave you the best bang for the buck for government; it removed it from government discussion and from the debate in this Legislature. Now, all of a sudden, this government sees some real purpose in this particular corporation: to hide a great $1 billion worth of deficit in this fiscal year. They're suggesting that we're going to pay that debt back through this taxation authority. We're going to place 1 cent a litre in fuel tax and we're going to charge $1.50 per day for vehicles rented, to a tune of $52 million this year. It doesn't take much of a businessman to figure out that the interest alone on $1.42 billion is $80 million a year, and we're going to service that with $52 million. Obviously we're not even going to make the interest costs in this year with that particular initiative.
We can see how that taxing authority is going to raise those dollars significantly in the next two years just to meet the interest payments for this year. Beyond that, next year we're going to see more borrowing. It's going to compound itself, on and on. And to make my point, all you have to do is to refer to the financial statements of '90-91. In that financial statement our debt-servicing cost was something in the vicinity of $600 million. In this statement and in this year's budget our debtservicing cost is $1 billion. We have, through the borrowing in the last two years, increased our debt servicing by $400 million.
My question is this: how many roads, hospitals and initiatives could we have created with that $400 million that we're spending at this point? We could have done significant building of schools with that amount. Now we're going to impact that next year with another $80 million or $90 million, and once again we'll have to go back to the taxpayers for more money just to pay interest on the debt we owe, not on the principal.
I can see a new opportunity for clothing designers coming out of this. They'll now design a pair of pants with three pockets, because this government has its hands in both pockets already, so they're going to have to allocate another pocket where hopefully they can put some spare change. That's what's going to happen. I can see a great business opportunity being created.
The last speaker made some very interesting statements. One was: "We're going to do a little more for the dollars spent under B.C. 21." That has to be the height of ignorance. How can you save money and get more bang for your buck by creating a bureaucracy to do a job when we presently have a ministry designed to do that job? Once we have finished dealing with this amendment, I would really like that particular individual to stand again and explain exactly how those economics work. I've been in business for a good many years, and I know that you don't increase costs and get more bang for your buck. It's that simple.
Another statement was: "We're going to accelerate construction and amortize the costs over a long term." I think I just expressed my concern about that: we're
[ Page 5213 ]
going to amortize the costs over an extremely long term, and that's going to impact on our ability to pay. We're going to have short-term gain for long-term pain -- pure and simple. We don't have to look far in this free world in order to find examples of that. We can look to New Zealand and see that that kind of process cost them virtually every social program and Crown corporation they had. They had to literally sell off the island in order to pay their debts. This government has still not learned from the experiences of New Zealand and others in a similar situation.
[4:45]
What we see is an opportunity through B.C. 21 that I really believe deserves a second look. For that reason I am supporting the hoist motion. We see a government fulfilling its main goals out of the operating portion of the budget, yet they are going to generate some construction jobs and activity in order to put down the taxation revolt. The number one objective of bringing this bill forth at this time is to cool off the taxpayers, so they can go to them and say this is what we're giving you for your dollar. But in truth it's not being done with their dollars; we're going to create those things with the dollars of the children and taxpayers of tomorrow.
Earlier this afternoon I saw some young people in the gallery, and I couldn't help but feel for them. They were under the age of 19. In the course of the last two years, thanks to this government, they have inherited a personal debt of $7,000 each. That has been created for every child who will be born over the next year. In two budgets this particular government has doubled the operating deficit and has increased the accumulated deficit for all Crown corporations and government by 33 percent. This initiative helps to promote that kind of economics. It's something that all British Columbians are going to pay for. This government is going to pay severely for it, because it will not do what they believe it's going to do: buy them back into office in two years' time.
I'm convinced that the public is going to see through this attempt to cloud the issue. They're going to see through this smokescreen. I'm well aware that once a pie is created, everybody and his dog will be there to get a part of that pie, because they know that if they don't get it in the regional part of the province, it's going to be spent in the southern part of the province. It works the other way as well. Everybody is going to be there, because they'll want to get at least their fair share. They're going to be made responsible for the debt anyway, so why not capitalize on that opportunity? There's no question in my mind that that will take place, and there will be an obligation on all members of this House to make sure that it takes place. But that's absolutely wrong. We have the opportunities to do that and debate the issues within the existing structure. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need another level of taxation powers. We do not need any of that; the ability is there now to do it.
I look forward to voting in favour of this motion and, because of this amendment, to speaking again on Bill 3.
Hon. D. Miller: My advice to the opposition, which I suspect they may actually take, is to speak against the bill -- I realize we're on a hoist motion here -- but in the end I think they'll probably vote for it. For all the huffing and puffing and grandiose statements, in the final analysis I suspect we'll see a group of people over there who in fact will vote in favour of this bill.
I certainly stand to oppose, with all my vigour, the hoist motion. A hoist motion says to British Columbians, let's not train our young people. Let's not build transportation infrastructure. Let's not build highways and bridges. Let's not give our young people in this province an opportunity to acquire training and much-needed skill development in a variety of areas. Let's not build the infrastructure that's so critical to the economic development and well-being of this province. Let's not fast-track highway and transportation construction. Let's not accelerate the building and improving of key community facilities. Let's not take the Crown corporation expenditure and try to direct it in a socially beneficial way to the economy and the people of the province. Let's not take $100 million in new money and direct it in a variety of ways to benefit the young people in this province who so desperately need the opportunity to acquire skill development and training in the fundamental infrastructure of this province.
I am somewhat disappointed at the lack of foresight displayed by the opposition. The bill does two things. It's part of the B.C. 21 program announced by the government, a program that will be seen to be, as it is unveiled over time, innovative and progressive and that will be accepted wholeheartedly by the people of this province. What does the bill do that the opposition is attempting to hoist? It establishes a special account of $100 million and the B.C Transportation Financing Authority. The notion of having a financing authority is not, by the way, a particularly new concept, and I'll get into that in a moment.
I'll tell you what the bill doesn't do. It does not increase the operating deficit of this budget by one single penny. In fact, along with all members of my caucus, I certainly was extremely proud that we were able to present a budget not long ago that in fact significantly reduced the operating deficit in the province of B.C. In my speech last week I tried to provide some opportunity to the opposition to reach an understanding and to distinguish between operating deficit and debt, because they are indeed two separate issues. They do come together, but they are two separate issues. It's important to understand the difference.
I'm going to use some examples from the municipal field, because I did spend some time a number of years ago as an alderman in my home community. I'm familiar with the process used by municipalities to finance capital investments or capital structures, whether they be highways, civic centres, theatres, arenas or things of that nature. I'm quite familiar with that, and there are some parallels with what we're doing here.
It is significant to note that in constructing the budget this year, the government has reduced the operating deficit. The operating deficit is the worst kind
[ Page 5214 ]
of deficit. It's the worst kind of money that we can owe because....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'll get to the difference if the hon. member wants to just hold fire.
I don't know if there are many people who buy a house with cash; there may be some. Maybe there were some who were in a demonstration held recently, but there are not many of us in this province. As for those who can afford to purchase a house -- and it's a real struggle for young people; not just for young people but for everyone in our economy -- people don't buy a house and pay cash; they finance it. What they are doing is financing the purchase of an asset. On the other hand, when we continue to run large operating deficits, we are taking money that could be employed for other purposes -- to assist in education, health care and all of these other areas -- and we are applying it directly to debt.
Now I don't know what $1.5 billion buys you if you were to go out to borrow money and say: "I've got enough and I can pay $1.5 billion. How much capital will that get me?" I suspect it's a rather staggering amount. So we are on target in getting rid of the operating deficit. We started with a staggering $2.4 billion deficit left from the previous administration. Our last budget was targeted to achieve a $1.8 billion deficit. Because of the fiscal situation last year we exceeded that by a modest amount. This year, once again we have reduced our target on the operating deficit to $1.5 billion. And you watch over the next two budget cycles. You watch as this government reduces that operating deficit even further.
So let's dispense with the red herring argument we hear from the opposition, where they try to roll all Crown corporations and total government debt in with the operating deficit. They are clearly distinct. Perhaps the longer the hon. members stay in this House....
Somebody's passed me a note here, hon. Speaker. It's something about buying cars, new or used. Indeed, there are not many people I know who pay cash for a car either; they finance that as well.
My point is that this initiative -- B.C. 21 and Bill 3, which enacts two provisions of B.C. 21 -- does not increase the annual operating deficit of the province of British Columbia. So let's dispense with that notion, because I suspect the opposition are trying to run a bit of a red herring argument.
What does it do? It implements a $100 million fund that will be used for a variety of purposes, and I've touched on some of them. We can look at the expansion of community colleges, the construction of new community health centres; and we can look at a subject that's very dear to my heart -- some new silvicultural initiatives.
I want to go into some detail because it really is important to understand the opportunities this might provide with respect to young people in this province. Clearly, as a parent -- and I'm talking to other parents -- I think it's extremely difficult in this economy right now for young people to find real job opportunities. We see them as they attempt to get the educational skills that they think are going to be needed to equip them to function in today's job market. We see the changing nature of our economy. When I was young, one could find a job in a mill fairly easily, and a well-paying job at that. Although the struggle was there in terms of raising your family, etc., there was far more security and far more opportunity in terms of trying to find those jobs. Nowadays it is extremely difficult, and young people are really struggling. It's the old syndrome: if you don't have the experience, you can't find a job, and how do you get the experience if you can't have a job?
Why would the opposition be opposed to the concept of us taking some new money through careful budgeting and putting it into silviculture programs in combination with money from other ministries of government? We can look at the combination of training and work over time so that we can equip our young people with the skills they need -- in a growing industry, in fact -- and at the same time provide them with some meaningful work and then some more training. Why would the opposition oppose this initiative and propose a hoist motion that we delay this by six months, which in effect is a motion to kill the bill? None of them have explained why they're opposed to providing an opportunity for young people to acquire skills, to acquire meaningful work -- perhaps not at the top rates of pay but at rates of pay that are certainly better than the welfare system.
[5:00]
Why we would have opposition to this is beyond me. And we're not talking about the usual programs. Having been around for a while, I've watched some of the programs that have been developed by government and found them wanting. We're not talking about some program that takes somebody off welfare for the required number of weeks but doesn't really give them any meaningful training or meaningful work and then just boots them out and says: "You're on your own now." It's not that kind of an approach. It's not the one-off approach that we've seen so often in this country and in this province. It's an opportunity over time to acquire real skills, to gain meaningful employment, and in an area where the opposition, it seems to me, is always crying that we're not doing enough, and that's the whole area of silviculture.
I'm quite proud of some of the elements that I'll be taking part in and other elements that other ministers will be taking part in. I'm proud of the opportunities that are going to be afforded to people in this province, to young men and women, through the $100 million fund.
Similarly, let's deal with the issue of transportation. I've talked already about the notion of financing. When I was an alderman in Prince Rupert for a number of years, we financed a good number of projects. The vehicle that municipalities and regional districts use is the MFA, the Municipal Finance Authority. We built in Prince Rupert one of the finest, I think, civic theatres in British Columbia. It was a very high-cost facility for a small community. Clearly, that facility would never have been built if the community of Prince Rupert had had to pay for it in cold, hard cash right away, up front.
[ Page 5215 ]
Similarly, schools are never built under that banner. The civic centre that we have, the ice arena, the swimming pool, are all financed over time, and the financing vehicle is the Municipal Finance Authority. Whatever the cost, the government collectively puts together the Municipal Finance Authority, which has the clout because they borrow large amounts of money, to get favourable rates of interest on the money markets, and those facilities are paid for over time.
Every municipality in this province has a debt. By law, municipalities, unlike provincial and federal governments, are not allowed to run an operating deficit, but they do have a debt. That debt, which is all in terms of debentures over certain numbers of years -- 20-year or 30-year debentures -- is used to finance the construction of much-needed facilities in those communities. If we didn't have that kind of vehicle, those facilities would not be built. The same logic, it seems to me, can be applied to how we approach the construction of transportation infrastructure -- essentially highways and bridges. We are clearly in a very difficult situation, not just in British Columbia but right across this country -- and indeed the federal government is as well -- in trying to come to grips with growing expenditures, growing deficits, and at the same time to provide the services that are fundamental and absolutely essential if we're to have a growing economy. I've always thought that transportation was the most essential element in developing an economy for the future.
In our budget exercise, in order to get that operating deficit that I talked about down and ultimately eliminated, we had to severely restrict the budgets of some ministries of this government. We have provided modest increases in areas that we think are essential and that we think British Columbians view as essential: health care and education. In two successive budgets we've provided those increases -- not staggering increases, but modest increases -- within our ability to pay. At the same time, we've had to restrict the budgets that we've been able to give, for example, to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. We've seen a decrease in the amount of work being done -- particularly new work -- by the Ministry of Highways, when there's clearly a demonstrated need. My colleague from North Island mentioned the Island Highway, which I know he has been working on for the past decade...
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Longer.
Hon. D. Miller: Longer, he tells me.
...as a critical transportation issue. Whether they're from Vancouver Island or from other parts of the province -- although I note that the member for Parksville-Qualicum is applauding -- people will understand that that is critical transportation infrastructure. We have to start now on that highway, and benefits will flow from that from the communities that use that highway and from improved transportation to the northern end of the Island. I suspect that we will see improved tourism development as a result of a better highway on Vancouver Island.
With the budget situation, with our inability to finance the capital costs that we're talking about in one year, it seems to me only prudent that we look at financing those capital costs over a number of years. It makes all the sense in the world. So we've devoted a modest $80 million to trying to make a real start on some of the transportation problems in the province.
We're not borrowing the money without dedicating a revenue source. This bill, as the members will see -- although the members opposite seem to oppose everything -- clearly says that there will be a dedicated revenue source for the money we are going to borrow. Part of it will come from a variety of sources. There is a modest increase.... Once this bill passes, if an individual rents a car in British Columbia, a charge of $1.50 per day will be levied on that car rental. The cumulative total of the money gathered through that $1.50 charge will go to pay down the cost of borrowing for this highway work.
Similarly, we're adding a very modest amount to the fuel tax. We're saying that that modest amount -- that cent a litre -- will go to pay down the cost of borrowing the money to build highways and bridges now. That makes all the sense in the world. We're not borrowing money without knowing where the revenue is coming from; we're not saddling future generations with debt. We're saying clearly: "We're going to borrow this amount of money. Here is where the revenue is going to come from that is going to pay down that debt." In return we not only get the kind of infrastructure I talked about, which I think is absolutely essential for the future development of this province -- all regions of this province, not just Vancouver Island -- but in the process we provide the opportunity for employment for road construction companies, for people engaged in that business who have had some very lean years, who by and large have either been on unemployment or, if that has run out, have had to resort to welfare. We provide the opportunity for employment; that in turn has an enhancing effect on the economy of the province. So I really am baffled. Having been in opposition for a number of years, I understand the obligation to oppose, and I would not expect an opposition party to do anything but. I recall that once when I was in opposition somebody accused me of being too negative. I said: "Well, that's my job. My job is to oppose the government, keep them on their toes and make them justify what they do." That's part of our process; it makes for better decision-making. But I can't understand, unless the opposition is going to do what I suspect they are.... They're going to speak against the bill; they're going to propose hoist motions, but in the final analysis this bill, which is going to put people back to work, to see highways, schools and courthouses built and to benefit the economy of this province without raising the operating deficit by one single penny.... I can only suggest that if the opposition opposes this, they are seriously interested in being opposition as long as they're in this House, because it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.
I would hope we could dispense with this hoist motion rather quickly, get on to the main motion and deal with the substance of the bill. I certainly look forward to the committee stage debate when my colleague, the Minister of Finance, answers questions
[ Page 5216 ]
that hopefully the opposition will pose. But I suspect, as I said, that they would rather, in their heart of hearts, see highways, courthouses and schools built; they would rather see young people go to work in this province. But here they are, stuck in the role of opposition.
So let's dispense with the hoist motion, get on to the main motion, pass it, get into committee, pass this bill and get on with building the economy of this province.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm proud to stand here today in opposition to the hoist and in favour of the main motion. It's incredible. I've seen a number of hoists brought forth, most of them brought forth by us when we were in opposition, but they were usually brought forth when there was something that was going to be a disadvantage to the people or when people were going to be badly affected by a particular bill. However, it seems that this opposition wants to hoist a bill that is going to bring advantages to us and to the regions. I guess I should understand why the members opposite don't really support a bill such as this, because they really don't understand what it's like to live in the regions. You look across at the members and you see that certainly those in the Liberal caucus, in the official opposition, do not live outside the lower mainland and do not live in the regions. Oh, excuse me, the member from Kelowna. Well, she should be supporting this.
Those of us that live beyond Hope -- and there are a number of us on this side of the House that do live beyond Hope -- frequently feel that there is no hope for us, we're left out of things, the things that come down from government never relate to us and we're left out of the processes. We've seen some of those actions. We've seen the Coquihalla, and that affected the member opposite. I'm sure she has benefited -- her community feels that they have benefited -- from that. My community didn't benefit from the Coquihalla; the Minister of Forests' community didn't benefit from the Coquihalla, that's for sure. We've seen other areas where moneys have been put into the lower mainland. It seems to have been siphoned into the lower mainland, and we in the regions feel a bit left out. This bill brings us hope that we will see some directions and some investments.
Interjection.
Hon. L. Boone: It brings us beyond hope, exactly. The regions in the province have been hard hit within the last few years. I don't think there's anybody who would deny that this is true. They have been hard hit. We've seen growth going on in the lower mainland and in the Victoria region, but we've not seen comparable growth in the regions. In fact, we've seen the opposite in many different areas. Sections of this province have been devastated by changes in resource economies. Those areas haven't been able to make the transition. We've seen shortages of timber that have affected a lot of people. We've seen environmental pressures reducing the amount of timber there. When you save trees, it costs money. Sometimes the members opposite don't understand that. Perhaps people living in the lower mainland don't understand that each tree that is saved costs the province money in revenue. It costs the province money in terms of taxes that the employees pay. It costs communities a tremendous amount because of job losses and what that does to families. We've seen that over and over again.
If we are to change our economy, we need to invest in our communities. I think that is a prime example of where government must invest. We must invest in our communities. We need to invest in the infrastructures necessary to attract and keep new businesses and industries. Those are the things that are necessary.
In my region we have been lucky, because we have had the University of Northern British Columbia, which has been built over the past year. That has helped the economy in that region through some pretty tough times. That university is an investment in the community and in the north. Hope comes with that. There's a lift in the people, who feel that they're worthwhile, that there's investment coming in, that the government and province see this as a useful region and that they are going to survive this recession. When businesses look to relocate in a region, they look not just at whether there is enough timber, resources or any of those things. They also look to what that region has to offer for their employees. Does it have a good quality of life that the employees will enjoy? Will their families have adequate education and health care? Will their families have the quality of life that we all aspire to for our families? That's important when companies look at whether they're going to locate in a region. We need to invest in those areas. As a government it's our responsibility to make sure that all the regions in this province have the necessary infrastructure so that businesses that come there will feel it's the place they want to invest in. That's really important.
[5:15]
Crown corporations plan to invest some $900 million throughout British Columbia. There is $400 million currently in ongoing investment right now, and there's an additional $500 million coming in. That's nothing new; Crowns have always invested in the regions. What is new is that this will be directed outside the lower mainland, and Crowns will be specifically looking to focus on the regions to see if they can assist in developing areas that are currently having problems. That's a change of mentality. I don't think the members opposite can be expected to actually look beyond Hope or think that perhaps this office could be situated not in the lower mainland.... Perhaps it could go to Kelowna or Cranbrook or even Fort St. John. That's a change of mentality that this government has come to, which I am proud of.
There is a new approach to transportation. The financing authority will allow us to have long-term financing for our highways. As the previous speaker said, there will be revenue coming into that financing authority. It amazes me when the opposition says: "Don't invest in our highways; leave them as they are." What would they prefer?
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. minister.
[ Page 5217 ]
I would just remind all hon. members to take a look from time to time at standing order 36, which states quite clearly that every member desiring to speak is to rise in their place, and in the meantime should show the common courtesy that all members expect when they have their place. I'm sure that all members can appreciate the need for that standing order.
Would the hon. Minister of Government Services please continue.
Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to know what the hon. members opposite would like us to do with our highways. For us in the north -- and I'll speak for the north -- the highways are our lifelines, our connection to other parts of British Columbia, and they're our connection in many cases to health care, education and all of those things. They're absolutely essential to us. Would you prefer, perhaps, that we took money from education or from health care and put it into our highways? Would that satisfy the members opposite? Or would you prefer that we put no money into our highways and that we left them to go into potholes, or that we never built or put second lanes in? Perhaps that's what they would like.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I happen to believe that neither of those two alternatives are acceptable to us. In the regions we are trying to attract new businesses. One of the areas we're trying to deal with is tourism. There are some incredibly beautiful parts of this province that cry out for tourists to go through. I think that if people started to go there, they would realize what a wonderful province we have. It's not just down in the lower mainland or in the Okanagan. There are some incredible areas. But I've had chambers of commerce come to me in the past and say: "We can't get our tour groups to come through here because the roads are so bad, because our buses are being wrecked by the potholes in the roads." That's what I've had said to me. I've had people say to me: "Why is it that when you get to the Alberta border you're suddenly hit with beautiful highways, and we've got these little bits and pieces going up to that area?"
Why are we not investing in those areas? If we want to encourage tourism, if we want to get people into our province, then we have to invest in our highways. We have to make sure that we provide proper highways for them to travel on so that they can reach the regions of our province, get to our areas, spend their dollars there and support our businesses and our industries. That's absolutely essential.
We also have new investment in this bill that will be coming through in silviculture. For those of us who live in areas that are dependent upon the forest sector, it's understood that it's absolutely essential to invest in silviculture. That investment in silviculture is not just for you and for me but for my children and for our grandchildren. Without that investment in silviculture their futures will look pretty grim, as will our landscapes out there.
We have groups in Europe right now condemning this province's record on forestry, and I think we'll all agree that there have been some bad forest practices in the past, and there probably are some areas that are not being too well managed right now. But we must counter the propaganda out there, and we must do that to show that we are investing in our forests and that we are investing in the future of our children. We can do that by putting those dollars into silviculture, making sure that the dollars are there for the trees for our future and providing employment opportunities for our young people out there right now.
There are new initiatives being taken to help develop markets for regional exports. Again it's a focus on the regions. I know that the members opposite really find it difficult to get their minds beyond Hope, but we as a government have decided that we are making up our minds, and we are setting our sights on developing the regions. That's important to us. That's important to this government, and we're determined to make that happen.
I've received good support, not just for this bill but for the budget, in the regions. If you go out there, the people are saying: "Yes, there is some hope for us. Yes, you are looking after us. Yes, we are taking care of those things." They know that the infusion of capital into their towns and communities means jobs, and that means that they can put food on the table for their families and pay their mortgages. That means that they can be a responsible part of their communities once again. That's important for a vast number of people out there who have been struggling these past few years just to do those very basic things.
We must recognize that there are two B.C.s. We've said this over and over again, and some day perhaps the members will recognize that there are two B.C.s. We must recognize this, and we must bring the support out to the regions. We must recognize that there are opportunities in the regions out there, and those opportunities have to be given the necessary support to make them thrive.
In conclusion, I'd like to say that this bill is good for the regions. It's good for my community; it's good for all those communities out there that are suffering right now; it's good for the people, and I support it fully.
W. Hurd: It's always fascinating to listen to the government talk about this particular Build B.C., which has a remarkable similarity to the GO B.C. program of years gone by -- and, I suspect, with the same kinds of results to the regions, which will be political favouritism and pork-barrelling of the worst order.
Leaving that aside for a minute, I think the government's approach to Build B.C. is much the same as somebody who goes to a bank machine with a credit card that's up to the limit. When they put the credit card into the machine a slip comes out saying they're over their balance. The government has the ability to go out and say: "I'm going to go out and order a new credit card with a bigger balance, and I'm going to collapse the balance onto the new credit card, and all of a sudden, I've got that much more money to build highways, hospitals and schools."
It's important for us to ask ourselves where the money comes from to establish the credit balance. This
[ Page 5218 ]
government talks about it as if it's revenue. It's not taxes any more; it's revenue enhancement. With revenues, you can invest in the regions; you can invest when you don't have money to invest. We have to remind ourselves that it's the taxpayers of the province who provide this government with the money to invest in this province.
This particular bill is really one of the defining bills of this government. In due course, it will create a parallel system of budgeting. It will create a budget that we debate in this chamber, where we scrutinize the estimates and hold the government accountable for what they spend, and then there will be the Build B.C. budget. That budget will exist in the twilight zone of financing, without proper scrutiny, without proper accountability as to how the money is being spent. This is the issue that the government has not been able to grasp.
This government hasn't had the money to build a road in this province for 18 months. Now all of a sudden, on the basis of one piece of legislation: hey, let the good times roll! There's all kinds of money from some source, from somewhere.
I go back to the credit card analogy, because that's exactly what this government is doing with Build B.C. They are creating an alternative government that's Crown corporation-oriented, that will invest in this province based on the shadowy goals of Crown corporation boards of directors that will have, one would assume, the ability to go into any region of the province and decide that there is a government member who might need some help in the next election, and that's where they're going to put our money. That's exactly what we're dealing with here. It's not Build B.C.; it's build the NDP in the province of B.C.
We've heard member after member from the government side trying to compare what they're doing to municipal governments: "All we're doing is what the municipalities have been doing for years." Well, the municipal politicians in this province aren't buying it. I'm certainly glad to see that the hon. member for Cariboo North is in the assembly tonight because I think it's important for me to recount what the mayor of Quesnel is saying about B.C. 21 and Build B.C. "It's absolute garbage," he says.
An Hon. Member: He's a good Socred.
W. Hurd: Other municipal politicians in this province are saying the same kind of thing, because they understand that they have to go to referendum to borrow money to build facilities. They have to get approval from the taxpayers before they borrow their way into financial oblivion. This government doesn't even have the gumption to allow recall and referendum in this assembly. To stand and compare Build B.C. to what the municipalities are doing is really a mockery of the intelligence of the people of this province and of the municipal governments of this province, which for years have been forced by law to pay as they go. They understand only too well that B.C. 21 is one of the biggest bait-and-switch budget tactics that we've seen in perhaps in the history of this assembly. Even the old NDP government in the '72-75 era was not as deceitful in the way they handled the finances of this province as this government is with this particular bill, the Build BC Act. It's budgetary deceit, pure and simple. It's a worthy successor to the BS fund, which they so roundly decried when they were in opposition on this side of the assembly.
It's sometimes very difficult to stand up in the opposition benches and talk about fiscal accountability when the government says: "All we want to do is build roads, plant trees, build hospitals and provide for our children" -- a very alluring argument. But at the end of the day, you have to ask: How are you going to pay for it?"
The suggestion is that the projects are going to be revenue-specific and that somehow they're going to have the revenues identified for the projects they build under this particular program. Anybody who knows anything about the functioning of Crown corporations knows that in a very short order, capitalization and debt become a blurred and muddy picture, and it's impossible for the people of this province to ever understand how much debt they're in and what purpose or project they're being taxed for. That's the kind of approach we're being asked to swallow in this assembly with Build B.C.
With this government it's like peeling the layers off an onion. You're never too sure what the agenda is until a bill like this comes into the assembly. Then the agenda becomes clear: massive government debt and investment, government knows best, government will make the decisions; and we'll finance it over the next 25 or 30 years in some sort of paper trail which future generations, and probably future MLAs, will never be able to untangle.
[5:30]
That's the kind of reasoning and rationale that the opposition has tried to put forward in this House since we started debating this bill some time ago. We've heard member after member on the government side of the House claim that where the money wasn't there previously, now all of a sudden it will be -- just on the basis of getting a new credit card with a new balance. All it is is another credit card that the people of the province will have to pay off, with interest, down the road. The suggestion that somehow municipalities have blazed a trail in this type of financing, as mentioned time after time in this House, is utter nonsense. When municipal governments have a chance to view how this is going to be financed, and to see the kind of projects it invests in and the political favouritism that will undoubtedly creep into the decision-making, I'm sure that most will be less than enthralled and impressed with the government trying to compare their method of budgetary accounting and dealing with the taxpayers' dollars with the methods it is choosing to exercise under Build B.C.
We are going to see a parallel budget in this province. We're going to see a government that in the next few years will claim it is holding the line on the deficit and ministerial expenditures, while more and more money goes into the never-never land, the twilight zone, of Crown corporations. That's the agenda
[ Page 5219 ]
of the government: to avoid accountability for fiscal policies; to avoid responsibility for public debt; to claim that by financing these projects over a longer period of time, somehow they're escaping having to pay the piper.
The people of British Columbia are just not buying it. They understand only too well that a debt is a debt -- regardless of how you capitalize or finance it, regardless of what credit card or type of accounting you use, regardless of whether you go out and hire an accounting firm like Peat Marwick Thorne. The principle is the same: somebody's going to have to pay the bill sometime.
This government wouldn't have stood for a bill like this when it was in opposition. They wouldn't have supported a bill like this in a million years, because it has all the earmarks of that infamous GO B.C. program, which featured the same sorts of accountability, the same type of pork-barrel investments in areas of the province where maximum political rent could be collected. That's the kind of approach we're being asked to swallow here. It was no more palatable then, and it's no more acceptable now under Build B.C.
It's important for the people of this province to realize that we're not talking about roads here; we're talking about a massive government investment scheme in virtually every walk of life in this province. We're talking about forestry projects, courthouses -- all manner of public investment. The government will decide how it's going to apportion that money and what regions it's going to spend it in, and it'll be done by a set of political hacks, mandarins.
What assurance can the people of the province have from the board of directors of the Build B.C. Crown corporation, given this government's track record of appointing friends and insiders to key positions in this province? What assurance can the people have that this kind of pumped-up political board won't be making the same kinds of decisions for the benefit of their political masters in this assembly that was happening under the old GO B.C. program? What assurances would there be if it were the Liberal opposition proposing a bill like this and the Liberal opposition that had the ability to stack the boards of these Crown corporations with people who were investor-friendly to the Liberal policies? What would the government be saying then? What would their reaction be to that kind of approach to financing and spending in this province?
They'd be on their feet demanding their pound of flesh and accountability. They'd be demanding their right to scrutinize every expenditure and every vote in every ministry, and they'd be pointing out exactly what this is: a massive bait-and-switch tactic, a massive plundering of the treasury, a decision to spend money without due and proper recourse. That's what this bill is aimed to do. It is really the kind of fundamental principle underlying this government, and it's one of those bills -- along with the labour bill, the attempt in the budget to tax assets, and the corporate capital tax -- that really illustrates the philosophy of this government.
That philosophy is that once the taxpayers pay the money, it's ours to do whatever we want with it. It's ours to reward friends and insiders, if that's the route we choose to take. It's ours to plump into a Crown corporation that reflects our goals and political objectives. It's ours if we have to go out and build another road and we want to tax the people to do it. Once they pay that tax, it may or may not go into the road, but it's ours and we can make the decision anyway, because we know best and the Crown corporation mandarins who will be running this endeavour know best. How do we know they know best? Because we picked them. They're politically correct, and they will make the right decisions on behalf of the people of the province.
That's the approach we're being asked to swallow, and it's just not going to wash -- not with the people of this province, not with the municipal politicians, who, frankly, when they look at this enabling legislation in this bill which sets up this Crown corporation money grab, are going to understand exactly the difference between what they have to do every fiscal year and what this government is endeavouring to do with this Build B.C. Act. They will understand that while they are accountable to the taxpayers of this province, this bill is a convoluted attempt by the government to avoid accountability and scrutiny and avoid the taxpayer having the right to look at how the government spends its money and at its spending priorities and to question those priorities through opposition members or by phoning MLAs.
Supposing, for the sake of argument, that one of the constituents of the hon. member for Burnaby North, or of the hon. member for Cariboo North, decides that he doesn't like the spending priorities of the Build B.C. Crown corporation. Perhaps the road that was promised for the riding didn't make it this year. Who do you call? You call your elected representative and say: "Look...."
Interjection.
W. Hurd: That's right, hon. Speaker. The hon. member says: "Who are you going to call? Ghostbusters." That's exactly what this bill is, and it's being administered by Casper the Friendly Ghost masquerading in the form of Bob Williams.
It's almost unbelievable that the government would bring forth a bill containing these broad parameters and spending powers and attempt to stand in this assembly and tell us that somehow it's all going to work out. Somehow -- even though we're going to apportion this increased expenditure every year to an unelected Crown corporation board -- they're going to make the better decisions that aren't being made in this assembly.
The opposition is being told that we're standing in the way of progress: we're standing in the way of roads, hospitals and courthouses in this province; we're standing in the way of Bob Williams and the Crown corporations secretariat; we're standing in the way of an unelected board of Crown corporation heads who will make the decision on spending priorities. But, oh, we've been assured that the tax dollars that flow into this corporation will be project-specific. It's really encouraging to know that even though the Crown corporation will spend your money on your behalf, and even
[ Page 5220 ]
though you may have little or no accountability for how it's spent, your money will be revenue-specific. Even though the road didn't go into Cariboo North, like you'd hoped, but into Cariboo South, where the member may have been in a little more trouble, you will know exactly where the revenue came from and know that it went to a worthy cause.
The people of this province are not going to buy this kind of bait-and-switch tactic. I find it rather ironic that the government decided to attack car dealers in the last budget. This bill smacks of those old bait-and-switch tactics that used to be a fact of life in the car business and, fortunately, due to sound business practices, have been eliminated. We're talking about bait and switch here. We're talking about a different price to the consumer and a different price to the taxpayer of the province. We're talking about what I consider to be one of the most sinister bills this government has brought forward in this assembly: a bill that defines its ideological approach and defines its decision to spend money outside the normal channels and parameters. The people of this province will not accept this bill, and the opposition certainly cannot accept it on behalf of the people of the province.
One of the projects that I intend to work on in the next few weeks is to send a copy of this bill to every administrator in every municipality in this province. I am going to tell the local government in the city of White Rock that this is an opportunity to build a road they can't afford and to build a building that they didn't have the money for last year and might not have the money for next year. Here's a way to get something for nothing: just bring in your own Build White Rock bill or Build Surrey bill. Above all, make sure that you have the ability to stack that Crown corporation. If you don't, you may get manhole covers instead of curbs or something like that. That's the kind of approach that we're talking about in this bill.
I think it would be very useful to get some input from municipal administrators, who have to pay the piper on a yearly basis and balance their books by law. If they do finance a long-term project, they have to go to the ratepayers to pay for it. They have to justify the expense and open their provisional budget to scrutiny. It's not like some Crown corporation that may or may not decide to spend money in a riding based on.... What kind of logic or rationale will this new board use in its decisions on where a courthouse or a road is built? It may reach the point where the members opposite who support this bill may be fighting over the crumbs of the Build B.C. program. That's the kind of opportunity that exists for this particular program to really corrupt the process of building this province, to make it into a political featherbedding exercise and an exercise of regional favouritism.
[5:45]
We heard the hon. Minister of Government Services talk about the fact that this Build B.C. Act was a wonderful opportunity to right the regional imbalance in this province. It's an opportunity for the government to decide, through this Crown corporation, that the lower mainland has had it too good for too long and that they're going to right the balance. If the government wants to do that through its regular ministerial estimates, fine. We can sit in the House and debate that. We can debate why the Minister of Transportation is deciding to put a road into the Kootenays instead of into Kamloops -- or whatever.
But we haven't heard one suggestion from the government as to how this corporation is going to be accountable, other than the fact that it will raise revenues specific to the project that it undertakes. Somehow that will ensure accountability and ensure that the correct decision is made. I really think that it belies this government's approach to governing its citizens.
They see the government as one large Crown corporation -- that once the revenue crosses over the threshold and goes into the treasury of the Ministry of Finance, hey, it belongs to them. They'll do with it what they want. They'll spin it off to a Crown corporation if they want. Under this bill, this Crown corporation can create other Crown corporations and other entities. It would be like trying to follow a paper trail through some of their machinations on the Vancouver Stock Exchange -- the same type of accountability. Once this hydra.... It will be out of control; there's no question about it. There is no doubts that in due course this vehicle will be used to create another budget. If we're luckless enough to be saddled with this administration for another four years, I have no doubt that in due course the role of Crown corporations and their obscure, shadowy investment policies will be far more important than anything that happens in this assembly. That's the future that we're looking at -- a sort of corporate government.
I have some experience in corporations. I've worked in companies. I understand how spending decisions are made by corporations. The shareholders don't always get an opportunity to provide input into how the money is spent. A board of directors meets with the corporate heads, looks at and tracks profits and investment strategies, and decides: well, we're not going to put money into this mill or this town or this operation this year; we're going to put it somewhere else. The shareholders might come to the meeting and ask questions about why it went to town A instead of town B, but they're not entitled to get an answer. Crown corporation boards of directors are not obligated to tell the people of the province; they're not even obligated to tell me what the spending priorities might be. I might ask the minister in the House, but given the record of this government, the answers would be exceedingly unproductive.
That's the approach and methodology that this government is asking the opposition and the people of the province to swallow. They're asking us to buy into a process where previously there was no money and now there's all kinds of it. Obviously people who are in the private sector, people who are out there earning a living every day and who in many cases have had no wage increase for three consecutive years, understand that you don't get something for nothing. You can't build courthouses and schools, you can't plant trees and roads, if the money isn't there to begin with. How is the government going to raise this additional revenue?
[ Page 5221 ]
We could talk about the taxation side. Let's talk about that. There are old principles in democratic government: no taxation without representation; grievance before supply. They are the very principles that guided the formation of parliamentary democracy. It's the right of the opposition and the people of the province to scrutinize the expenditures of government.
We're seeing a trend by this government towards mushrooming Crown corporations which are not accountable to the people of the province. They are not accountable. Let's call a spade a spade. By virtue of their corporate structure and by virtue of their board of director type of structure, they are not required to be accountable to the people of the province. It's as simple as that. They may be owned publicly, but they make investment decisions and spending decisions based on the needs of that corporate entity at that particular time, and that's the way they operate.
It's no surprise at all to the opposition that that's the approach this government approves of and that it accepts. By spinning off the revenue to a third party, by spinning it off into a shadowy board of directors, somehow that's going to make things better in British Columbia. There's going to be new money where there was none previously. Just trust us, because we know what's best for the province of British Columbia.
It's one of the reasons the opposition moved the hoist amendment. This bill needs a great deal more thought. It needs to be circulated to people throughout the province -- to businesses, to municipalities even, who have a different way or have to pursue a different way of financing their capital investments. I think there needs to be a lot more input into this bill, because it is such a vital bill to the people of this province, because it has such dramatic implications for the long-term debt of this province, because it does fundamentally change the way our system of government is going to work when it comes to financing long-term projects, and because I don't believe that the people in this province have had a sufficient opportunity to scrutinize this bill. It's as simple as that.
Clearly the fact that they have not had the opportunity to view this bill and to review its implications is the reason a six-month hoist motion is an eminently responsible and acceptable motion that I think should be embraced by all members of this assembly. Once the die is cast, once the $100 million is plunged into this never-never land, this trough leading nowhere, I suspect it will not resurface for the viewing audience of this province.
I see that the time is getting on, and I'm being urged to move adjournment.
Interjections.
W. Hurd: If my time is not up, I will continue to address the issue. I understood that the members opposite were pleading for mercy, but if not, I'll continue.
I think it's appropriate for us to talk about the difference between hidden debt and hidden taxation. The government has talked about financing its B.C. 21 program, the road portion of this exercise, with tolls. That's a form of double taxation. People already pay taxes to general revenue to cover off the Ministry of Highways budget. Now they're being asked to pay again with tolls for this revenue-specific process that we've been asked to swallow.
An Hon. Member: Silviculture.
W. Hurd: Let's talk about silviculture. The forest companies, large and small, in this province pay stumpage. That stumpage accrues to the Crown and is specifically to be used to undertake reforestation projects.
The Speaker: Hon. member. I regret that your times has expired.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]