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)
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 8, Number 25
[ Page 5241 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. A. Hagen: It's my great pleasure to welcome to our precincts today His Excellency Sir Nicholas Bayne, accompanied by his wife, Lady Diana Bayne. And with the United Kingdom High Commissioner is Mr. Tony Joy, the consul general for the United Kingdom, who is based in Vancouver. I'm sure everyone is delighted to have them in our assembly today.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to introduce in the House today one of my constituency assistants in Cloverdale, Patricia Mountain. Would the House please make her welcome.
F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have Mr. Chuck Byrne, who is the B.C. manager for Prudential Assurance of England. He is also a member of the B.C. advisory committee here. There's also Mr. Brian Stanhope, who is regional vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada for B.C. and the Yukon. Mr. Stanhope is an old friend of the family and used to be a neighbour in Burnaby many years ago. There is also a Mr. Keith Frew, who is manager of communication services for the Insurance Bureau of Canada for B.C. and the Yukon. Would the House please make them welcome.
GOVERNMENT SHARES IN MACMILLAN BLOEDEL
W. Hurd: My question is to the Minister of Forests, as chairman of the cabinet Environment and Land Use Committee, regarding the Clayoquot Sound decision-making process. Can the minister tell us if the committee investigated reports that the B.C. government, through the B.C Endowment Fund, bought additional shares in MacMillan Bloedel after its initial share offering of a few months ago?
The Speaker: The Minister of Forests would address only that portion of the question within his administrative responsibility.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, the answer is no.
W. Hurd: The question is a pretty simple one: is the Minister of Forests aware of whether the government bought shares in M-B in the last 30 days?
Hon. D. Miller: Speaking personally, the answer is no.
IDEOLOGY OF NEW AG DEPUTY
F. Gingell: My question is to the Attorney General, now that he has honoured us with his presence. Does the Attorney General share his new deputy Maureen Maloney's ideology that the NDP should bring in a cumulative annual wealth tax to punish those British Columbians who have saved for their retirement?
The Speaker: The hon. member is asking for an opinion. Questions must be addressed to the minister's administrative responsibility. I invite the hon. member to rephrase the question, perhaps later on in question period. If the official opposition leader would like to do so now....
F. Gingell: If I may, I would like to reword my question and ask the Attorney General whether or not the cumulative annual wealth tax being advocated by Maureen Maloney played an influential part in her being hired as his deputy minister.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Cabinet was thoroughly delighted to be able to appoint Maureen Maloney as the deputy minister. Maureen Maloney has an enviable record and reputation in this country. She has been the dean of law at UVic, and she chairs the Council of Canadian Law Deans in this country. Her reputation is unmatched, and the people of British Columbia are lucky indeed to have her in this position.
F. Gingell: Supplemental. Recognizing the reaction of potential investors considering British Columbia as a home to the corporate capital tax and the inherent damage that can be done by the perception of a government intent upon taxing wealth, will the Deputy Premier today publicly disavow this tax attitude advocated by an NDP-appointed senior civil servant?
Hon. A. Hagen: I want to heartily endorse the comments of the Attorney General, whose deputy minister we are speaking about. It is important to note, first of all, that this is a free country in terms of academic people having the right to express views. Secondly, this is a deputy minister to the Attorney General, and I find it outrageous that members of the opposition would impugn a woman of high academic qualifications and reputation in the country, and would assume that the Ministry of Attorney General is responsible for tax policy in this government.
ABORIGINAL TITLE
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Last week the government announced the appointment of Chuck Connaghan to head up the commission. Is the minister now prepared to honour the intent and the spirit of the agreement he signed last September, and has the government decided to enter into meaningful dialogue with people who will be affected by aboriginal land claims?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to answer the question, because this government has done more in the last year and a half to reach out to third parties and involve them in the aboriginal land claim process than the previous government did in its entire term of office. We have been working diligently for the last year with
[ Page 5242 ]
the third-party advisory committee, which was set up under the previous government -- I will give credit to the former minister for that -- but it was not a workable structure for engaging in meaningful dialogue during treaty negotiations. As a result, we are about to reformulate that committee into sectoral groups working with the federal government to ensure that third parties are fully involved in the treaty-making process. I'm very happy to say that there is a good spirit of cooperation on which we can build as we move into the treaty negotiation mandate that we've set before us.
J. Weisgerber: The people of the northwest and people on the third-party advisory committee don't share your enthusiasm. Affected parties need to know what position the government is taking on the negotiations before they can make any meaningful contribution. Will the minister now make available to the third-party advisory committee all of the details that the province is taking to the Nisga'a negotiations?
Hon. A. Petter: The member is somewhat misinformed. The people of the northwest are frustrated because we're labouring under a framework agreement that imposes confidentiality upon us, and that was signed by his government. That has been the frustration.
I'm happy to report, though, that notwithstanding that obstacle, for which his party was responsible, we have been doing exactly what he has suggested. We have managed to find ways to share information prior to going to the negotiating table, by sharing that information with the third-party groups. That has been our practice; it will continue to be our practice, despite the obstacles placed in our way by his government.
J. Weisgerber: If there are obstacles, they are in the minister's own mind. There was no confidentiality agreement signed by the previous government, and I would challenge the minister to table an agreement to that effect.
[2:15]
In any event, the minister is also quoted as saying: "There will be no native land claims negotiations until B.C. and Ottawa agree on a cost-sharing formula." That is a complete contradiction of the position taken by the Premier when he was in opposition. Has the Premier changed his mind on yet another issue, or does he disagree with this minister?
Hon. A. Petter: I would be delighted to table the framework agreement the former government signed. I'm just shocked that the member could stand up here and deny that he's aware of the very framework agreement that he attached his signature to. Nevertheless, I will be happy to table it, to refresh his memory.
With respect to the second matter, the newspaper article to which you refer is somewhat misleading, hon. member. The newspaper article quoted a statement I made in reference to the federal position. What I said was that as the federal government now stands, that government has said it will not enter into treaty negotiations until a cost-sharing agreement has been signed. Unless it changes its position, we will therefore not enter into negotiations. The provincial government's position remains unaltered: we are prepared to negotiate forthwith.
AIRCARE LABOUR DISPUTE
A. Warnke: My question to the Attorney-General concerns the AirCare rotating strike and the closure of AirCare stations on Saturdays. If the inconvenience to the public is not enough, motorists have faced high short-term premiums costing between $25 and $141. In light of the just-announced press release, which is not altogether clear, could the Attorney General confirm that to relieve motorists from this ominous approach, some form of moratorium will be effective immediately, if not scrapped altogether?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure how to altogether scrap a moratorium, and therefore I'm puzzled as to how to answer the member's question. But in case it's not clear, motorists who in order to renew their auto insurance this week would otherwise have required an AirCare certificate will now not need that AirCare certificate to acquire their insurance.
A. Warnke: The fact is that we were looking for some sort of moratorium -- and if necessary, it should not have been scrapped altogether. But obviously this is the problem with some ministers: they don't listen closely.
Is the reason that this government is making motorists pretty miserable these days its attempt to cover its loss of revenue, committed as it is in its contract to this company?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure I heard a question, but let me answer one in any event. Last week motorists were increasingly discomforted, at least, by the fact that lineups were increasing -- as much as two and a half hours in one particular station. In the last few days it has become clear to the superintendent of motor vehicles that we could not possibly process all of the cars required before the end of April with the number of lanes available. Nor could we ask the public to endure the kind of waiting they were being asked to endure. Therefore we have made it clear that, at this point, motorists no longer have to acquire their AirCare certificate.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
A. Warnke: The fact is that the government is committed in its contract with Ebco-Hamilton, and a certain loss of revenue has to be made up for because of it. That was the intent of the question, and I really do not understand why the Attorney General cannot pick that up so easily.
Since this government is determined to raise revenues from whatever sources or by whatever methods possible, the opposition wants to know what assurance the public has that the Attorney General or the Minister of Labour will do anything to resolve this strike. Its own
[ Page 5243 ]
press release states that it is possible to have another strike before too long.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In seven and a half minutes the parties will go into mediation. I'm confident that they will be able to produce a collective agreement out of those mediation talks.
IDEOLOGY OF NEW AG DEPUTY
C. Serwa: My question is to the Attorney General as well, regarding Maureen Maloney and her published position that any attempt to model a system of just distribution from a market perspective is flawed. Can the Attorney General advise the House whether her responsibilities involve government policy regarding fair legal compensation for expropriation under the Forest Act or the Expropriation Act, or with respect to the settlement of native land claims?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, hon. Speaker. All matters of policy are the responsibility of cabinet.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, again to the Attorney General. In one of her statements Ms. Maloney states that claims to entitlement cannot rest on the natural abilities with which people are born. Will she be involved in developing promotion and hiring quotas for the Attorney General's ministry or for the public service generally?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All matters within the responsibility of the Attorney General's ministry are my responsibilities.
PRIVATE ADOPTIONS
V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services. There is a growing and disturbing anxiety in persons who are presently in the adoptive process with private agencies. Will the minister guarantee that those who are currently in this adoptive process will not have it aborted by this government?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, hon. Speaker.
W. Hurd: I wish to table letters regarding insider trading in M-B shares by the government, as per my question, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
HON. M. SIHOTA: I call resumption of second reading debate on Bill 3, hon. Speaker.
BUILD BC ACT
(continued)
On the amendment.
The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Mission-Kent. [Applause.]
D. Streifel: I knew if I hesitated long enough my colleagues would applaud for me. Thank you, friends.
Interjection.
D. Streifel: It's just been pointed out that if I had waited 20 minutes, I would get much more applause. So I'll see if I can stretch this to 20 minutes, hon. colleague.
It's my pleasure to rise in the House today and speak on B.C. 21 -- Building Our Future. If B.C. is going to continue to lead Canada into the twenty-first century, it is absolutely imperative that a long-term economic strategy such as this, which makes the right productive investments today, happens now -- not in six months, as the Liberal opposition would have it, or never again in British Columbia, as perhaps as the third party would have it. This government has a vision of strength, prosperity and sharing for British Columbia. B.C. 21 will help realize this vision for all British Columbians in all regions of the province, not just in a few developed urban areas.
B.C. 21 -- Building Our Future has four key components. The first of these components is the establishment of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, which will facilitate the fast-track and the construction of central 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 capitalized over the useful life of the assets.
I think that's a marvellous way for this province to get into the twenty-first century. On the way to the Legislature this morning I was listening to an individual from the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce complaining that the government should not -- in fact doesn't have a right to -- stimulate economic growth. I'd like to dig into the newspapers in Kelowna and find out where this individual stood on the building of the Coquihalla Highway and the connector that opened up and helped Kelowna grow.
Maybe the hon. member from Okanagan West could tell me how in the world they built the Coq without passing a special piece of legislation in this House -- coming forward, casting this piece of legislation that required $375 million to build the Coquihalla Highway. In fact, the auditors told us that the cost was well over $1 billion. Social Credit complains about things that work well for us in this province and which will work well for the future. They still like to blame others for things that they've done and things that they've messed up in the past.
The second component of B.C. 21 is the acceleration of the government's investment program 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
[ Page 5244 ]
investments must be made, the acceleration of these projects will not add to the province's long-term debt.
If we don't get on with building some of the infrastructure that's been left lagging over the years by the previous government, it may be too late. This government has picked up, recognized the responsibility and is answering the challenge to get these needed projects underway.
[2:30]
The third component of Build B.C. is focusing Crown corporation capital investments to ensure they deliver maximum long-term economic benefits. These investments will complement other government and private sector investments and will encourage the use of goods and services supplied by B.C.-based businesses. What in the world does the opposition have against supporting B.C. businesses in this manner? Isn't it appropriate that capital that has been generated by the Crown corporations continues to enhance growth in the regions of this province where most of that capital was generated?
Interjection.
D. Streifel: The hon. member off to my far right, down in the corner, seems to think that it's inappropriate for the government to invest in the regions. In fact, when we listened to what that hon. member has said in this House in the last little while, it's absolutely peculiar. He seems to think that we shouldn't build schools or highways unless, of course....
Interjection.
D. Streifel: He denies it. Just last week he said that we should not build schools or highways. But what did he say on April 9, 1992? He said don't build a school unless you build mine first. This a direct quote from Hansard: "The purpose of my questions was to bring to the attention of you, your staff and the staff of the provincial Treasury Board the urgent need for immediate expansion of classroom facilities on the North Shore -- elementary schools predominantly. We don't know who you're going to give it to, and we don't know -- in view of the problem throughout the province -- if there's enough in that $582 million" -- so that you could look after us first. He wants his first, and he wants to let everybody else wait.
The fourth component of the Build B.C. program is the allocation of $100 million in new money for public sector projects, with the greatest economic returns, in the regions. Again, it's a focus on regional development, on the inducement of the economy in the regions -- areas that have been long left hanging in British Columbia. Projects will only be approved if they contribute to the development of physical access 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. I believe that that's admirable for the province.
The Speaker: A point of order has been raised.
D. Symons: A few minutes ago the speaker referred to a direct quote. I believe that he has probably embellished upon it, and it would not therefore be a direct quote. Just to support that, I wonder if he might include the portion of Hansard that was a quote.
The Speaker: That is not really a point of order, hon. member. The member may disagree with what the member, who is speaking, may be saying. One can only look back at Hansard, and the Chair has not had the opportunity to do that at this time.
D. Streifel: It's unfortunate that the individual can't read Hansard. He doesn't like to read Hansard, because it reminds him of where they were a few months ago. It makes them very uncomfortable.
Where would British Columbia be today if others had not acted on their visions to ensure the future of our province? I speak in particular of some of the democratic socialist policies that have come forward in British Columbia in the past, such as ICBC.
Interjections.
D. Streifel: I heard a major groan from this group off to the right. I wonder what they feel about B.C. Hydro and Black Ball Ferries that became nationalized and are now part of the province's assets.
C. Serwa: Are you taking credit for that?
D. Streifel: Well, I just heard it again. The hon. member for Okanagan West asked if I was taking credit for it. No, I'm not. I'll give full credit to a former Premier of this province who had a vision and who had faith and trust in the people of British Columbia investing in themselves. That was the hon. W.A.C. Bennett.
This is 1993, and times have changed. It's time to change, and it's time that B.C. had a future and that we get on with building our future. The opposition constantly criticizes the work of this government, and we often say that they criticize without offering an alternative. But that's not always the case. The third party offers an alternative almost every day in the House. It's an alternative that they might not like to hear about. The third party, in particular, has offered several alternatives. One, I suppose, is to not borrow money to build for the future. Capitalizing our investments, to be paid off over the life of our assets, is one component of B.C. 21. It's like buying a home. I wonder if members of the third party use the same rationale in the showrooms of their auto dealers: don't buy this vehicle; don't borrow the money; you can't afford it; are you sure you need these options? I really don't think they do.
Another alternative to B.C. 21 that the Leader of the Third Party has brought forward in this House is to let all government workers take ten days off. Have they stopped to consider what it would mean to the families supported by the wages that they earn from this government to kick back maybe $1,500 by not working for ten days?
[ Page 5245 ]
An Hon. Member: He said five.
D. Streifel: Is that only half as bad? If it's only half as bad, I think it's important to examine what those five days pay for. Some government workers might spend their wages on food. They might spend their wages on clothing or dental appointments. How about car repairs, leisure activities and other untold luxuries? The third party should be ashamed of themselves for asking government workers in this province to take money out of their family budgets to fix their mistakes and the mess that they left in the province. The Leader of the Third Party described this process on open-line radio as one of hurting your friends. I don't know where he gets his sense from. Once and for all, we're not trying to hurt anybody; we're trying to fix the mess from the past. We're doing a very good job. We've knocked a billion dollars off the deficit left by Social Credit. I think that's honourable, and it's well done. We have offered alternatives for the province. The third party has a mess of its own, with $1.3 million in election debt that they're not paying off themselves. They're allowing the shareholders and customers of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to pay it for them.
C. Serwa: A point of order, hon. Speaker. In spite of his tenure here for the past year and a half, the member hasn't heard about relevancy in debate. Perhaps the Speaker would advise the member that he must be relevant to the debate.
The Speaker: For the benefit of all hon. members, yes, we are debating the amendment on the motion to Bill 3. I'm sure the hon. member who has the floor will relate his comments to that.
D. Streifel: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. The hon. member for Mission-Kent accepts your direction.
Where does the opposition stand in regard to the four parts of B.C. 21? I expect the hon. member for Okanagan West will find that relevant enough. Where do they stand on the fast-tracking of highways construction and transportation initiatives? It used to depend on the day of the week. Now it depends on the time of day. During question period or estimates, we're not going fast enough; we're not spending enough money on these projects. At night in tax protests, we're going too fast -- don't spend it and don't build it. We hear this in the House from the member for North Vancouver-Seymour.
How about the building of needed community facilities for health care, education and justice?
Interjection.
D. Streifel: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour says: "Don't build any more schools or roads or clinics or courthouses," unless, of course, as I stated earlier and as we found in Hansard on April 9, 1992, his get built first. So nobody in the opposition thinks that focusing Crown corporation capital and investments to get best long-term economic gain for all British Columbians is a very good idea. I wonder who they think should benefit from this.
Perhaps one of the most needed aspects of B.C. 21 -- Building Our Future is the fourth component: $100 million in new moneys for public sector projects with the greatest economic returns in their regions. These are moneys and projects that will help my region grow, develop and prosper into the twenty-first century. We have a very great need in the area of Mission-Kent, as do many parts of the Fraser Valley, to build infrastructure within communities to help them grow. We have an incomplete highway out there. I am greatly encouraged that we'll see work, production and completion of the highway that runs through my constituency. In some respects, it makes me a bit uncomfortable in 1993 to advocate for another highway in my area. If it were just another highway, I might not be able to fulfil the role of bringing it on, but it would be the first modern, serious attempt at building a transportation network that would include highways and transportation systems that we've seen mentioned in this B.C. 21 -- Building Our Future proposal.
I support the Build B.C. program wholeheartedly, and I speak against the amendment that would cause any further delay to seeing that the regions of British Columbia are developed as they should be.
M. Farnworth: I too rise to speak against this ill-timed hoist motion from the party across the way. I think they are still the opposition. I understand that my colleague's party, the third party, is now the most popular opposition party in the province, so I will address my remarks as much to him as to the others.
Over the last 40 years in British Columbia we have built a province that is the envy of every other province in Canada by investing in people, our communities and all the different regions that make up this province. We've built a province that's not only the envy of everywhere in Canada but also the envy of those south of the border. It's the envy of so many places in the world that everyone wants to come here. It's been done by building roads, schools and hospitals, and, as I said, by investing in the people of this province.
Bill 3 continues in that great tradition, because we need to continue to invest in this province. We need to show the way for the rest of the country, to be a leader and to show that when we invest in our province, we invest in our people. We can ensure that we continue to be able to provide the services and the ability for people to carry out commerce by building roads and educating our kids in schools that are up to date, earthquake-proof and have the latest equipment that they need -- to know today, to be able to use today and to work tomorrow.
The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove says it would be nice if we could put computers in the schools of British Columbia, but who's going to pay for it? The fact is that it's something that has to be paid for, because children today need to learn to use computers. They don't need to learn to use a slide rule, as the hon. member may think they need to do. They need to have the latest up-to-date technological equipment. They need to be in schools which are earthquake-proof and
[ Page 5246 ]
which provide them with the resources they need to meet challenges in the global world tomorrow. The opposition doesn't seem to realize that, hon. member.
[2:45]
In my own constituency of Port Coquitlam we have a population growth of 5 percent a year, and it is not slowing down. In a mere space of 14 years the population of Port Coquitlam will double from 40,000 to 80,000 people. And if you adopt the approach of the members opposite, you would double the number of children in each school. These are schools that in many cases have five to ten portables on their school grounds.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: The hon. member says: "Check your math." I can tell him there are 140 portables in my riding at the present time. We even have members of his own party sending letters demanding that we construct schools now -- not yesterday, but now. Yet listen to the hon. members across the floor: "No, we can't afford to do that right now." All of a sudden they want to change what's taken place over the last 40 years in British Columbia, which is to borrow money to build schools and roads, and say, "Sorry, we can't afford to do that anymore," because they, for some strange reason, don't wish to do that. They want to balance the budget on the backs of those who need the services most.
Instead, what we're saying is we that have to start building those schools, we have to start building those roads out to Mission-Kent, dealing with problems such as the Mary Hill bypass -- a major bottleneck where a four-lane project constructed by the third party somehow.... The underpass was in my riding. They built it four lanes through the old Dewdney riding and through my riding, but somehow in the middle they forgot that it needed to be four lanes at the underpass, so everyone going out to Maple Ridge gets stuck for no good reason. It's one of many problems that have to be fixed.
People don't mind paying for solving problems like that, for doing away with inconveniences that make it easier not only for them to get to and from work, but also stimulates commerce in the area and puts people back to work.
Earlier I spoke about a courthouse -- the one that has been housed in three temporary trailers for over 12 years. The conditions in which those employees work wouldn't be tolerated in the private sector, yet to the opposition parties, public sector workers are the problem. They're faceless bureaucrats who don't do anything -- just suck the taxpayers dry and don't contribute. That's the attitude of the opposition benches. They would lay them all off. And that's how they would like to balance the budget in British Columbia, instead of addressing the root of the problem, which is to recognize that the administration of justice in this province -- just like the education system and highways -- is an integral part of our social fabric, and that institutions, even if they're government institutions, need to be housed in buildings other than leaky, broken-down, temporary trailers.
One of the things I hope to see under Build B.C. is the courthouse -- not the three rooms that are there now but somewhere around 11. Its construction will generate a considerable number of jobs and, once it's finalized, will employ many people in productive full-time jobs. More importantly, it will have a dramatic effect on improving the downtown core of the main community in my riding. Many of the business people in the downtown core of Port Coquitlam -- from a little sandwich shop, J.K. Cooper Realty and Reid's Home Hardware to all the legal and administrative offices -- complain that they don't like tax increases. Some of them gave me flak over the budget, but they all say the same thing: "We don't always like what your government's doing, but we need to see projects like this take place because we know you're investing in the community. You're providing a base so that for the next 15, 20 or 25 years it has an anchor on which to grow and develop, and attract new businesses to the community." They can't understand those fools across the way or why they oppose this.
Hon. Speaker, we're investing in my community. We're ensuring that it has a stable economic base so people can continue to work in their own community. We provide job opportunities, so they don't always have to go into Vancouver or across the river to Surrey. There's a local employment base; that's what investing locally does. It's the same thing in other areas of the province: investing in schools, roads and bridges with dedicated sources of income such as the 1-cent-a-litre gas tax. It's really amazing that the opposition and the third party oppose this and say: "You can't raise the gas tax, because it's going to push people across the border."
The funny thing is that while the members opposite are criticizing us for raising the gas tax and slamming us for wanting to invest in infrastructure and in the people of British Columbia, they're saying that we have to be more competitive with the folks south of the border in Washington and Oregon, that somehow Alberta isn't our competition -- even though they're in the same country -- and that it's really Washington, Oregon and California. They say that because they can't find fault with us compared to the rest of the provinces in this country. So they constantly try to find somewhere else to find fault with us.
They're pointing to south of the border, where fuel prices have been so ridiculously low that they're now looking at bringing in 20- and 30-cent-a-gallon increases at the state level. And at the federal level they're looking at increases in a budget that will be investing in infrastructure such as highways, schools and sewer and water projects. They're saying they're opposed to this, and that's it's a bad thing for us to do.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
The Globe and Mail, that bastion of the right-wing press in this country dominated by a central view in Toronto, looked at our budget and called it "Clintonesque" that we're investing. They recognize the need to invest in the province. The head of the Royal Bank of Canada is another individual who believes that it's
[ Page 5247 ]
important that governments invest in the infrastructure of the country if we're to remain competitive. That's what Bill 3 is doing.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: The hon. member opposite talks about bond-rating agencies. I would like to remind him that we have the best credit rating of any province in Canada. It's good fiscal management that has seen this government reduce the deficit from the $2.8 billion of the old regime to $1.5 billion this year -- and it'll be lower next year. If the federal government could do as well on their deficit as we've done on ours, they'd have cut theirs down from some $30 billion to $20 billion.
The fact of the matter is that this is a good bill. The opposition has engaged in needless stalling tactics, for whatever reason. I'm waiting still to hear some logic from them on the issue -- why they're opposed to schools being built, why they're opposed to courthouses being built and why they're opposed to alleviating the traffic problems in the lower mainland area. They don't want to see that happen. They cackle about more debt.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
The fact is that when you're borrowing and investing in capital, there's a debt associated with it -- like your mortgage when you're building a house. It's an investment. I don't expect for one moment that the hon. member there paid cash for his house; he probably has a mortgage like everybody else. But schools build the future of tomorrow, and those who are educated today are benefiting by having the ability to learn in schools that have the latest equipment, that give them the required education and that can enable them to bring the province, 20 years from now, further into the future.
This is a good bill. It's one that should be supported by all members of the House. I would ask the members of the opposition to put aside this ill-timed hoist of theirs and get down to the real business in this Legislature of building the future of the province.
V. Anderson: I do appreciate the real concern that all sides of the House have about this particular bill. I speak in support of the hoist motion, because if this bill is really as significant as the government members maintain, it is important that it have the opportunity to go out and be discussed and thought about thoroughly by the people of British Columbia. A bill of this magnitude should be made available to people so that they have an opportunity to discuss it, understand it and respond to it. Unfortunately, there are times here in the House when this government does not want the citizens of B.C. to have the opportunity and the time to look at the legislation that they are bringing forward. They want to bring it in. They want to rush it through before people have time to discover the implications. It's important that people know about this.
An Hon. Member: How many letters have you got?
V. Anderson: Let me give just one illustration.
An Hon. Member: Just one?
V. Anderson: One illustration is all we need to demonstrate the kinds of letters I have. I have a stack of faxes three feet high -- over 4,000 faxes -- that have come in on one issue alone of this government: Shaughnessy Hospital. That doesn't account for the other issues that people are also writing about and are concerned about.
This government, which wants to be so much in touch with the people, is not there to hear what the people are saying. I speak particularly to those who come from Vancouver, because there have been three major citizens' rallies there in the last two weeks. Not one member or backbencher of the NDP government, that I am aware of, was there to hear what the people were saying. They asked them to come forward. They had seats available on the platform for them so that they could speak to the people as they collected in the community. But this government is not there to hear them. There is a suggestion that NDP stands for Non Democratic Party, because they're not willing to be out in the midst of the people.
[3:00]
Oh, yes, they will go and have consultations in the meetings that they set up, with the structure that they put in place and the opportunity to set the agenda that is their agenda, but they won't take the opportunity to go and be part of the listening audience and to hear what people want to say directly to them. It's unfortunate for them, because when they're not hearing what people are saying, then of course they cannot speak and respond to them.
Just a minute ago the hon. member for Port Coquitlam mentioned that there had been a certain poll taken. He neglected to mention that the present government is at the lowest of that poll at 14 percent. That's the lowest they have been for generations. It reminds us of the federal Conservative Party, who, like them, have continuously sat at the bottom of the polls for some time. So it's important that they should speak out and try to defend what they're bringing forward.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. I would remind all hon. members that under standing order 36, in order to participate in debate, each member should seek the floor. Unless the member has the floor, he should respect the right of the member who has the floor to participate in debate without interference.
V. Anderson: The last two speakers from the government side of the House have tried to suggest that we on the opposition side are not in favour of increased infrastructure and development. That is certainly not true. They are not able to figure out that there is a difference between being for an action and questioning how that action is to be brought about. How they are going about what they are doing is the concern. It's not
[ Page 5248 ]
so much what they might accomplish or might not accomplish but how they are going about it.
One of the suggestions that came out at the rally on Saturday, from those who are concerned with the business economics of this province, was that in setting up this Transportation Financing Authority.... From the point of view of business and being accountable to the people of the province, they would like to see this bill go first to the auditor general, to see if it meets with the many suggestions the auditor general has brought forward about dealing with Crown corporations. It is their understanding and belief that if the government takes seriously the auditor general's recommendations about Crown corporations, this bill will not be brought forward in its present form.
We listened to the hon. member for Mission-Kent, who was quoting certain texts that he took from Hansard. He has perhaps forgotten one of the first lessons in Philosophy 1 at university: a text without a context is a pretext. The government members are continually taking a text out of context for their own pretext. This is neither logical nor fair nor appropriate. I'm sure that the citizens of this province, who can read Hansard for themselves, will understand perfectly well what the members are doing.
They talk about "Build B.C." What it will be doing is building the debt of British Columbia. Apparently this government does not believe that the debt is big enough yet. So they want to leave a bigger legacy than ever to the future generation -- a legacy of debt.
Some of the other activities of this government are being questioned very much in the community. There was a lot of excitement last fall -- in October, I believe -- when the B.C. bonds came out, because it would be a way of borrowing money from British Columbians in order to continue with B.C.'s work. April 15th, just last week, was the first opportunity to turn those bonds in, and almost a third were returned by people who had changed their minds and realized that investing in B.C. bonds under the guidance of this government was not the way to go. I'm sure there were many others who missed that very important day. There was only one day, and now they have to wait another six months. Of course, the interest rate is reduced during that period of time as well.
The government talks about creating employment. It sounds to me like a mother and father who are concerned that their children are unemployed. They've had their university education or their training, but there is no job available. The mother and father say: "Well, I'm sorry, children, there really isn't anything we can do for you." The children say: "But we must have some help." And the parents say: "Well, maybe there is something to do. We can go out and borrow money, and you can work around the house. You can do whatever you like to do as a job, and we will pay you as if you were getting a wage." So they borrow the money. They pay their children their wages over the next year and the years after that. Then suddenly something happens to the mother and father, and they're no longer there to follow up on what they've been doing. What happens? The children inherit the debt that paid their wages, because the mother and father had borrowed it on their behalf.
This government is borrowing money to employ people on the government's payroll. Once this government is no longer in power -- one and a half or two and a half years from now, if the people have their way, or if they really have their way, six months from now -- then the debt that this government has incurred will be like the debt of those parents: it will fall back on the citizens of the province, and they will be responsible for it. That's the kind of thing that this government is doing again and again.
It's part of a social engineering process that we are becoming more and more aware of as we follow up on this government's bills. In our previous sessions in the spring and fall of last year, there began to be a hint that the bills this government was bringing forward were compulsory bills that were being forced upon people, without them realizing that they were gradually being directed in a way that only this government considered to be fair. We have 19 members of the government, and they will soon be known as the famous 19 who have increased the debt of this province in a way that has never been heard of before, who have written the Labour Code in such a way that labour is no longer able to vote on becoming a union and who are making it impossible for people to have freedom of choice in every area of their life.
Unfortunately, this government does not realize the difference between critique and criticism. When this opposition attempts to give them critique and suggestions -- whether it's on any of the bills or by way of a friendly amendment -- almost without exception, but not quite.... There have been some ministers who have taken some suggestions and, in minor ways, amended the bills they have brought forward. I want to give them credit for doing that. But that's the exception, not the rule.
An Hon. Member: Name that one.
V. Anderson: I don't want to make the others feel bad.
As the citizens of this province understand it, the work of the Legislature is that a government brings in a bill, and it is critiqued by the community and the opposition. The interesting thing is that even if the community brings forward a good suggestion, this government will turn it down because it has come from outside. They will not listen to it, and they will not give credit to it. Even on the few occasions when they have accepted an amendment, they have not acknowledged where the suggestion for that amendment came from. They have given the impression that it was their idea only. That's what they call the consultative process. They consult with themselves in their own mirrors, in the seclusion of their own rooms, and that's unfortunately all they hear. They need to understand that there is a difference between critique and criticism.
They want to know why we are opposed. We are opposed simply because this government has an underlying agenda that they're not willing to put out on the surface. They have a philosophical, social engineering
[ Page 5249 ]
agenda behind everything that they are doing. We're trying to discover who is running that social engineering agenda. It would be bad enough if it were being run within that group of 19, but the suspicion is growing ever stronger that the real control is not within the group of 19 and that someone outside is engineering it.
Hon. Speaker, we have been through this before in this province. The previous government, now the third party, had much the same outward expression: a group on the inside was making decisions. The community at large began to discover that it really wasn't them and that somebody outside was giving guidance or direction. Look at what happened to them, and look at what will happen to this government.
Build B.C. is not for the building of British Columbia. Build B.C. is an attempt -- a false attempt, I might add -- by this government to build the NDP non-democratic philosophy into this province and to centralize control from the top down. If you listen to people in the community as they meet together.... I urge members of this government to start attending some of these rallies and to hear the question coming up again and again: Why is the New Democratic Party not the democratic party it claims to be?
[3:15]
Bill 3 is not a democratic bill; it is not a bill of the people. It should be put on hoist so that people have time to consider it and to respond to this government. Hopefully, they will hear them. I must vote for the amendment.
Deputy Speaker: On the amendment, I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan.... I'm sorry, hon. member. Was the member for Okanagan West rising on a point of order?
C. Serwa: Negative. I was going to be the next speaker, hon. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a matter.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
K. Jones: Visiting with us today are approximately 60 grades 4 and 5 students from Grandview Heights Elementary School in Surrey. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Barbara MacPherson, Mr. Bob Lipschultz and Mr. Lynn Pollard, and several parents who have been conducting them through this building. I'd like the House to acknowledge their presence and wish them well on their tour.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the amendment to Bill 3. There is a real need for a six-month hoist, at the very least. If the government were prudent, they would look at a much longer time frame and simply withdraw Bill 3.
Hon. Speaker, the government has to undergo a reality check. There is a major structural problem with the concept behind the drafting of Bill 3. I cannot understand how the senior civil servants would have allowed such a proposal to advance to this stage. It doesn't make any rational sense whatsoever.
I listened to the government back-bench members rise one after another, like cannon fodder sacrificed in the war, while the ministers of the day refrain from engaging in this debate. The bill in itself is so confusing that several of the hon. members have spoken to it and were wandering around all over the place making no sense whatsoever when they got up. They were merely taking up the 20 or 30 minutes of allotted time to speak in favour of some ambiguous type of concept.
Hon. Speaker, in my relatively short tenure, and in your probably more extended tenure, in the Legislature, this has to take the cake -- more than the cake; probably the cigar -- for the poorest piece of legislation this Legislature has ever seen tabled before it. The bill is that bad. It's shallow, and it's transparent. As I've said, it's built on a grand misconception, an absolute myth, that would doom this province to debt and servitude.
There are only two good reasons -- and I don't agree with either of them -- for this bill going forward. I can't even believe this, but the czar of patronage has found out that in Canada there are some unemployed socialist hacks still looking for jobs. Not all of them came with all the rest of the welfare recipients who have come to British Columbia. There are still a few that want jobs. So the czar said to the government of the day: "You've got to do something. We've got these people knocking on the door, and we want to give these poor people $100,000-plus-a-year jobs." That's certainly the first valid reason the government would put forward, although I haven't heard any of the hon. members elaborating on it. But that's a significant reason, and we mustn't dismiss it.
The second reason -- and it is obvious that this is another grand idea to hide debt under a paper shuffle.... My goodness, isn't it grand that in this budget we've reduced the deficit to $1.5 billion, while hiding $1.5 billion under the table, and are snapping our braces and sticking our chests out, saying: "My, aren't we clever and good? We've only increased taxes $1 billion, we've only gone $1.5 billion in debt, and we've slipped $1.5 billion under the rug."
Hon. Speaker, you and every member in this Legislature and every person in British Columbia knows full well that government has no money of its own; it merely manages the resources of the people of the province, and the people wind up paying for it. Talk about a poor concept in the bill. We should deal with this bill quickly, and the quickest way I know of to deal with it is for the government to stand up and withdraw a very bad piece of legislation. Why is it bad? I've named two reasons that I think it's bad. The government thinks it's good, and I guess that's why they've created it.
For Bob Williams it must be heaven. What a blank cheque! The resources of all of the people of British Columbia at his personal disposal -- wonderful. We can tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend with absolutely no public accountability. Public interest isn't a concern here. Public accountability is not built into this particu-
[ Page 5250 ]
lar bill. No, it's just wonderful. Talk about Bob Williams's heaven. I think that's absolutely grand.
But it's based on a misconception, and the hon. member for Mission-Kent elaborated on it when he said it's just like buying a home. Very few of us can afford to put the cash up front and acquire a home. He said that you've got to look at this as if it's a mortgage. And that's what it is. We're going to amortize capital things like roads, schools, bridges or job training over the useful life of the project. Well, it makes a little bit of sense, and there's a little bit of truth in that. But if I'm buying a house on time, I only buy one house. I have a fixed income. It may increase a little bit annually, but it increases very modestly. I don't buy a new house this year and keep it, then buy another new house next year and keep it, and another one the year after and keep it, and another the year after, spending $1 billion or $1.5 billion on an annual basis with no appreciable increase in revenue source. That's the fallacy. It can't work; it's a silly, foolish, utopian dream that has absolutely no chance of success, because the income to satisfy the ever-increasing debt simply won't happen. Every hon. member in this Legislature knows full well that they can't go and buy a new car this year on time, another new car next year on time and retain all of those on relatively fixed incomes. It just isn't reasonable. We can understand that. That's what's wrong with Bill 3: it's hopeless.
And do you know what will happen? The cost of amortizing a road over 40 years.... Again, I'm surprised that the senior Ministry of Finance staff haven't objected strongly to this, because it's horrendous. Do you understand what the cost would be to amortize a $1 billion capital structure over 40 years? Work that out at an average of 10 percent, compound the money, look at the payments on principal as well as on interest, and find out how much that structure will cost. What right have we to stand here in the Legislature today and burden the future generations with debt to satisfy some sorts of wants and needs that we don't even understand? If we have the wants and the needs.... Certainly it's warm and cuddly; it's nice to say that those who benefit from the asset should also wind up paying for the asset. That's true. That's only one part of it. But what right have we to burden the young people who will follow us? What right have we to burden the young people who are up in the public galleries today with an unconscionable amount of debt? I don't believe that we have such a right.
The member for Port Coquitlam spoke well when he said: "We built British Columbia." Yes, we did; every person in this room, every senior and every individual in British Columbia built British Columbia. It was a partnership; it was a joint venture. That joint venture happened to be headed by the Social Credit administration of the day. But nevertheless, we collectively, by our blood, sweat and tears and honest, hard work, built the British Columbia that we have today.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: That's right. We all worked and built the British Columbia which we enjoy today. That's good. But it was a pay-as-you-go plan. Yes, sometimes it's hard to stomach, whether it's the megaprojects of development.... I note that the government of the day is rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation of the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty. The export of electricity warms the cockles of their hearts as well, when it's exported from the Peace River into the United States. That's good, solid revenue for B.C. Hydro and for the citizens of the province who put risk and capital out. We're getting the benefit of the returns. That's fine, but remember that most of the expenditures are pay-as-you-go. That's important. Because if we don't pay as we go.... Where is the sense of discipline in a government that is undisciplined?
We have a government today.... I'm not quite confident whether they're simply inept or incompetent. Those are harsh words. I may be kinder and say they are perhaps naive and inexperienced. But among the total number of members of the government today, very few of them have actually done anything on their own other than work in the civil service or in the union sector. How many of the members on the government side have created jobs for 20 or more British Columbians? I dare say that none of them have. Not one of them has created jobs; not one of them has had to meet a payroll or face all of the government regulations to make things happen. No, they're the great ones who believe that you can help the poor by pulling down the wealthy. That's their whole claim to fame. It's a populism that doesn't work, and Russia is the greatest testimonial to that. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. It's a misconception. It's the same philosophical base -- if there is one -- and principles -- if there are any -- of Bill 3.
That's why I support the hoist motion so ardently. It's the height of absurdity to try to run this through the Legislature -- and in front of the people of B.C., who must be watching this particular debate with a great deal of interest. It shows how irrational and inexperienced the government of the day is. It's not that the members lack the will to make good things happen; I believe they're earnestly trying. But they've missed it, and not just by a little bit. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, and they've missed this thing by miles.
[3:30]
The passage of this bill will hurt all British Columbians, even those who supported the election of the current government. It's going to increase the tax burden. Because it will require more and more capital, more and more revenue dollars from government to satisfy interest on debt, never mind the principal repayment, fewer and fewer of those dollars will provide goods and services for British Columbians. And that's what government is all about: to provide goods and services, educational opportunities, health care -- all of those things. But more and more of our dollar will be spent to satisfy debt because we want to hide it, to slip it under the carpet so that we can look good: "Look good today, and maybe we'll win another election."
The government of the day has a greater responsibility than to win another election by sleight of hand.
[ Page 5251 ]
That greater responsibility is to all British Columbians, not just to single-interest and special-interest groups who will benefit from this directly. You can't hold all British Columbians to ransom simply because somebody has come up with an idea that satisfies unemployed political hacks and allows the Minister of Finance to hide a large debt that must be paid by the taxpayers of B.C. There is no alternative.... You don't do anything except inhibit the opportunity for economic growth, security, the interests of seniors and opportunities for young people.
Recent polls indicate that even among your own supporters you've slipped badly: 75 percent of the people of this province are very unhappy with the current government. Government has got to listen to the people, and government, because of inability, ineptness, inexperience or whatever, just doesn't get it. But it's really disappointing, because this isn't a plaything. It isn't an academic debate. The implications for British Columbians and the future are real and severe. I can't expand on that adequately enough.
Even the drafters of this bill -- never the mind the confusion that goes through it.... This bill has had more name changes than Carter has pills. Surely that speaks for something. "Build B.C." Sounds great. "B.C. 21." Sounds even greater. "Bilk B.C." is probably more accurate. If this were in the private sector, the bunko squad would be after the group that promoted a bill like this. In the private sector you wouldn't get away with this type of legislation. It's just incredible.
When you look at the useful life of an asset, you can say 40 years for roads or buildings, and it sounds great. But they have to be paid for. I challenge all members of the Legislature -- and it would be interesting for all accountants and those individuals that happen to be watching this -- to work out what it would cost us.... Take $1.5 billion and spend it this year. Take $1.5 billion for the next five years and spend it. Work it out at 10 percent interest. We've got lower interest rates right now, but 10 percent is a nice, comfortable figure and fairly accurate. Then start figuring out the payments, both principal and interest, over time. Then look how much this investment will have cost at the end of 40 years. What a horrible price to pay for a little bit of gain. It will be very little gain.
The hon. member for Port Coquitlam says the official opposition is against building schools and roads and hospitals, and the third party is against.... He goes on like that, but he's missed the point completely. We're strongly in favour of making good things happen in British Columbia, but we're not in favour of this stupid bill. Bill 3 contains very little in the way of philosophy. It has virtually no principles and no hope of succeeding. Any means to justify an end is not appropriate at all, and the people of B.C. are not going to buy this. As I said before, if this occurred outside this Legislature, the bunko squad would immediately be onto the group that promoted it. They'd be put behind bars and kept behind bars for promoting something like that. That's how shallow the substance behind this particular legislation is.
Thank you very much for reminding me, hon. member. We have a little private joke, hon. Speaker. You'll have to allow that.
In any event, I intend to speak in more depth when we go back to debate on the main motion. But speaking in favour of the amendment, I'm very strongly in support of the proposal that it be taken back and looked at for six months. I'll expand slightly on the reason for that. We have the Korbin commission looking at the various costs and efficiencies of government, and I believe that report is in cabinet at the present time. Here we have a bill that is duplicating virtually every service that government is charged with providing at the time of its election. Every one of these services is the responsibility of the current government.
Now the current government doesn't seem to want to accept responsibility. They've done it with the Agricultural Land Commission, saying: "It's your problem, you work it out." But to the people they say: "Don't blame us, it's this agency." Here we have the formation of another agency that has to pick up responsibility. The government will say: "Well, they've spent too much, but what can we do about it? They're autonomous and we don't want to interfere with what they're doing. Don't blame us." You can't evade responsibility. The government has to represent the public interest of all British Columbians, and they're not doing so.
We're talking about roads, transportation systems, bridges. Yes, they're very important -- I know, I'm from the interior. W.A.C. Bennett knew. Part of his vision was an efficient rail and road transportation system. Certainly the marine transportation system we have was part of his vision, as was the development of the hinterland of British Columbia, which suffered. So I'm well aware of how important these initiatives are.
We're already funding schools through the Ministry of Education on that basis, where the payments are made over a long span of time. We already have a ministry responsible for job training. All we're looking for is overlap, redundancy and duplication. Here is all of this additional cost, but no public accountability -- no public accountability at all. This bill cannot go through; it must not go through. There is no accountability built into the bill. It would be considered a scam if it were presented outside this Legislature. It's absolutely unacceptable to our party, as I think it is to the official opposition and to the people of B.C.
I will vote in support of the amendment, and I will speak again when the main bill comes forward for debate on philosophy and principles.
Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.
R. Neufeld: Are you going to build a cancer clinic in Kamloops? Are you going to fulfil your promise?
F. Jackson: I believe we're going to build it in the member for Okanagan West's constituency, and I would like to go down there and help him do just that.
It's a great pleasure to rise and speak against this amendment today. Since we were elected in 1991 we
[ Page 5252 ]
have taken steps to put the government's house in order. We brought in the Freedom of Information Act, the toughest conflict-of-interest legislation in Canada, and labour legislation which will provide a level playing field for working women and men in the province; and we've gone some way toward reducing the deficit. With our new budget and Bill 3 we are ready to start building for British Columbia's future.
The official opposition has been speaking out quite a bit against Bill 3, and they've used tired words like "slush fund" and "pavement politics." It was even mentioned the other day that our ideology was showing up in this bill. I don't know where they've been all their lives, but governments tend to bring in legislation which reflects their ideology and philosophy. However, from a party that has very little in the way of ideology or philosophy, I'm not surprised they don't recognize that fact. I hate to give credit to the Social Credit, but even they stick up for their philosophy, obnoxious as it is.
This bill is not about slush funds or pavement politics. It's about planning, strategy and B.C.'s future. Bill 3 is good news and they are really having difficulty criticizing it. The Build BC Act is good news because it's a plan for investing in British Columbia's future. It's about investing in schools, hospitals and highways, and most importantly of all, people. It may be necessary to remind the opposition of these facts from time to time.
B.C. 21 is a long-term strategy for the future economic and social development of the province. The Build BC Act implements parts of the B.C. 21 initiative -- a plan to bring together key investment activities and develop a new, more effective approach to economic development in all regions of this province.
Interjection.
F. Jackson: For the benefit of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I usually do write my own stuff.
L. Fox: It's easy to tell.
F. Jackson: Thank you -- the good will show.
This overall plan has four components: we will accelerate construction of the necessary social capital facilities that we have -- I copied that -- like schools, colleges and highways; the Crown corporation investments will be focused on improving British Columbia's economic development; the Build B.C. special account -- with an initial $100 million -- will be used to make innovative, long-term, productive investments in skills and resource developments and projects like this throughout the province; and the new B.C. Transportation Financing Authority will accelerate transportation infrastructure projects in the province, which will be paid for over the long term. Bill 3 implements the last three points of the B.C. 21 initiative.
There is an urgent need for infrastructure investment in British Columbia and Canada. A recent study by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities found that $15 billion was needed to improve municipal infrastructure throughout the country. Last year Peat Marwick, in the independent financial review, found that schools, highways and bridges had been allowed to deteriorate by the previous Social Credit government, leaving an arrears bill of $2 billion. There are more than 1,500 public schools in British Columbia. Five percent of them are more than 20 years old, and only 1 percent are less than five years old. Thousands of students still study in portable classrooms instead of real classrooms. The Education ministry forecasts a need for over $1 billion for the maintenance of schools and protection against seismic activity. To a great extent the previous government ignored the need for infrastructure investment in the province, so British Columbia is left with $1 billion worth of work to be done.
With B.C. 21, long-term investment in schools, hospitals and other infrastructure projects will be accelerated. For my constituency, that will mean that the extended care facility in Clearwater can more easily become a reality. There have been many cases of beaver fever in my constituency because of inadequate water systems. The people of Blue River recently voted in favour of a referendum to build a new water system, and that will be a lot easier to do with B.C. 21 in place. It will make it easier for communities such as Blue River and Barri�re to build these infrastructure projects.
B.C.'s Crown corporations represent an important source of economic activity in the province. They provide a wide variety of important goods and services. We intend to ensure that those Crown corporations are sensitive to the regional needs, complementing existing government and private sector investment. We will use the Crown corporations to encourage the use of goods and services supplied by B.C.-based businesses.
[3:45]
Bill 3 sets aside $100 million for a special account called the Build B.C. fund, which will make strategic investments in projects that will improve the skills and job opportunities of people in British Columbia's distressed communities. Some of these funds will go into silviculture initiatives that will provide job training and investment in regions of the province that need a much more equitable share of the province's wealth. We'll be able to use some of that silviculture money in the North Thompson Valley. Job training will be directed towards people on income assistance, providing them with the work experience they will need in order to participate in other B.C. 21 projects.
In 1988 the previous government announced the Freedom to Move transportation planning process. The Premier at that time said: "This plan will erect a new transportation system that creates a new era of economic development by building on the existing systems and providing improved access to all regions of the province." That government then created the Freedom to Move special account, and $3.5 billion was to be spent on improving the province's transportation system. Even the Vander Zalm government recognized the need for improved infrastructure and transportation in municipalities. Now the Socreds complain because we're trying to do just that. They seem to have forgotten the Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act. It says: "The government may, with money borrowed ...construct a highway...." The member for Okanagan
[ Page 5253 ]
West is against borrowing today, but I'm quite sure he agreed with borrowing in 1988.
The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority will make long-term investments in transportation projects throughout the province. The money from tolls, gasoline taxes and automobile rentals will be dedicated to paying off that debt to improve the province's transportation network. Freedom to Move found $11.4 billion worth of necessary investment, and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority is the vehicle that will make the investment for the benefit of all British Columbians.
The opposition has been saying that we can't afford this and we can't afford that, but in conclusion, I would like to ask them whether we can afford kids in portable classrooms or communities that are dying for want of investment. B.C. 21 makes that investment. This government is proud of B.C. 21 and Bill 3, and so am I.
U. Dosanjh: It's my pleasure to rise today to speak in opposition to the hoist motion and in support of this bill. This is a creative and imaginative initiative and a bold step to build now for the future and present needs of our people. It will build the infrastructure so that British Columbia can remain prosperous and become a more competitive province both nationally and internationally.
In today's economy we have to think globally and act locally. If we listened to the bunch of naysayers in the opposition, we would not take any bold steps at all. If every British Columbian listened to their advice in his or her personal life, no one would ever buy a home and raise a mortgage for that purpose. Ninety-five percent of British Columbia homebuyers have rejected that advice historically, and this government will follow the practical path chosen by that 95 percent. They have built the equity in their houses over the years, and hence their home has become an asset that they cherish.
The institutions that our government is now building are the collective assets of all British Columbians; our children, their children and their children's children will cherish those assets and be able to utilize them. These naysayers of the most negative opposition in the history of British Columbia would have us ignore, neglect and, in fact, be reckless about the needs and aspirations of our people. The third party had an almost 12 percent spending increase every year of its last three years in government. It drove us deeper into debt and did not save money for the rainy days, although they had the BS fund. These master economic and fiscal planners actually drove us into unprecedented debt.
In the last two years the New Democratic government has reduced the deficit by $1 billion. Twenty-eight percent of British Columbians had their income tax reduced in this budget. Ninety-five percent of homeowners received an increase in their homeowner grant. But the opposition, when it came to this Legislature, said that they would be constructive, that they would make constructive suggestions and give constructive criticism. But what did they mean? We thought they would of course make constructive suggestions and show care and concern for the urgent present and future needs of our people. We thought their being constructive implied helping shape government policy by constructive criticism, of course.
By their actions and lack of them, they have shown they don't have any idea of the how, what, why and when of governing this great province of ours. They don't have any vision or ideas. The problem, however, is that any idea that's not theirs is not good at all for them. They can't reach any consensus on anything, except on the chaos in their own caucus. They erupt into chaos, journeying from the platonic to the romantic.
They're not the constructive opposition they claimed they would be. They're the most self-destructive and perhaps the most incompetent opposition this province has ever had. If you ask them, "Shall we fast-track highways and transportation construction?" they will say yes. If you ask them, "Shall we accelerate the building and improving of key community facilities?" they will say yes. If we ask them: "Shall we focus..."
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Will the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour please refrain from interjecting while the member has the floor.
U. Dosanjh: "...on Crown corporations capital investment to ensure they deliver maximum long-term economic benefits?" they say yes. If we ask them, "Shall we target $100 million in new moneys for regional diversification, equity and trading priorities?" they say yes. This bill shall do all of these things, yet if you ask them if they will vote for this legislation, they say no. I can't understand their logic.
If we ask them, "Shall we expand the community colleges, construct new community health centres this year, improve and build new courthouses, make a major commitment to replace the backlog of portable classrooms and have more child care spaces in British Columbia?" their answer to all of those would be yes. This legislation shall do and ensure all of that, yet they will vote against this legislation.
If we ask them: "Should we be more sensitive to regional needs, complement other government and private sector investment activities with B.C. 21, encourage the use of goods and services supplied by B.C.-based businesses and have new approaches to job-training and skills development?" their answers would be yes, yes, yes and yes. They shall say: "It's great stuff. We should do it." But when we ask them if they will vote for this legislation, they will again say no -- these naysayers of the opposition and the third party.
What do they have against public capitalism, if I might ask? I know they don't expect a member of the NDP to ask them that question, because they seem to be experts in capitalism. Let me ask them what they have against public capitalism that benefits the public treasury directly. What do they have against capitalization or capitalism? We have nothing against either of those two concepts. We like capital coming into British Columbia for investment and other purposes. The Premier is out there drumming up capital investment for British Columbia. We like capitalization as well. That's a great capitalist concept of doing what we need to do today: build assets, and pay over time during the
[ Page 5254 ]
life of assets, such as colleges, courthouses and universities. While doing all of this, we shall reduce growth in spending to 5.7 percent this year, reduce the deficit by $1 billion and reduce taxes for 28 percent of the population of British Columbia. What's the problem with the opposition and the third party that they can't see it? We are the messengers of hope for the people of British Columbia, and we shall not let that hope be extinguished from their hearts. We shall take them into the twenty-first century. People must have hope. People in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley have hope, as do people on the other side of Hope, in the regions. They need to be given hope. The opposition and the third party are naysayers and are parties of despair. Our government is a government of hope and optimism, and of progress. We shall march on, and Bill 3 is another step forward in that march.
[4:00]
H. De Jong: Hon. Speaker, it's indeed a pleasure for me to speak on this hoist motion. One may wonder why the opposition wants a hoist motion of six months. There have been hoist motions in the past; perhaps they should have been accepted as well. When the members who are now government were on this side of the House, they really pushed for hoist motions. This one, I believe, is a very good hoist motion; this time it's different.
A number of things stand for NDP -- the New Democratic Party, as they claim -- but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of democracy with this government. In fact, it's very much lacking. The NDP also stands for the no-down-payment party and the no-down-payment bill that's before this House at the moment. At this point in time, when everybody out there is saying that they don't want more debt and that we ought to get on with paying down our debts and getting rid of our deficit, why do we have all these protests today? Does the government never ask itself why these things are happening? Surely the message is loud and clear here.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston on a point of order.
A. Warnke: Under standing order 7(2), we do not have a quorum. I believe we should call for a quorum, because the hon. member for Abbotsford has some scintillating comments that should be appreciated by all members of the House. I would want more here to hear him.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, you're quite correct. There does not appear to be a quorum. I will sound the division bells.
H. De Jong: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll give it a try again.
I ended up with asking why all these protesters were here today. I guess there is good reason for it. Certainly the budget that was brought down, together with this bill, has led to the many protests that are out there.
The late W.A.C. Bennett, a real statesman, said: "These people" -- and he meant the NDP -- "cannot run a peanut stand." He said further: "They cannot run it today, nor can they run it in the future." How true that statement was.
In another description, NDP stands for the no development party. This party has no faith in the people of this province, who, in my opinion, have done a tremendous job in developing British Columbia. Why should a Crown corporation be established when developers -- there is a certain stigma to the word "developers" -- entrepreneurs in British Columbia who have done a marvellous job in building British Columbia are now turning away from this government? That's really why there is a hoist motion on the floor. Under this bill, if it passes through the House -- which hopefully it will not -- the Minister of Highways will basically become the maintenance chief of highways for British Columbia and nothing more, because there is literally nothing in the budget that indicates that there will be many highways built under the ministry, as such.
Worse than the two descriptions that I gave so far, the three letters NDP stand for new demolition party. The new demolition party is well on its way in British Columbia not to building the province, as Bill 3 says, but to destroying the province. It's well on the way to destroying the business sense that has always been with British Columbians.
Even though the government came in like a lamb, you might say, when they were on the election platform -- they were going to be so different; there was going to be no increase in taxes -- the first thing they did was hit the business world with the corporate tax. That's a nice how-do-you-do. They increased the sales tax, a new version of the NDP GST -- a tax that this government, when in opposition, collectively fought hard against in this House. What are the results? They're doing exactly the same thing that they did back in Ottawa.
This government is well on its way to destroying not only big business but small business as well. As well, they are destroying the opportunity for new investment, even though the Premier thinks that with a trip to China he can entice some of the Chinese to come to British Columbia. Well, good luck.
This government, with this bill and with other measures that they have taken so far, is destroying a good part of the enthusiasm of all British Columbia business. The only thing the government will never be able to destroy is the entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians, and the government will find that out when we go to the polls next time. The motion to hoist for six months will give the government the time to take a second look -- a sober second look -- and really find out what the people are saying. Do they want a Crown corporation to spend all the money that's anticipated through this bill? I think not.
Over the last couple of weeks I've been reading a book, and its title is Frog in the Kettle. The book reflects on the moral and spiritual decline of western civilization. It talks about that as a slow process versus a faster or overnight change. It describes how the frog would react to a slow process over a fast process.
[ Page 5255 ]
When they were on the election platform, the NDP claimed they were a different NDP than what we knew before. They were completely different from what we knew of the Barrett days, where things happened very suddenly. They were completely different from the Bob Rae situation in Ontario: racking up a $10 billion deficit in the first year of governing. Well, they are no different.
But to get back to Frog in the Kettle: when you make fast changes, overnight changes, sudden changes.... If you pour boiling water into the kettle, the frog will jump out. I'm talking about the process of this government. They said they were going to be a mild government: "Yes, there will be changes, but they'll be very limited and not so drastic as before." It's that slow process, where the frog jumps into the kettle with lukewarm water and you heat it up slowly. What will eventually happen is that the frog will cook along with the water. It comes to a boiling point, and so the frog is dead. And that's exactly where this government will be if they continue to push Bill 3 through.
J. Beattie: I'm glad to rise today to say that I don't support the hoist motion introduced by the members of the opposition. I'd like to speak in support of Bill 3 and the Build B.C. concept.
I come from the Okanagan. The Coquihalla Highway and the Coquihalla connector, which were built by the previous government, in many ways symbolized to Okanagan-Penticton constituents the ineptness of the previous government. In fact, that was the reason they threw out two of the members in the Okanagan, one from my constituency and one from Okanagan East. After the Coquihalla Highway was built up to Kamloops, members of the opposition -- then in government -- said to the people of the Okanagan that they would never complete the Coquihalla connector until they had finished four-laning all of the highways in the Okanagan. I have statements by the minister of Highways at the time saying that it was very important for the people of Penticton and the Okanagan to have the four-laning completed, because they recognized that the Okanagan was in short supply of good four-laned highways and that building the Coquihalla connector would have a detrimental effect on the interior because of the traffic flow. That section of the Okanagan highway by Peachland, which the hon. member for Okanagan West is well aware of, is very dangerous. In fact, the hon. member brings it to my attention often. But his government failed to live up to their commitment to four-lane the highways in the Okanagan -- Highway 97 -- for safety and for the benefit of business and of transportation. Instead they completed the Coquihalla connector at an incredible cost.
It was one of the Social Credit circuses, as I like to call it -- one of their pre-election parties. Hopefully they were going to attract both. But it turned against them, because they were unable to complete the four-laning in the Okanagan. That's why I feel good about the initiative this government is taking at this time to focus in on some of the important highways that have to be constructed in this province, and to do so in a rational, cost-effective and user-pay way, which I think is a very solid way to approach the issue.
Interjections.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I hear the remnants of the Social Credit Party on the opposite side talking about who supports who at this time. I think the people of the province have shown very clearly that they don't support the Social Credit Party.
Interjections.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, there are members in the opposition benches over there who are out of their seats, but I won't comment. If they would move to their seats, perhaps I'd enjoy their heckling. I see his leg is rather sore, but I'm sure he can make it to his seat.
[4:15]
I listened with some interest to the comments of the opposition members across the floor, and I'm always deeply saddened when I hear the hon. member for Okanagan West and his party continue their vitriolic attacks on people on social assistance. They seem to have the misdirected concept that only the faint of heart or the inept end up with some kind of government support. It runs through their philosophy -- not that they were able to control government spending in those sectors when they were in government. Nevertheless there's always this meanness and vindictiveness about people who are unable to be carried by their own efforts at any given time, and it tends to come out at people on social assistance.
I notice the member across the way is smiling, but his comments about poor people....
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Would the hon. member please address the bill. We are on an amendment to Bill 3, and I would ask the hon. member to keep that in mind while making his remarks. Please continue, hon. member.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I was just responding to some of the comments that member made.
The Liberals also talk about the employment aspect of Bill 3, and they say that the government shouldn't be creating jobs. The member for Vancouver-Langara said that we shouldn't be borrowing money in order to stimulate the economy. He says that it's like borrowing money to employ your children. However, he doesn't refer to the fact that we have to support our education system, our health care system and our social services through money that the government takes from the taxpayers in order to generate employment in the economy and also to provide for the future. The criticism that I've heard from the opposition benches has been quite weak. I think they have a real problem with progressive legislation that attempts to rationalize and to organize government spending.
I strongly support this bill's attempt to focus expenditures of Crown corporations and mesh them with the daily operations of line ministries as well as the private sector in order to get the biggest effect from the dollars
[ Page 5256 ]
spent in the province. There are things that can be done. It was the previous government's idea to do a similar thing, but they failed. I'd like to read a little quote about how the other crucial component of Harcourt's B.C. 21 -- Building Our Future, which focuses the investing and buying power of Crown corporations on social and economic development, can also be found in less ambitious form in the 1990 Social Credit plan. Nothing much came of either idea, however. Vander Zalm's Finance minister of the day, Mel Couvelier, said the idea of combining the Crown corporations foundered on the rocky independence of the various Crown corporation chairmen and boards. That indeed has been the problem of Crown corporations up to this point. They've acted independently; they've used a lot of taxpayers' money, but they haven't done so in a coordinated effort. We're attempting to focus the resources of Crown corporations so that the people of British Columbia will see better services and employment opportunities in the regions. This is a bill that directs resources towards the interior, which is something that has been lacking in the government's approach up to this time. The interior is experiencing the recession that we're coming out of more strongly than any other region in the province. We are a resource-dependent area. As the resources of the province become valuable or less valuable, the number of jobs that are created from a resource fluctuates. We have to diversify the economy, and this is part of that initiative.
The move toward funding the construction of highways in a new way is a progressive move. It will take the fluctuation out of building and not building.
G. Farrell-Collins: Who pays for it?
J. Beattie: We have to fund the construction of highways in a way that puts the debt over the long term. It's a valid way of carrying debt. We do so with our own mortgages. The hon. members across the floor are always painting government -- because they're not government -- as the bogeyman who runs up debt. In the last ten years private long-term debt has grown by 16 percent, whereas government debt has grown by about 6 percent. The total accumulated debt of all governments in Canada, including the federal government, is less than one-third of the private debt in this country. Government debt is not the problem with the economy. Government plays a solid....
G. Farrell-Collins: Keep going.
J. Beattie: Sure, I'll keep going. I'll tell you that the government has a role to play in stimulating the economy. Despite the fact that we've cut spending, the deficit has grown. But the moneys being spent are being directed towards people, and those people will create the wealth of the future. As opposed to what the member for Vancouver-Langara says: "Don't run a deficit to maintain services and schools, don't run a deficit...."
An Hon. Member: That's not what he said.
J. Beattie: That's exactly what the member said. He said we should not invest in our children's future by paying to provide those services. He used the analogy of a family borrowing money to pay their children. If you take that analogy, you can look upon the payment to children as the provision of services -- health care, education and all those things -- that are so essential to build healthy children and adults. We can't walk away from those things. Even the members opposite, as my friend from Vancouver commented earlier, would agree to all of these things by themselves, but when you put them together in a plan of action, because they have no vision themselves, they have to say no. That's all they can do.
The initiatives to provide skills training for unemployed people in my area to put them to work in the forest sector, initiatives to stimulate the building industry through the financing of courthouses and schools and initiatives to finance the building of highways are all a benefit to the industries and enterprises in the interior. I strongly support this initiative and look forward to the passage of the bill and the enactment of the regulations.
D. Jarvis: I'm speaking for the amendment to hoist it for another six months. I'd like to put it straight for the hon. members across there, especially those in the back benches. The Liberal Party is not averse to building a legitimate and sensible infrastructure system throughout this province, especially in the resorts and smaller towns. However, we're seeing a government that has embarked on a policy that is so open-ended it will lead to massive administration costs, excessive patronage and an increase in new taxes. Ostensibly we are seeing a misrepresentation of an economic plan for the future, which is going to be the biggest slush fund this province has ever seen. Thus we get into part two of the secret agenda of this government.
Bill 3 is purported to be a financing plan to build our resources. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a sleazy, funny-money boondoggle that is transferring this province's debt to another agency, so that the government can go to the voters and say that they have reduced the deficit or even perhaps balanced the budget, when in actual fact they have increased the debt and hidden it in another agency where it cannot be accounted for.
We support economic development, a strategy to develop our resources and new infrastructure in our towns and villages throughout this province. However, let's be honest. Why do we need another agency to administer all these features -- a new Bilk B.C. agency? This bill in effect is creating a slush-fund account, a patronage agency and an overall cooking of the books of the administration. They are stripping individual ministries so they can say to the people: "See what great things we have done for this province. We have reduced spending and the deficits of our ministries." Yet they will fail to mention that the debt in Build B.C. -- Bilk B.C. -- is growing like Topsy, with no accountability.
Let's look at Build B.C., which will go down in infamy as being worse than the BS fund. When this government was in opposition, it was so adamant about the
[ Page 5257 ]
BS fund; they said it was wrong. Yet here we have Build B.C., which will establish a special account and create employment and job-training initiatives.
H. Lali: What's wrong with that?
D. Jarvis: There's nothing's wrong with that. But why do we have a Ministry of Advanced Education or a Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade? Is this not what these ministries were set up for originally? I would suggest that it is, and therefore this government is cooking the books.
Silviculture is now going to be put under Build B.C. Is silviculture not the planting of trees? Is this not what the Ministry of Forests used to do? Was the minister not doing his job? Was Bob Williams upset because the Forests minister was not paying attention to the reforestation of our province? Why is the silviculture initiative now under Build B.C.? I would suggest that they're cooking the books. It should be in the Forests budget, where it can be looked at by the opposition and scrutinized by the rest of this province.
Transportation and roadbuilding are now part of Build B.C. Has not roadbuilding always been part of the Ministry of Highways? Am I being too cynical, or have all the people in B.C. been wrong in thinking that roads in this province have been built by the Highways ministry? Why not continue? Why is it being transferred to Build B.C.? Because they are cooking the books, hiding the debt, preparing for the next election.
Last Wednesday, April 14, the Minister of Highways yelled across the floor to us, saying there was no money in the Highways budget. That is exactly what is going on. Individual ministries are subject to their own budgets, open to scrutiny through estimates and subject to debate in this House. That's the rub. They are going to cook the books so they cannot be in the position of having to be accountable for all the millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars that should be going through the budgets of every ministry. By having Build B.C., they are going to be able to borrow money outside of the money allocated in their budgets. Then they will turn around and say: "Look, we have dropped the deficit in this budget."
They are cheating an enormous.... No, I've got that wrong. I shouldn't say they are cheating. They are creating an enormous debt, a hidden debt that is not accountable to the taxpayers of this province.
Deputy Speaker: I want to commend the hon. member for catching himself on that one.
D. Jarvis: The future generations of this province will realize that there has been no accountability, and they will not look favourably upon us.
[4:30]
In Bill 3 we are giving such widespread spending authority and discretion to spend that it will be scary in the long run. We have already seen that this government has no concept whatsoever of how to be economically viable. They have no idea how to create any wealth. All they know is how to tax and spend, to give jobs to their friends and to pay back their supporters with excessive wage settlements. We are heading for disaster if we continue to allow Williams and Gunton to continue to tax this province to death. It's a belief that you can tax it to prosperity.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: I certainly don't. He believes in a philosophy of greed and envy.
This government is saying that the infrastructure being built under this new agency will be self-paying. How the heck can it be self-paying -- by the increase of fuel tax and tolls?
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.
D. Jarvis: They say it will be a 1-cent-a-litre increase for now. Next we'll see 2 cents a litre, 3 cents a litre, and on and on. Up and up it will go, as taxes go up and as the indebtedness increases. This is the tradition of this province, and this government is no different, for we all know that they do not have any imagination, except in how to drive up the debt through the spend-and-tax policies they are setting here and have set in the past.
No one in the opposition is against jobs, and no one is against rebuilding and adding to the infrastructure of this province. But we are against the two-faced fa�ade they are trying to hoist in front of us at this time with Bilk B.C. They are taking all the expenditures of this bill out of their respective ministries -- Highways, Labour, Advanced Education, Economic Development, Forests and Education, to just name a few -- and they are putting them into Build B.C. so that they do not have to show up in the budgeted amount and to give the perception that they are reducing the deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is what the opposition is against, not the rebuilding of the province's infrastructure. We're not against jobs. We are against the sleazy misrepresentation of moving expenditures into a slush fund, where, as I have said, they will not show up in the deficit. It is a misconception that everyone will be self-sufficient through tolls, gasoline taxes and, incredibly, a car rental tax. It is completely farcical and misrepresents the proper way of financing the building of this province.
The chairman of this authority will have sweeping powers to appoint committee members, which means an untold number of patronage appointees. Here we go again with friends being appointed. It doesn't even say how many. Section 15 on board remuneration reads: "an allowance for reasonable travelling and incidental expenses." Individual ministries already have full travel budgets and allowances financed by the taxpayers of this province. The same holds true for the other ministries that the bill encroaches upon. Why do we need another government agency to duplicate precisely the same costs?
This bill will hatch another of Bob Williams's Crown corporations, eggs that operate behind closed doors with unrestricted powers to borrow and speculate, and
[ Page 5258 ]
with added powers to impose taxes and tolls on the public to cover all of its mistakes. Under this bill the government has the power to create new companies that can create new fees and tolls to pay for the patronage appointments of those who will be running them. After NDP policies have driven those companies into bankruptcy, the government can pick them up for 5 cents on the dollar. All of this will be carefully kept out of this Legislature.
There's a one-word explanation for why the NDP is doing this, and it's power. The NDP do not believe in a market economy; they never have, and they never will. A market economy has too much individualism, which to a socialist is a form of deviant behaviour. State control of the economy and Build B.C. has to be seen as a means to that dream. This government has already begun an assault against the middle class in their ideology-driven class war. They do not understand that class warfare is dead, as are the leaders of the Soviet empire from which it came. People realize that each additional cent taken from their pockets by this government is not going to pay for debts already incurred but will instead be used to fund added projects that they're also buying on credit. This is totally unacceptable; that's why I'm in favour of the hoist motion to delay the bill for at least six months pending amendments or a more reasonable or intelligent bill.
I still have a little bit of time left, so I'll give a summary of what I've said so that they can think about it overnight. First, B.C. 21 is nothing more than a slick accounting procedure to give the impression that the provincial government has lowered its operating debt when it is simply moving the money sideways. Second, this bill is the NDP's version of the old Socred BS fund. Third, Premier Harcourt said in the past: "If the money is not there, we won't spend it." Now he's saying that if the money is not there, we'll borrow it. Fourth, the Premier describes B.C. 21 -- Bilk B.C. -- as an investment. However, it's nothing more than a new provincial debt. Let's be honest about that fact: it's not an investment. We are not creating money out of it; it's a debt. Fifth, the Premier claims that there will be a self-financing authority in this bill, but he does not explain where the financing is going to come from. He has given us no clues on that point. Sixth, the Premier doesn't understand that you cannot increase spending without adding to the debt of this province. The Premier, back on January 20, 1992, said: "If the funding isn't there, we won't spend it. We'll have to go back to the old-fashioned way of cutting out waste, of getting spending priorities right." So here we are going out to bilk B.C. by borrowing money that's not accountable to the people of this province.
I think I'll close now, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this NDP slush fund is short on specifics and long on nonsense.
L. Hanson: Certainly I stand to support the hoist motion, because it gives this government an opportunity to rethink a piece of legislation that obviously is not to the liking of British Columbians or for the good of this province.
I've heard a number of members mention the Coquihalla and Highway 97, which was four-laned. The majority of it is four-laned now, but not all of it. That comes from a government that from 1972 to 1975 had a record of not building a highway of any kind. And by gosh, Mr. Speaker, would you believe that their record up to date is absolutely perfect? They still haven't built a highway, and I don't think they have any intention of building a highway, unless they can put B.C. 21 in place, hopefully to hide the debt they're going to create. As I said, since this government has been in place, they haven't built a highway of any kind.
J. Weisgerber: Not one road.
L. Hanson: "Not one road" is absolutely correct. When you consider that in light of the fact that this government has been able to double the deficit in a little under two years.... Actually, by the time this budget is over, it'll be a little more than two years. They've absolutely doubled the direct deficit of British Columbia, and they still haven't built a highway.
I wonder what the motivation was for thinking of B.C. 21. Was it maybe that the czar of Crown corporations doesn't have enough control over what's happening in government now? Maybe we need another Crown corporation to give that gentleman the ultimate control he so obviously cherishes.
When you look at B.C. 21, there are all sorts of things in there. We have great difficulty finding the motivation, which is really not described, because just about everything in the bill is already the mandate of ministries that now exist. If the ministries already have that responsibility, why do we need B.C. 21? What's the reason? Are the ministers over there not able to do their jobs? Have we lost confidence in the ministers responsible for these things? Well, I see all sorts of people around here who would just love to be in cabinet. As a matter of fact, there are some over there who want it so badly they can almost taste it. So if it's a lack of talent, switch the team. Bring in some of the substitutes; maybe they can do the job. The responsibility is already in the mandate of those ministries, and British Columbians are going to ask, and continue to ask: why do we need B.C. 21? We haven't heard an answer yet from the members of government. I guess that forecasts the future: they will be in opposition before long.
That is what is confusing British Columbians. They don't understand the need for B.C. 21. It's obviously a simple ploy that the people of British Columbia are going to see right through. At the end of this year, instead of having a $1.5 billion deficit, we're going to have $1.5 billion deficit directly and a $1 billion deficit in B.C. 21. They are attempting to hide the true deficit of government.
I think that from the evidence of 1973-75 and the evidence we've seen now in this short term, it is obvious that the NDP place very little emphasis on the importance of highways in British Columbia and are using a subterfuge, which will not pass the scrutiny of the public, to hide the actual deficit they are going to incur. I know that wrapped up in B.C. 21 are a number of initiatives that are really confusing and hard for me
[ Page 5259 ]
as well as for the rest of British Columbians to understand, but I know we'll have an opportunity to really get into those when we return to the debate on the main motion itself.
[4:45]
I urge the members of the government to consider voting for this hoist motion, to take the opportunity to study the bill for a while to really realize what they are doing. If they do realize what they are doing, it's sure tough on British Columbia, and it bodes very badly for the future of the province. I support the hoist motion.
J. Dalton: I am certainly pleased to rise in favour of the hoist amendment that is before this House. I was going to say that there is no question in my mind and in the minds of the official opposition that this bill is a farce. Perhaps that's too strong a term for some of the delicate ears opposite. But this bill is completely unacceptable. It deflects from the purpose of this Legislature and, among many other things, contributes to our deficit, to our debt. This bill is going to contribute to the real sense of worry and annoyance of the taxpayers of this province. If this government doesn't think they're annoyed enough now....
I note that there is an absence of government members at the tax rallies and meetings and in the protests and the voices of concern. Where are the government members on these occasions? I would suggest that the government members are not there, just as they are not really in tune with the people in any way, and this bill is evidence of that. This bill clearly demonstrates that this government is out of touch with the people. But that's not going to stop them, because they are convinced: we have the majority, we control the agenda, and so we are going to introduce and put through the Legislature such dubious pieces of legislation as Bill 3.
Hon. Speaker, what is the government agenda? It's becoming more and more clear that the agenda of this government is for the executive council to control the future of this province and for Treasury Board and the Crown corporations secretariat to exercise such control. That means they're taking the control away from elected representatives of this province and placing it in the hands of a few. Build B.C., this infamous piece of legislation.... Every day the name seems to change: B.C. 21 one day and Build B.C. the next; we could probably invent other titles and descriptive phrases for this piece of legislation. What Bill 3 is doing -- and why it must be hoisted for at least some sober second thought -- is removing responsibility and accountability from the line ministries and giving them to a Crown corporation and a cabinet committee. I'm sure the people of B.C. are horrified at the prospect of more bureaucracy and more people with governmental responsibilities to carry out government programs.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
The people of British Columbia have clearly demonstrated that they do not need more government; what they need is accountable and responsible government. Bill 3 does not create any responsibility, but it certainly creates more bureaucracy. If we allow this bill to go through unchallenged, the bill will allow public spending of public money without the scrutiny of the Legislature or the opportunity through estimates to ascertain that that spending is at least accounted for. I was almost going to say: that spending is proper. I doubt very much that anything this government spends will be considered proper. At least through estimates we have the opportunity to question such spending.
With the creation of this committee on building British Columbia's future, which will be advising the executive council, and with the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority -- another Crown corporation -- the opportunities for proper public scrutiny will be lost. That is a major concern the opposition has with this bill. At least a hoist motion will give the opportunity for a delay to accurately ascertain the direction that this government and such legislation will take this province, and whether the public will feel comfortable with that. I think the public, after an opportunity to properly examine it, will feel anything but comfortable.
We do not need the control of ministerial projects in the hands of the likes of Bob Williams and Tom Gunton; that's what this legislation and comparable legislation will do. However, I would say -- not to defend the government side -- that at least it's consistent with its philosophy in the direction it wishes to take. Legislation such as Bill 3 is certainly consistent with the NDP agenda of socialist domination: that the collective knows best and that individual initiative and enterprise must be discouraged, if not eliminated altogether. It reminds me of the TV series that some of us old-timers fondly remember: "Father Knows Best." I guess we might retitle it "The NDP Knows Best." The NDP seems to have the attitude that it knows the correct direction this province must be taking: this collective control that this government is obviously desperate to advance and advocate. Let me give this House some examples that will indicate where this collective attitude is already demonstrated, and Bill 3 will be just another example.
With the ongoing doctors' dispute, have we had proper consultation with the doctors? No, we have not. Why? Because the....
D. Schreck: On a point of order. While the member's musings are interesting on a variety of subjects, we are dealing with the amendment to Bill 3 and the member should try to stick to the topic.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your input, hon. member. I guess it is timely now for the Chair to remind all hon. members about the necessity for relevancy in debate.
J. Dalton: I listened with some interest, although perhaps some limited interest....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order please, hon. member.
Does the member for North Vancouver-Seymour wish to address the chair?
[ Page 5260 ]
D. Jarvis: No. I was making a comment.
J. Dalton: I was just going to very quickly comment on the point of order that was just raised. Obviously the government feels uncomfortable -- and I think quite appropriately -- when we are dealing with a hoist motion to delay the passage of this bill. I am simply pointing out to this House that the government has already developed a track record over the last 18 months on things that I think British Columbians should feel uncomfortable with.
To support that argument I'm suggesting that British Columbians will also feel very uncomfortable with Bill 3, but they need the opportunity to examine it. If this bill is hammered through the House in very quick and unqualified order, the people of this province will not have that satisfaction. So I've referred to some brief examples of past government experience: the ongoing dispute with the doctors and the announcement to close Shaughnessy. Certainly there was no true consultation or opportunity for public input.
Recently we've had editorials and a flurry of articles and questions posed about the possibility of amendments to our adoption laws. I would suggest -- because the attitude of government is that it is the great collective and that it knows best for British Columbians -- that this government does not know what's best for this province. That's why such a thing as a hoist motion for Bill 3 and comparable legislation is more than in order. It certainly has to be given very serious reflection by all members in this House, not just the opposition that posed this hoist but the government members, who should recognize that there is other input to the development of legislation and government direction than simply the closed quarters of the executive council or the likes of Bob Williams and Tom Gunton, who do not speak for all of the people of this province, by any stretch of the imagination.
What do we see reflected in things such as Bill 3? There's no consultation. There's been no opportunity or dialogue with the public or with the people directly affected by this. We simply see something whereby we are going to create a special account, create more bureaucracy and have relatively few people dictate how this money will be spent. But most importantly, we come back to the true concerns of the taxpayer: the people of this province are going to find themselves with another great chunk of money added to their debt. Obviously the people of British Columbia do not find that acceptable.
As part of my argument I'm saying that a six-month hoist will allow this public consultation and reaction. I would be the first to suggest that if the public -- but it is highly unlikely -- upon proper and sober reflection on Bill 3 said yes, we're happy with the direction the government is taking to create more debt and taxes in the form of gasoline tax, car rental tax and tolls, and we have no idea what extent those tolls might be, but I guess we can all think that we know for whom the bell tolls or for whom the tolls bell.... It's very disturbing to think of the government sweeping its octopus-like tentacles around the province, grabbing every little bit of taxation -- or revenue-producing, as he calls it -- or source of revenue that it can.
The government is of the opinion that it knows best. It would be well advised to allow this hoist to go forward and determine if in fact it does know best. I challenge this government, hon. Speaker: if it's so confident of the nature of Bill 3 and other legislation, put it to the true public test. Or if need be, we're going to have to stagger through this current term of government, and then the ultimate public test, the next election, will be put to this government. In the meantime, I suggest to the government side that public consultation is a process that this government has on occasion given token recognition to, but has never really given it any true recognition. For example, the Finance minister went on a pre-budget tour of the province, conducting public forums and meetings. In actual fact, this wasn't true consultation, even though the Finance minister suggested it was.
[5:00]
The Finance minister obviously lost any sense of true consultation with the predictable after-the-fact reaction to his very significant taxation measures on home ownership. If the Finance minister had truly consulted with the people of this province, he would have known that such a taxation measure was completely unacceptable to British Columbians. If the Finance minister, who is the sponsor of Bill 3, is as confident in the public consultation process as he was before he brought in the budget, let's put this one to the test, and we'll see whether British Columbians are so happy with it. But without a hoist motion, we don't have the opportunity to do so. All that will happen is that in the course of events, the government will exercise its majority. It will ram Bill 3 through the House, and we will find unpleasant economic and other circumstances after the fact.
We need some opportunity to examine this bill in detail before it becomes law. We need that effective consultation which, if the Finance minister had listened properly in his pre-budget tour, would have produced a different budget, or would have at least prevented, from his point of view -- not that I care that he was embarrassed, but clearly he was.... For the Finance minister to have to backtrack on a significant part of his budget is a significant statement. I would think the government would like to avoid such unpleasant circumstances again. Hoisting Bill 3 might save the government a bit of embarrassment, although I know they won't listen to my advice. So if they become embarrassed, I can say I told you so, and the government will learn the unpleasant lessons the hard way: after the fact. Is this government prepared to allow this hoist to go through? I suspect not, but I'm hoping that they will seriously consider it.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Let's examine for a moment what Bill 3 will create and why it should be hoisted. It will create more levels of bureaucracy. But it also creates a terribly false impression as to what this or any government should do and what the mandate of government is. Instead,
[ Page 5261 ]
what do we see in Bill 3? We have an executive council committee created in part 2 of the bill which will be chaired by the Minister of Finance and other Members of the Legislative Assembly as may be appointed by cabinet. I don't think it takes great recognition to know that those members will be appointed from the government side. So there you are. A government committee will be created to think up grandiose projects and spend public money.
On top of that we will create a corporation in the form of the Transportation Financing Authority. Why would we create this corporation when, if you look through the relevant parts of the bill, part 4 in particular, it certainly seems that it will perform the same functions and mandate as the Highways ministry? In fact, it's noteworthy that the chair of this corporation will in fact be the Highways minister. Responsibilities are set out for the Highways ministry to undertake capital projects of a highways nature. Having this Transportation Financing Authority on top of that seems to me to be a duplication. All it's going to do is create more debt and the phony impression that this government is in this great economic development mode. But all the government is truly doing is taking our money today -- what limited money is available -- creating a massive debt and leaving that debt for the next generation to worry about. That is an inappropriate moving about of public money and a very inappropriate smokescreen that this government is setting up under the guise of innovative legislation. I would suggest that Bill 3 is anything but innovative. We might think back to comparable pieces of legislation that previous governments have brought in, which were treated with the scorn or skepticism that Bill 3 and the authority that will be created under it should be treated.
When and where does it stop? If we don't stand up now and support this hoist motion, then this bill will go through, and of course, that will give a green light to this government to create comparable legislation and more so-called innovative projects and schemes. When does the socialist collective agenda end? With the next election, I'm sure. But in the meantime, this hoist motion, if passed, would slow down that agenda. It won't put it to rest, but it will certainly slow it down.
Government members argue that Build B.C. will create economic development. Such enterprise is not created by government manipulation, such as with this bill. This bill will only borrow and tax now in order to generate more deficit and debt for the future. This enterprise is but a gimmick to suggest to British Columbians that the government is creating jobs and initiating worthwhile projects, when in fact they are simply contributing to the debt load, about which British Columbians have said: "We've already had enough." Bill 3 is only going to further complicate that process.
It is really nonsense to suggest -- as this government is trying to convince us -- that the government should provide the climate in order for the private sector to succeed, because that is not true. The government is stepping in and saying: "We know best how to operate highways and silvicultural projects, etc., and we are going to dictate through Bill 3 how that process will take place." But a very significant debt load will be incurred as a result. So what we have here is a gimmick to create the pretence of economic initiative, but there is no real initiative in Bill 3 -- merely more debt.
For the government to argue that there is a strategy in this bill has no real meaning. There are some nice phrases about initiative, strategy, planning and things of that nature, but truly those are not what this bill represents. For example, the expenditures listed in section 8 are simply those expected of any government ministry. What are we to believe -- that through this innovative piece of legislation suddenly there will be a flurry of economic activity? Well, that is nonsense. Schools, hospitals and community centres will be built regardless. That is the responsibility of this or any government. That is a function that this government must undertake -- but only, I would suggest, when viable and when needed, when we have the economic wherewithal to justify such construction, not to load debt on top of an already very large debt and not when a government decides that it's in desperate need of a massive infusion of dubious good news. That's probably the bottom line of this bill. This government is going to wave this piece of legislation around and say: "Look at the good news: Build B.C. Look at all the initiatives we're undertaking. Look at all the NDP ridings that no doubt are going to benefit from such initiatives."
So Bill 3 is actually a public relations exercise that is using public money to promote the good of the NDP. Well, it's going to be a very massive challenge for any public relations firm to promote anything that may be considered good of this government.
An Hon. Member: How about Westview?
J. Dalton: I hear some of my colleagues from the North Shore suggesting that perhaps Westview should be brought into this conversation. I've never been remiss, and I am more than happy, to comment on Westview. The only comment I would make right now about that long overdue government project -- Westview being a true roadblock to the important Trans-Canada Highway system itself -- is that I have no real confidence that such a worthwhile project will find its way into the Bill 3 concept of Build B.C. I say that because at least one of the North Shore members -- I'm referring to comments by the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- seems to have no real appetite for advancing such an important cause. Perhaps he will change his tune. I certainly hope that the member will be the first to be a true advocate for the Westview overpass. But it would disturb me to think that such a project would suddenly become a top public cause for the wrong reasons. Until this bill came along, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale never demonstrated any appetite for Westview. If he's changing his tune -- and I hope that is so -- I suspect it may be for reasons other than the true purpose of undertaking such a project, which is that it's an integral part of our transportation system. That's why it should be undertaken.
[ Page 5262 ]
The Lions Gate Bridge is another important potential project within the area I represent. If the Lions Gate Bridge is ignored, of course, then we're going to have a very real problem in the future. If it goes ahead on the initiative of Bill 3 or something comparable, it may again be for the wrong reasons and perhaps without the proper planning that should go into it.
These projects hinted at in Bill 3 must be, and I quote: "consistent with the purpose of this act." That's what it states in Bill 3. They must be consistent with the purpose of this act -- which is to enhance the NDP image and promote the government from the point of view of its public relations, I would suggest. It's nothing to do with worthwhile projects. If that's the case, I suppose we can expect the projects will be undertaken, but only in NDP ridings -- which is already documented from past experience.
Some of the listed projects in section 8 will have nothing to do with the special accounts, the cabinet committees and the Crown corporations. For example, referring to item (b) in section 8, are we to believe that employment and job-training initiatives are suddenly some grand government enterprise? That is suggested in section 8 of the bill. Well, of course not. Those enterprises and programs are what the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology should be undertaking. At least, that is the way I would interpret employment and job-training initiatives.
I have to wonder how that found its way into Bill 3. What is the purpose behind it? The purpose clearly is to generate the false impression, the rather euphoric state that this government suddenly has found the need for job-training and such initiatives. I would hope that this government has found such a need, because if it hasn't or if it's not prepared to recognize that that need should be looked after by the ministry responsible and not by this Crown corporation or this cabinet committee controlled by outsiders, then we really are off the rails.
[5:15]
If we've got to the sorry state where the ministers responsible for things such as job creation are not going to directly oversee that responsibility, this House truly has lost control not only of public expenditure but also of any hope of developing some policy and meaningful direction that the government, on behalf of British Columbians, must undertake. Can we assume from the listing in this bill that the Minister of Advanced Education is not doing them? I guess that is probably the case.
So what do we see with this bill? I would surmise that the cabinet has no confidence in the ministers to do what they should be doing, and so it becomes a wonderful opportunity to create the presently unwarranted and unjustified legislation, which is Bill 3 -- this piece of legislation that we are asking this House to hoist for six months.
To conclude, I would argue that this bill must be delayed so that its true nature can be publicly scrutinized. As I said earlier, if it turns out that the public says yes, that they like the thrust and concept of Bill 3, then we'll accept it.
J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak in support of the amendment to defer the movement of Bill 3 for at least six months. The effect of that obviously would be to move it forward into the next sitting of the Legislature, and it would really delay the bill for at least a year. I would applaud that. I would be even happier to see the bill defeated. So if that's not possible, the longer we can delay, the better.
Let's think about Build B.C. Let's think about what Bill 3 sets out to accomplish. The capitalization of projects like hospitals, schools and courthouses is already accommodated in the structure that's in place. We don't need a new Crown corporation, and we don't need new legislation to capitalize the construction of public buildings. The only new thing about this legislation is that it would establish a model for the capitalization of highways. Do we want to finance highway construction for 30, 40 or 50 years, as the NDP have been saying?
My experience with highways is that almost immediately after they're built, they start to require maintenance. And within a reasonably short time they require not only maintenance but renovations, upgrading and new upgrading. You can't build a highway like you build a building and say: "Now we have a highway. We can ignore it. All we have to do is worry about paying for it." It's the contrary with highways: as soon as you build a highway, then the real costs are incurred. You immediately start to maintain it, repair it, upgrade it and keep it current. So it is an ongoing expense for government. There is no justification for capitalizing. For 125 years we have built roads, highways, bridges and transportation infrastructure in this province, and we've paid for them out of current revenues.
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: There is no argument, no matter how loudly shouted by members who don't have the courage to stand up and speak in the House, but rather heckle from the corners....
The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the hon. member who has the floor would like to withdraw that comment about other members in the House. At the same time, I'm sure other hon. members of the House would respect the fact that the Leader of the Third Party now has the floor. Would the hon. member withdraw the comment.
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure that I impugned anyone in this House. I simply noted that some members do not have the courage to stand up and speak on their own behalf, but rather heckle. There was no inference to any individual, but rather a general comment.
The Speaker: There are now three members standing. A point of order has been raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands.
[ Page 5263 ]
C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, I don't like to question the Chair in this case, but I don't know of any member who was offended by what that member said.
The Speaker: On this point of order, the hon. member for Mission-Kent.
D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, it becomes apparent, on the point of order, that the members are again challenging the Chair and challenging the authority of the Chair. I don't believe that's appropriate.
The Speaker: Thank you for your comments on the point of order. The issue here for the Chair is, as all members know, that a personal attack on any member of the House is never appropriate. The Leader of the Third Party, who has the floor, said -- and perhaps he would repeat it for the benefit of members in the House -- that he did not intend to impugn the motives of any other hon. members in the House. If he confirms that that is the case, then we can proceed with the debate.
J. Weisgerber: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I've said it once and I'll be happy to repeat it. I directed no specific comments at any one individual, but rather at a group.
The Speaker: Please proceed with the debate, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: The reality is that we're talking about the capitalization of highways and how that doesn't make good fiscal sense. That's the issue here, and the members don't want to hear it. But the reality is that by capitalizing highway construction, all the government sets out to do in this legislation is find a way to bury more debt. That's all this legislation does, and that's all it sets out to do. It sets a method for the government to hide the debt. The government knows that British Columbians and Canadians are becoming increasingly angry about government overspending. They want governments to live within their means. They want governments to balance their budgets. This government comes in, after running a budget deficit last year of almost $2.5 billion, and tries to pretend that this year it's going to have a deficit of only $1.5 billion. Of course, they're going to borrow another $2.5 billion and hide it in some Crown corporation that is nothing more than a slush fund and a shell game.
British Columbians are angry about the debt this government is adding to B.C. They know that in 125 years, successive governments accumulated a debt smaller than $5 billion. According to the auditor general, the accumulated debt in 125 years was $4.96 billion. British Columbians also know that with the previous budget and the current budget, this government will add more than $5 billion to the direct debt. By the end of the current fiscal year, the debt in B.C. will have grown from under $5 billion to over $10 billion. That's what Bill 3 is all about. It is a futile attempt to disguise even more debt and more borrowing by this government, and the people of B.C. will not be deceived. They will not be fooled. They will not be misled by the bill and by this Crown corporation -- a Crown corporation to build highways, schools and hospitals and to provide education. As a previous speaker mentioned, what are the current ministers doing? Why do we have ministers of highways and ministers of education and ministers of health if they can't look after those things that they're legislated to do?
C. Tanner: They can't handle it.
J. Weisgerber: They can't handle it, but more importantly, the Minister of Finance is unwilling to acknowledge the debt he has accumulated. He is reading public opinion, and he and this government are trying to find ways to hide the true size of the debt. It won't work, because the auditor general, as he has done before, will identify both the direct debt and the guaranteed debt, which incidentally has grown by $6.4 billion since this government was elected, and they have added almost $1 billion a year in taxes.
That's what this bill is all about, and it's why the bill should fail. It's why at the very least the bill should be hoisted for six months and put off until the next sitting of the Legislature. I'm convinced, as are many other members of this House, that if this bill is on the order paper for six months, British Columbians will be so outraged at its intent that they will force the government to withdraw it. The government wouldn't dare let this bill sit on the order paper until the next sitting of the Legislature. They wouldn't dare go out and try to sell it to British Columbians over the summer and fall. They've got to get this legislation rammed through now. They've got to find an entity in which they can hide $2.5 billion extra debt.
When we start to think about what is going to happen to B.C. over the next two or three years -- and heaven help us, over the next four or five years following that, if debt continues to grow at the rate that it is -- then I become alarmed. I see what's happening in Ontario and how that province is being consumed by its own debt. I see what's happening in Saskatchewan: $15 billion in debt for that small province. Then we try and imagine how difficult it's going to be for British Columbia at the rate this government is going.
The most important issue in British Columbia today is the growing size of the public debt. It is the amount of debt that this government is adding to British Columbia and to future generations of British Columbians. We should be angry about the policies this government is bringing in. We should be and we are angry about the new taxes that are being imposed: $1,000 per family last year; another $1,000 per family this year. But the real issue that we should be alarmed about is the growing debt.
We can change legislation, we can change policies and we can change tax policies. But if you accumulate tens of billions of dollars in debt, then successive governments face an enormous task paying that off. That's why this government feels the need to create a Crown corporation to hide debt, because it knows that public outrage is going to consume them, that British Columbians are not going to re-elect a government that is miring this province into debt.
[ Page 5264 ]
Only 15 months ago this province could boast the lowest per capita debt in Canada. The Premier went on television to boast that we had the lowest per capita debt, the second-lowest income tax rates and the second-lowest sales tax rates. How long will we be able to make that boast? How long will we be able to brag that we have the second-lowest...? How long will we be able to brag the lowest per capita debt? Not many years, at the rate this government is going.
[5:30]
This government has an obligation and a responsibility to at least be honest and acknowledge the money it's borrowing.
An Hon. Member: Tell us how much the Coquihalla did cost.
J. Weisgerber: The member across the way chatters about how much the Coquihalla cost. The fact of the matter is that the Coquihalla opened up the interior of this province, contributed to the welfare of British Columbia, contributed to the interior of our great province, and it was paid for out of current revenues. That is the difference, my friends. This government, with $5 billion in debt, hasn't built one new mile of highway -- not one new kilometre. It has reluctantly completed some projects that the Social Credit government started, but there isn't one new project that's been initiated by this new government. They came out in hordes to the Cassiar connector and cut the ribbon, but that was their only contribution. They cut the ribbon and launched the new ferry; that was the only thing they did there. This government has no commitment to highway construction. It has a commitment to spend, spend, spend, and it is desperately looking for ways to hide and disguise the size of its debt. That's what Bill 3 is all about, why it should be defeated and why, at the very least, it should be hoisted for six months to give the people affected, the people of British Columbia, an opportunity to examine this bill and the motives behind it. I am certain that it would be defeated; it would be withdrawn.
This government wouldn't have the courage to let this bill stand on the order paper until next year or to invite public comment on its plan to finance highway construction and disguise and hide $2.5 billion in new debt in a Crown corporation under the direction of Bob Williams. I'm going to vote against this bill and I'm going to encourage everybody in this House to vote against it, because I believe they should. If we are going to represent British Columbians and the interests of our constituents, I don't think one member of this House could in good conscience vote for Bill 3. It's a sham; it's a disgrace and it should be defeated.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I got here just in time to hear the Leader of the Third Party, and I listened with interest to him talking against development in the interior. This hon. member really feels that the way things have been done in the past is entirely suitable for the way things are done in the future. I have to say to him that if he votes against this legislation, he's voting against the continued investment in those kinds of infrastructures which are essential to the continued development of the regions of the province.
In a 1990 address at the Social Credit convention, former Premier Bill Vander Zalm said that the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority should be set up to finance road construction. He had great plans for continued reinvestment in the interior of the province, but he never had the courage to carry it out. He was looking ahead a little bit but didn't have the courage to bring it in.
It is absolutely essential that we continue investments in the development of this province. We know that our competitive advantages in the new economy are the skills of our people and the quality of the infrastructure. We know that companies are going to come here if there is good infrastructure. I know, from the limited travels I've made, talking to investors and looking at other countries, that the essential component of regional development is the quality of the infrastructure, the quality of the skills of the people and the quality of community life.
B.C. 21 is going to focus on the kinds of things that the members opposite would deny the communities of the province: investment in community capital and investment in community structures that are essential to recreation and economic development in those communities. Just as a matter of precedent, there's a long history in this province of capitalizing major investments. For example, the B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority, the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority and the B.C. Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority were all established by Social Credit in the sixties and seventies. So you need one for transportation because it's essential infrastructure.
The members opposite have pained looks on their faces because they know that capitalizing investments is a good business practice. They know that the essential principle is to reduce the operating deficit, which we've done. Social Credit sent out some propaganda before the budget which showed projected deficits of over $2.5 billion. We've reduced the operating deficit to $1.5 billion.
An Hon. Member: You have not.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have reduced the operating deficit. They're going to deny investment in this province. We have the ability to pay. If we reduce the operating deficit, we then have the ability to pay off long-term debt. It's like a mortgage on your house. It's like borrowing money to invest in the development of your business.
I just came back from the Toyota wheel plant, which is expanding. It was a good government decision to assist that plant in years gone by. They're expanding on borrowed money. If we're going to have expansion of the economy, we have to have strategically targeted investment. B.C. 21 is able to coordinate necessary spending which is going to be made anyway by B.C. Hydro and B.C. Buildings Corporation. It has the ability to time it and to target it to regions that need it most.
[ Page 5265 ]
The question of long-term debt is a question of whether or not you've got assets to offset it. Every business sets off its investment and its debt versus its assets. Under this program, the province of B.C. is going to grow. Those assets are investments that will return income to the province and allow us to continue to reduce the operating deficit. I hear preaching from the opposite benches, which don't recognize those simple business principles. They are principles we use now in public financing.
There are other ways to finance debt. Major infrastructure projects are financed by companies, and the assets are rented back to the government. For example, when I was in Japan last year the government of Canada was building a new embassy. It had concluded a deal with the private sector to build it, and they would rent it back. They really put on the private market the cheapest possible capital financing. That's one way of doing it. Other conservative governments of the same ilk as those on the other side of this Legislature are moving into capital financing. For example, it's probable that the $15 billion airport in Hong Kong will be financed and paid for out of the additional revenues.
An Hon. Member: Public or private?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Public. It could be public or private; it doesn't matter at all. The fact is that you capitalize the assets, the point being that your increased growth allows you to pay off the investment.
If we cut back and slash spending this year in a cruel and inhuman way, which they would have us do -- cut back hospitals, schools, community colleges -- then next year as we come up to an election, they would say: "You failed to invest in the development of British Columbia; you failed to invest in the people of British Columbia. You failed the people, and you failed the regional economies." Well, we aren't going to fail the regional economies. We're going to invest in the regional economies in a way that involves people in the long term by building very secure assets that will be owned by those people, with a very secure ability to pay. I'd like to remind....
L. Fox: An 18 percent increase in welfare.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: He says there's an 18 percent increase in welfare.
The Speaker: Would the minister to take his seat for a moment. The minister, in participating in this debate, should not have to yell for the Chair to hear him. I would ask other hon. members to please be silent while the member continues with the debate.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't like to yell, hon. Speaker; it's against my nature. But in the spirit of debate, I have to make my points very forcefully.
L. Fox: You're a little excited.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member for Prince George-Omineca is talking about not borrowing money for investments in his part of the province. I have to remind him that it's very important, if there are to be some private sector developments, that each and every one of them come forth with a major investment demand on the government. We will have to find the money for some of these, so that we get them on stream and paying before they lose their opportunity in the market. Everybody knows that there are pulp and paper mills and investments in value-added wood products, and we have to put in roads to them. We have to build community colleges in the communities and upgrade the hospitals so that people can get into emergency quickly.
He knows all of that; he knows those are good things. But what he doesn't know is that when you analyze the expenditure on portables -- all those masses of portables that the previous government allowed to develop instead of building schools -- they cost more than building schools. Had they borrowed a little and spent it on good investments, we wouldn't have this huge operating cost that the public sector carries. We would have schools, and we wouldn't have the large operating deficit that we have now.
An Hon. Member: Ask them if they have a mortgage.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The members opposite probably also have a mortgage on their own homes. That's the analogy....
L. Fox: One.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: And there's one mortgage.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair cannot hear the debate with so many discussions going on at the same time. Please continue, Mr. Minister.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We on this side are concerned about the debt and about mortgaging our children's future, but we're also concerned about very careful investments in the future of our children and of our communities, because without that, we won't continue to grow.
Let me talk a little about the debt. The current household debt per capita is about $14,000, and it's rising. It rose from $14,200 in 1992 to $14,900. The total public debt is about $19,000, and we have some concern about it rising to $21,000. The majority of the public debt is of federal origin. B.C. is still a minor player in terms of public debt. We have the fastest-growing economy in Canada, and if we didn't invest in the infrastructure and highways were clogged -- and right now people in the Fraser Valley and on the Island can't move their products to market -- the members on the other side would be screaming about investment. We go back a year, and the members of the official opposition were suggesting that we need to spend more here, more there and so on. Well, we've had a good look at it, and we've decided that there's....
[ Page 5266 ]
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale will come to order.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It is difficult with the interruptions to keep my train of thought, but I would like to remind members on both sides of the House of the business principle that you can have debt, provided it's offset by an asset. We intend to keep the books of the province by showing honestly, through public accounting practices.... As you know, the Peat Marwick review of the finances of the province recommended that we ought to consider capitalizing assets. We have said that government hasn't used good business practices. We are saying that we would like to use them for some of the assets of the province. In doing so, we think that we can look region by region, community by community in this province -- where the population is leveling off, or where it's starting to grow -- and look very seriously at what we need to be able to operate efficiently through the infrastructure and in educational institutions.
[5:45]
The other thing that this program will bring out, which people will have to think seriously about, is the fact that we can no longer afford to keep people on social assistance and allow them to not be useful, producing citizens. As a result, we have invested -- and will, through this fund -- in their training. We know that people on social assistance coming back into the workforce is very successful. Some of the existing programs have upwards of a 60 percent success rate.
We want to do even better, by giving generic training, on-the-job training; and at the same time people can make contributions to resource enhancement in the province. We know that every salmon stream, every forest and every piece of degraded environment could use an investment that will pay off. Some of those are long-term payoffs, but they have to be made, and they might as well be made with the social spending that's already been made. It's very difficult to move money into this, but you will see that we have targeted money that takes a constructive approach. It's not just "work for your welfare," because that doesn't get people back into the workforce. What we say is: we will give you work, and we will also give you some training.
The members opposite have talked about the increase in social assistance, but we have to think about the riots in Los Angeles. If we neglect poverty and allow it to become rampant, especially in some of our urban areas, we will find ourselves with extra policing costs, extra insurance costs and extra costs for repairing damage when people are unhappy. Poverty is expensive, and it's our view that we have to make sure that people have the skills to get back in. We know that if they're on social assistance for several months their will to work will be gone.
But why do we have such an increase in costs? We have an increase because we're the fastest-growing province. We have a jobless recovery. We know that the jobs that are coming back in the modern economy, regardless of where you are in Canada or the western world, are usually not as high-paying. They may be service sector jobs -- if there are jobs there at all. We also know that people come back to B.C., back into the workforce. So we have the same unemployment rates. However, we're glad to say that our unemployment rate is dropping slightly. We hope, through continued private and public sector investment, that B.C. will get its share of the growth -- which will be the largest growth in the country and, we think, probably the largest growth on the North American continent.
I'd like to remind members opposite a bit about what some other governments I've talked to are doing: the Japanese government, the German government. Both of them, historically and in recent years, have had among the most successful economies. How have they achieved that? They've achieved it by very careful spending in construction and infrastructure, and they also are blessed with a lower interest rate -- which is a problem for North American and Canadian economies. But if the federal government found a way to give us more favourable interest rates, it would be even better for us. This is common practice among the most successful economies.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member opposite talks about Germany. I think Germany made a bad mistake taking on the East German economy, which would be akin to one of our regional economies, without a good plan in place. It's costing them more than it needed to. They were not strategic in their investment. But if you go there, you'll see that it's a successful economy. They are continuing to invest in the people in those regions, because they know that if you already have productive citizens -- and we in British Columbia have among the most productive in Canada -- and you keep their productivity up, you will then be in a position to continue to expand. It's those flexible skills that we have to keep among our people.
One final point that needs to be addressed on this issue is what we do with infrastructure that services industrial development. Members opposite know that if you attempt to diversify the economy of some of our single-resource-based towns, there is a need to look creatively at financing the municipal infrastructure that services industry. I can think of examples of industrial parks for which we don't have a financing methodology in place. We don't have a financial policy which encourages economic investment as opposed to investment just to serve the people's municipal needs, such as sewer and water. So industrial-waste financing has become a growing area that we will have to consider. B.C. 21 will be able to look at specific needs and to respond in a flexible manner, by packaging the expenditures of different authorities to couple investments with the private sector. I don't need to tell the members opposite that you need good transportation and facilities in communities in order to continue to attract people.
The final point about B.C. 21 is its ability to target groups that have not participated as well in our
[ Page 5267 ]
economy. There are aboriginal people, who make up 10 to 20 percent of the population of some of our regions, who want to contribute and become more self-sustaining. Their communities want to be able to grow. There has to be a way to target training and investment dollars that will bring them in. There are women and minorities who have problems getting employment opportunities. We will be able to look at those considerations under B.C. 21. So it will progressively look at people who want to contribute to the economy, and it will help them do that.
Hon. Speaker, looking at the clock, I would like to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Priddy moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]