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, MAY 3, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 9, Number 14
[ Page 5729 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. A. Hagen: It's a great pleasure for me, on behalf of the members of the assembly, to welcome His Excellency Mr. Tajeddine Baddou, the Ambassador for Morocco, and his wife Mrs. Marie Baddou. Welcome to our assembly this afternoon.
G. Janssen: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House Peter Jack, Rob Fenton and other members of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists, who were so kind as to take everybody on a ride today. I ask everyone to make them welcome.
Hon. L. Boone: One hundred years ago this month this House passed an act authorizing the government to construct the parliament buildings. On this occasion I think it fitting that we recognize the contribution of the employees of the B.C. Buildings Corporation who carried out the renovations of the building and who, on a day-to-day basis, are responsible for its upkeep, which I'm sure you will all agree is splendid. In the gallery today is one of those employees, Mr. Doug Pletsch, who has served as the building manager of the parliament buildings for eight years. Doug is leaving this position to accept a promotion within the corporation. Would members please join me in thanking him for his assistance over the years and in wishing him well in his new job.
Hon. E. Cull: In the Legislature today are about 30 students from Glenlyon-Norfolk school in my riding, along with their teacher Mr. Bowers. I would like members of the House to make them very welcome.
PREMIER'S ASIAN TRADE MISSION
Hon. M. Harcourt: Niyo, which is good day, from our friends in Hong Kong and China. Ohayo gozaimasu. Konnichi-wa from Japan.
I think it's important to realize that our future indeed is Pacific based. I therefore rise, not just as the Premier but as the minister responsible for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, to further inform the House, as some members have just requested, of the progress made by B.C.'s trade mission into the Asia-Pacific. A number of our province's business, labour and academic leaders accompanied our delegation. I wish to especially thank Dr. David Strangway, president of the University of British Columbia, for his contribution throughout the trade mission.
As all members of this House will know, and as I said earlier, countries of the Asia-Pacific region are experiencing growth and development levels unparalleled anywhere in the world. For British Columbia, this dynamism is essential to our economic growth. The Asia-Pacific is now British Columbia's second-largest export market for our products and services. My discussions in that market reinforced my own belief that there is nothing but further opportunities for B.C. products, talents and technology in that region.
In Japan and Korea, B.C. has established markets, especially for our resource sector. The challenge is to maintain those markets, while facing increased competition, and at the same time, move to more value-added opportunities. In China the challenge is in finding practical ways of conducting business in a country that is adopting more of an open-market economy.
Our trade mission started in B.C.'s most important market in the region, Japan. While members have read about a recession happening in that country, I can assure the House that the Japanese are again poised for another period of sustained growth. But that economic growth has a new focus: quality of life for workers. That is where our province can take excellent advantage of what we do well.
Japanese companies, such as Mitsui and Mitsubishi, told me of the demand for better living conditions, starting with a modern home. This is one area where B.C. excels beyond any other in Canada and the world. B.C.'s forest products for construction and interior decoration are among the first choice for potential homebuyers. While I was in Tokyo, I helped open a good-living show that focused on this new demand for a better quality of life. One of the best exhibits there was a display of building materials -- a full floor-to-ceiling construction with cabinets, closets, window and door frames all made with B.C. lumber. This was a display put together in cooperation with the manufacturers in our province and B.C. trade officials. They were all made with B.C. lumber and produced in British Columbia. That week, 500,000 people came through that exhibit. B.C. companies such as Primex, Merit Kitchens and Panabode, who accompanied me, understood the potential and are moving very quickly into that growing market. I'm proud that this government is encouraging plants in B.C. that build complete homes from floors to ceilings, with all the accessories manufactured here in British Columbia and then shipped to Japan and delivered within a few weeks.
As part of a new interest in B.C. tourism and leisure activities, I was able to sign an agreement with Nippon Cable that permits a long-term lease of the Tod Mountain area near Kamloops. Work on a new ski lift will begin this fall. I understand that the cold ride up in the old chair that takes 22 minutes will be replaced with a new quad-chair with a cover that will take seven minutes. There will also be work on new ski runs to be ready for this winter. Over time the plans are for a major recreation development with housing, a village centre and a golf course -- a project that will, I'm sure, be welcomed in the Kamloops area.
But Japan is much more than Tokyo, and the mission spent two days in the Kansai area in Osaka, a city that feels much the same way about Tokyo as Vancouver does about Toronto. In the Kansai area B.C. hosted a business forum where over 500 companies turned out, the largest business forum ever held in that city.
[ Page 5730 ]
The B.C. government opened a new trade office in Osaka, a market of roughly 60 million people. With the new routes that are coming on line when Osaka's airport opens in July of 1994, there will be many direct flights coming to Vancouver in the next year.
While in Japan I stressed with representatives of the Japanese government that B.C. and Canada do not want to see sector-by-sector quotas for imports negotiated between the United States and Japan.
[2:15]
I also questioned the 8 percent tariff on B.C.'s spruce, pine and fir forest products, and stressed our view that this is an unfair tariff that precludes more sales into the market. Our ability to supply more forest products to Japan would be enhanced by reducing and, as I suggested, eliminating this tariff.
From Japan, the trade mission moved on to Beijing, where I met with the new vice-premier, Zhu Rong ji, and many other senior officials. As members of this House are aware, in certain regions of the country, market economies are taking over, and in Guangdong province the annual growth rate is running at 14 percent per year.
The amount of activity has increased dramatically. There are something like 25,000 new enterprises being created. Hong Kong has moved 40 percent of its manufacturing into this area. Three million new jobs have been created in just the last ten years. That is the best place for Canadian companies to focus at the moment. B.C. Hydro will be exploring opportunities there for its first foray into China.
While I was in Guangzhou I signed a memorandum of understanding with Governor Zhu, who was the mayor of Guangzhou when I created the twinning between Vancouver and Guangzhou.
Guangdong, a province of 63 million people, makes many of the major decisions for approximately 200 million people in the southern part of China. The purpose of the memorandum of understanding was to find practical ways for British Columbia to cooperate with Guangdong in areas that our companies should be most able to take advantage of: transportation infrastructure, telecommunications, hydroelectricity and the Power Smart program to conserve energy, which is a major potential throughout China.
In China, I was accompanied by several Chinese-Canadian business people from Vancouver, led by Bill Yee and Mr. Johnny Chee, business leaders with expertise in conducting business in China. I can assure the House that another advantage that B.C. has with China is the strong links with our significant Chinese-Canadian community. The belief that China will become the next economic superpower is evident in all of Asia. We in Canada must take advantage of the opportunities, while we continue to press China to live up to its responsibilities on human rights issues.
Nowhere are the effects of China's growing economic clout felt more than in Hong Kong. In discussions with Hong Kong leaders, such as K.S. Li, I underlined that B.C. expertise could work in joint ventures with Hong Kong's massive financial and entrepreneurial resources on some of the new development projects for China. Business leaders with whom I spoke reaffirmed their general concern, though, with the state of Canada's national and provincial deficits. They acknowledged that the British Columbia government had made significant progress in reducing its deficit, which is down some 35 percent from the $2.4 billion we inherited two years ago, including a 25 percent cut this year to $1.5 billion. To show the confidence that people have in British Columbia and in Vancouver, while I was in Hong Kong I finalized an agreement to have two major shipping companies, including Valles Shipping, led by David Koo, locate offices in the International Marine Centre in Vancouver. We believe that other Hong Kong shipping companies will follow in the near future.
Lastly, the trade mission visited the Republic of Korea, B.C.'s second major export destination in Asia. In Korea we were accompanied by Capt. Norman Stark of the Vancouver Port Corporation. Most of our exports to Korea are raw materials, especially coal. Our meetings stressed our government's commitment to ensuring stability of supply. We also encouraged the major Korean shipping lines to add Vancouver as a regular port of call. A major case study, prepared by this government, was also presented to Samsung Data Systems on the advantage of locating their planned research facility in the Vancouver area. Daewoo Corp. has shown interest in the prospect of shipping liquefied natural gas from the Pacific region to Asia, from the Peace region right across the north, out of ports on the northwest and into Asia. The government has committed to having a feasibility study on such a project completed as quickly as possible.
Of the many business leaders who were with us in Seoul, I would especially like to thank Steve Seo, president of Vancouver's Korean-Canadian Cultural Association, and Mr. Peter Choi, the owner of a seafood product company, who was also involved in establishing the Korean centre at the University of British Columbia. Their accompanying me to Korea was a very valuable contribution. Dr. Strangway, Mr. Choi and I met with the Korea Foundation, who are cost-sharing that centre along with B.C. business leaders. This centre will add immeasurably to the cross-cultural understanding between our friends in Korea and our citizens here in British Columbia.
Over and over again, people told me of their respect for and their thoughts about British Columbia. We're well thought of in Asia. The efforts of our province's leadership and this government to promote B.C. as the gateway to North America are appreciated and understood. The lower mainland's gateway role is obvious, but in fact increased trade and investment can do even more for the regions -- the Thompson Valley, the Peace, the Cariboo, the north. Throughout this mission, Asians had a clear understanding that British Columbia has the brightest future in Canada. There's much work for us all to do to increase our trade and investment, but we should also be encouraged that we are more than welcome to increase our ties across the Pacific.
J. Dalton: On behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition, I would like to first say arigato,
[ Page 5731 ]
Premier-san, which essentially means welcome back. I'm not so sure that all the people of this province are entirely happy that the Premier even left on that trade mission. However, we do appreciate the travelogue, and I think we can say that we're looking forward to the slide show that will no doubt follow it.
I was particularly interested in the comment the Premier made about the B.C. deficit when he was in Hong Kong. He seemed to be pleased to be able to report to the business people of Hong Kong that the deficit is being reduced. But the rallies and protests that the Premier missed while he was away did not reflect that same enthusiasm. However, in the euphoria of the day of the Premier's return, we must not be too critical.
It is certainly of note to the opposition, and hopefully to all the business people of British Columbia, that the Premier has assured us that this trade mission is going to prove successful and pay dividends. I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that the opposition will be watching intently to see if those dividends are indeed returned.
I also hope that the Premier was truthful to the people he met on the trade mission about some of the budgetary problems, tax increases and things of that nature that we have experienced -- not to mention last year's corporation capital tax and the increase in the corporation capital tax in this year's budget. I trust that the Premier was up front with all the people he met, so if they come to British Columbia, they will not be deceived in any way or have false expectations about doing business in this province.
Again, I wish to welcome the Premier back. We're looking forward to his continual attention to the difficulties and problems in this province, rather than being so concerned about flying off to other parts of the world to advance causes. Quite frankly, I think there are far more important things to be done in this province, rather than elsewhere.
J. Weisgerber: I want to join in welcoming the Premier back to British Columbia. It's with some hesitation about breaking the euphoric bubble that the previous member mentioned, but the Premier left out a few things in his report about his trip to Asia. He didn't tell us about the concern in Asia over this government's anti-business stance and the recognition of it. He didn't tell us that those same people he met with 18 months ago and promised no new taxes were a little skeptical this time, having seen two budgets tabled by the same Premier, each with a billion-dollar increase in taxes in them -- the first of which had the much-hated corporation capital tax. And we know that the Premier spent a good deal of his time in Asia trying to distance himself personally from that tax, suggesting that somehow somebody else had done it, and he really doesn't like that kind of taxation.
I'm sure also the Premier had some difficulty dealing with a promise that he had made on his last trip to those same potential investors that there would be no changes to labour legislation -- particularly when he came back last time and went almost directly from his airplane to the B.C. Fed convention and promised them that he would make major changes to labour legislation.
We know which of those promises he kept. So I think it should be no surprise to us that Asian investors were a little skeptical this time around -- polite, as one would expect them to be, but a little bit cynical about the approach being made a second time around.
It seems to me the Premier would serve this province much more effectively if he stayed home and worked on creating an economic climate that encouraged investment, not only from Asia but by British Columbians and Canadians. And if he worked on creating an economic climate and a tax regime that allowed British Columbia companies to be competitive in the world market, he would then much better serve the people who elected him.
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CONSUMER SERVICES MINISTER
G. Farrell-Collins: I know the Premier would like to go on about his trip at length, and I, too, await the slide show. But we have been dealing with more important issues in this province while he's been away.
[2:30]
The Premier did an investigation on the Minister of Consumer Services prior to appointing him to his position in cabinet. Can the Premier tell us whether or not that investigation included his real estate dealings in California and the advice he gave to his clients?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said earlier, the investigation was around some statements made by a previous Social Credit member in June 1991, as I recall. That investigation proved that the statements made by that member, John Reynolds, were entirely groundless. On the basis of that, I asked the present Minister of Labour and Consumer Services to accept the portfolio. I don't deal in allegations. I deal in facts, in findings and in treating people fairly.
G. Farrell-Collins: Exactly what we're trying to find out here are the facts. The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services stated to the press in this province that he was not involved in those unsavoury business practices. While the Premier was away, we found out that he was, in fact, intimately involved. Can the Premier tell us if he knew he was intimately involved, and if so, when he found out?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I understand that this is before the Law Society. The Law Society has asked that a previous member involved in a transaction in the 1980s send some information, and there has been some sort of communication to the Law Society. I can tell you, hon. member, that the Law Society receives many hundreds of these requests every year. I understand that the Law Society request for information has gone to the member. That is the only piece of information that I have. I have the same information that the general public has through the media, and I think we should let the Law Society get the information. We should deal with facts and findings, not with allegations.
[ Page 5732 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier is obviously still suffering from jet lag and failing to take responsibility for his own actions. As the Premier, he handpicked and selected this member to be Minister of Consumer Services. It's quite clear that he now must take responsibility for that appointment. Will the Premier do a further investigation into the conduct of this minister, and if he is no longer able to perform his duties at Consumer Services, ask him to resign? If he won't do that, will he at least table the investigation that he did initially so we can see how scattered it was?
CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND CORE PROCESS
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier about an abiding mystery in the Clayoquot Sound decision. Can the Premier explain to the people of the province exactly why the commissioner on resources and environment was at that $30,000 exercise in public relations? What was his role there?
Interjections.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask the Premier then about the report the commissioner issued while he was out of the country. The report indicated that he should have had a role before the Clayoquot Sound decision was made; and now that it has been made, he wants a role now. Will the Premier support the commissioner on resources and environment in that indeed he should have a role in Clayoquot Sound?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The commissioner did not request that role. The commissioner has made a number of suggestions on how the CORE process on Vancouver Island can be improved. We are taking those suggestions seriously, and we'll be responding in the near future.
W. Hurd: The Premier must be aware that the presence of the commissioner at Clayoquot Sound has undermined the people's confidence in him. Once again to the Premier: why was he part of a $30,000 public relations ceremony that has undermined the confidence the environmental community had in this particular commissioner? Why was he there?
PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. The auditor general has determined that the government broke the law on 49 of 389 order-in-council appointments made last year.
Can the Premier explain why his government ignored the legislative requirements for authorization of these individuals' salaries? Was he so ashamed of the salaries awarded to his patronage appointments that he deliberately broke the law in making those appointments?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Those are very nasty words from the Leader of the Third Party. This report has just been received. The government is considering the report, and we will report back in the near future. Just getting back into the province, I haven't had a chance to read the report. I will get back in due course.
J. Weisgerber: Will the Premier agree at least to table the list of the 49 appointees that were made -- without their salaries being disclosed -- and will he further undertake today to reveal the remuneration for each of those 49 appointees, which information was omitted from the order-in-council?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We are considering the report of the auditor general. We will respond in due course.
J. Weisgerber: We know from the auditor general's report that on 49 occasions the government ignored the regulations. On some occasions appointees were allowed to set their own remuneration after their appointments were made. Can the Premier advise why his government responded by saying that no response by the Attorney General appeared to be warranted? Can the Premier tell us why he felt no response was warranted, and why he didn't want to see a response published?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As you are aware, the previous government has a process that they'll now be able to utilize to scrutinize this material through the Public Accounts Committee.
ESSENTIAL SERVICE DESIGNATION FOR SCHOOL TEACHERS
J. Dalton: My question is to the Premier also. Mr. Premier, in your absence, a number of school districts have been shut down by strikes and lockouts. In fact, the north Vancouver Island strike precipitated an investigation into essential service designation, and the special investigator so recommended. The Labour minister declined to exercise his proper authority under the Labour Code and, in fact, referred the matter back to the Labour Relations Board. My question is: why was the correct process not followed, thus adding to the unacceptable delay in resolving this and other school disputes?
Hon. M. Sihota: I would be happy to educate the Education critic on the other side by explaining to him what the sections deal with. Section 72 of the Labour Relations Code deals generally with the matter of essential services.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, if the Labour critic would just settle down, I could answer the question.
Under section 72(1), there is a process by which the Labour Relations Board can inquire as to whether or not a particular situation constitutes an essential service or poses a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of British Columbia in general. An inquiry must
[ Page 5733 ]
be made under section 72(1). An inquiry was made under section 72(1) by Mr. Wayne Mullins of the Labour Relations Board. That inquiry was inconclusive. In other words, he did not recommend one way or the other as to whether there was a threat posed to the essential services of British Columbians.
Subsequent to that, there was a letter written by Mr. Lanyon, under section 72(1), recommending that I trigger the provisions of section 72(2). Given the fact that section 72(2) requires the minister to trigger a certain process....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, if I may answer the question in its totality.
The Speaker: Order, please. If we could have order in the House, I'm sure the minister will quickly wind up his reply.
Hon. M. Sihota: Therefore, with regard to section 72(2), I could not act in compliance with that section, given the fact that 72(1) had not had an investigation completed to the full extent that we believe, based on our advice, was required under the law.
J. Dalton: I didn't expect to get such a long dissertation from the Labour minister on that, and we didn't want a crash course on labour law.
My question is again to the Premier. Under subsection (2) of section 72 of the Labour Relations Code, the Minister of Labour clearly has a responsibility to make a decision, and he abrogated that responsibility. I put it again to the Premier: why is there this unacceptable delay in resolving these disputes? They are getting worse, not better.
Hon. M. Sihota: There was no abrogation of responsibility. In fact, what we did was exercise the responsibility we had under the legislation, and the hon. member should know that. Secondly, the hon. member is wondering why we aren't dealing with these issues on an expedited basis. In fact, he should know that the hearing that will take place under section 72(1) will occur on an expedited basis at the direction of the minister. Third, I'm pleased to advise the hon. member, in terms of our efforts to further resolve and conclude that dispute, that today we asked Mr. Grant McArthur, the mediator in that dispute, to become a special mediator and make public his recommendations so that we can bring about an expedited solution to the dispute.
J. Dalton: One short question to the Premier, which I hope he will answer. Mr. Premier, the chair of the Labour Relations Board has indicated that he believes grade 12 is an essential service. Does the Premier agree with that feeling?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has either not read the letter from Mr. Lanyon or doesn't understand the letter Mr. Lanyon has written. It's also clear to me that he doesn't understand the section in dispute here. The lack of all that understanding explains why they don't understand what's happening in this situation. Under section 72(1)....
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the minister to try to make his reply as brief as possible.
Hon. M. Sihota: Under section 72(1), Mr. Lanyon did not come to a conclusion but simply offered an opinion based upon a report from a special investigator, an opinion which the minister then can review. There are provisions under section 72(1) for the minister to order further investigations, and we have made that order.
NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Hon. D. Miller: I rise to make a brief ministerial statement. Hon. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to inform you and the members of the House that May 2 to 8 this year is National Forest Week. This important annual event showcases forest management and the importance of our forests. This year's theme is "Our Common Ground." Forest Service staff, community volunteers, industry and other forestry groups in about 130 communities around the province will conduct tours, host demonstrations and stage special events to celebrate the week. This year's provincial forestry capital is Kamloops.
In Victoria there will be displays at the CanWest and Tillicum Malls, and interpretive forest tours for schoolchildren and the public at Beaver Lake park. There will also be forest management displays and a fire protection demonstration at the B.C. Forest Museum in Duncan, and a tour of the Cowichan Lake research station.
[2:45]
I would urge all members to take advantage of the activities, displays and events during National Forest Week, not only in the capital but in their own constituencies.
W. Hurd: The opposition is pleased to support the goals and aspirations of National Forest Week in British Columbia. I certainly hope, however, that one of the displays might be the linkage between the economy of the province of British Columbia and the level of harvest in British Columbia. Certainly one of the issues that we canvassed with the minister in estimates was an attempt to analyze the relationship between the annual allowable cuts in British Columbia the potential loss of revenue to the Crown, and the effects on employment in the province.
Noting the involvement of the Ministry of Forests in these displays, the opposition would welcome a display that indicated the impact of some of the cut reductions around the province and what they will inevitably mean to employment and local economies. Certainly during the next week we look forward to seeing that type of display somewhere around the province.
[ Page 5734 ]
R. Neufeld: The Social Credit caucus also supports National Forest Week, and it's fitting that it falls at this time. I think it's important to all British Columbians to realize just how important forestry is to our province, and that it is the engine of our province. It's what makes available all the things that we enjoy today in British Columbia, and some of the wealth that British Columbia has gained and the respect around the world. I hope that through displays in some 130 communities in British Columbia there will be opportunities displayed for individuals and companies to further grow and to produce more value-added products for the province of British Columbia.
We're also pleased to note that Kamloops is chosen as the forestry capital this year, and we congratulate that community. We hope that every individual who is talking about forestry in British Columbia will temper it and try to get across to the people how important forestry is to the province and to the wellness of B.C. It's a very important industry and it contributes greatly to the wealth and to the jobs that British Columbians have come to enjoy.
With that, we congratulate the government on declaring May 2 to 8 May National Forestry Week.
D. Mitchell: I rise to present a petition signed by more than 5,000 residents of West Vancouver. The grievance of these taxpayers is probably best summed up in the prayer of the petition, which very briefly says: "Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House demand that the people of British Columbia be treated fairly, that the homeowner's grant be restored to all homeowners, and that the provincial government begin addressing the needs of taxpayers through expenditure reductions, not increased taxes."
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise all hon. members that in Committee A we will be debating the Labour estimates. In this chamber, I would like to take this opportunity to call second reading of Bill 3.
BUILD BC ACT
(continued)
On the amendment (continued).
C. Serwa: Just to bring everyone back up to speed, we're debating a reasoned amendment to Bill 3. The amendment basically says that the matter under discussion should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. It is a very good reasoned amendment.
When I concluded my remarks last Thursday I was in the midst of referring to a number of quotes by and from ministers of the Crown, and I'm going to continue on that for a short while. I had dealt with some of the quotes from the Minister of Labour and, at the moment, I am looking at several put forward by the Minister of Finance.
Here's what the Minister of Finance said on March 30: "It's a major commitment: a plan to lay the groundwork for longer-term economic growth." Let's evaluate that. I wonder what the people of British Columbia think. Looking for long-term economic development in all regions....
In spite of the relatively small injection of seed capital at $100 million, we're probably looking at an annual expenditure somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion by this Crown corporation, based roughly on the number of elements that will be contained in the expenditures. Not only Transportation and Highways but public buildings, be they health centres, law courts or schools, will all come under the parameters of this particular bill, as well as the control of the direction of capital spending of other Crown corporations, such as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail.
We recognize that the debt and deficit situation in Canada is currently really quite critical. We recognize that the federal government is spending roughly 36 cents out of every revenue dollar, not to provide goods and services for people but simply to pay interest -- not to gain on the debt, not to reduce debt, but simply to pay interest on the accumulated debt. We recognize that there is less and less capital available to fund the ongoing operations of government and fuel the economy. If you're looking for a healthy, viable economy in the future, you cannot attain it by increasing the deficit and the debt of the taxpayer in B.C. That's clear. There's nothing partisan about that. It's a simple economic fact.
If we have a capital structure and we're amortizing it over 40 years, the reality is that by year ten of the debt servicing we will have paid more than the capital costs of this particular project, be it a highway or a large building, and we still have a further 30 years to pay on it. So the net result is that if we had a $1.5 billion expenditure per year over five continuing years, and we capitalized and amortized it over that period, and the rate of interest was 30-year provincial bonds, we would be looking at a repayment of $30.8 billion, which is simply and mostly debt-servicing costs, interest on that amount. So for an expenditure of $7.5 billion we will be paying back $30.8 billion, and in reality we will be paying more than the $7.5 billion back by year ten. So it doesn't make any sense that we're creating a climate of opportunity. What we're endeavouring to do is make a fair or a favourable show at the moment, but the reality is it will harness us into a debt and deficit structure which will be the downfall of the strength of the economy of this province.
The minister had further indicated that this Crown corporation would have a much greater hand in creating the diverse economic opportunities for all regions of British Columbia. That certainly is a notable goal, and one that we have been committed to since 1952 -- to open up and expand the opportunities in British Columbia for all British Columbians. That is the only solution for a strong economic future so we can continue to provide the necessary services that government has to provide as well as providing the quality of living for all British Columbians and a standard and quantity of life that we're particularly
[ Page 5735 ]
happy with. So this is not a new development. We have regional economic development groups scattered throughout the province, and we're trying to arm them with the ability to attract industry and attract investment and manufacturing within their own economic development areas. I'm sure that the minister is still committed to that concept, although the ministry itself has been somewhat gutted by two provincial budgets.
But we have to rely on our strengths, and we have many strengths in British Columbia. Hydroelectric energy is perhaps our greatest strength. An abundance of natural resources is another tremendous strength. And the work ethic and sense of entrepreneurship and commitment of the diverse peoples that make up the population of British Columbia is certainly a large economic development tool. Another one that our government has been proud to have been associated with is the extensive transportation system within the province, again a tremendous economic development tool. So most of the infrastructure is there, be it rail, be it road, be it the waterways with the outstanding ferry system that we put together here in British Columbia.
So while the focus is there and the intent is there, basically all of the opportunities are available in line ministries of the provincial government. There's no question about that. I don't think anyone can dispute that. There are no financial limitations restricting the continued expansion of line ministries in accepting their responsibility. Bill 3 will enable government to extract itself from accountability and responsibility. As a matter of fact, I don't even know what the ministers of the Crown will be doing with respect to that, because they will be able to blame the Crown corporation for an expanding deficit for which they will take accept no responsibility. The reality is that the taxpayer of the province will have the ultimate responsibility. We'll sell the birthright of the future for a little bit of gain today, and there is no justification for that whatsoever.
The Minister of Economic Development indicated that if we vote against this legislation we're voting against the continued investment in those kinds of infrastructures that are essential to the continued development of the regions of the province. Bilk 21 is able to coordinate necessary spending, which is happening anyway, by B.C. Hydro and B.C. Buildings Corporation. So you can see the expansion of the concept of an unelected group of individuals not accountable to the people of British Columbia and their particular role. I can't point out often enough that we do have that responsibility and authority within all of the line ministries of government. This Bill 3 is not going to serve any interest other than hiding the accumulated deficit in a Crown corporation and creating a climate of opportunity for political hacks -- perhaps from the province of British Columbia, but I think all of them have been hired now.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Oh, there are a few that haven't been hired, and that's the reason for the Crown corporation. I'm sorry. I thank the hon. member for bringing that to my attention. But there are probably several in other areas of Canada. Perhaps they're being a bit unsettled in Ontario, and there will be new applications. So that's the real reason for this.
There is probably another reason, and I think this third reason is a fairly significant one. A lot of the private sector unions are becoming increasingly unhappy with the actions and direction this provincial government has taken. It has compromised the opportunities for private sector unions to have a fair share in the development of B.C.'s economy. They have seen the high-spending public sector unions get the lion's share of the cake and virtually all of the icing, and they have continued to express their concerns.
For example, the IWA is recognizing that with the cozy relationship the current government has with the environmental movement, there is more and more pressure to reduce the annual allowable cut and to create more parks in forested areas. Obviously the Clayoquot Sound decision has not met with the favour of all environmentalists; there are some radical groups. But by and large, the environmentalist crowd has been quietened significantly, and all at the expense of the IWA. They're concerned with the direction this government is going in various aspects of logging and manufacturing. Obviously the construction industry too -- Local 115 -- wasn't really very happy with the abdication of responsibility by the Minister of Transportation and Highways, where as a member of the executive branch of government he again got at that particular ministry, so there is virtually no capital construction other than completing projects that the former administration had initiated.
[3:00]
So there were a number of concerns voiced by the private sector unions, to which the government has not paid significant attention. Their concerns are that the public sector unions are getting everything: security of tenure; a lifelong opportunity for a job; a tremendous benefit package. As I say, they have absolute security, whereas the private sector unions have to be more responsible and cognizant -- like the IWA, who have to reflect on world market prices. There is only so much that you can do, only so many efficiencies that can be incorporated. Otherwise there are no jobs. They are also cognizant of the fact that as labour costs go up, the manufacturing industry as well as the logging sector have to become more efficient, have to increase productivity. They do this through technological improvements and larger equipment, which results in ending jobs for IWA members.
Here we have an initiative in Bill 3 that creates that climate of opportunity again. The government, through its fixed-wage legislation, takes taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and throws them out to the private sector unions in hopes of appeasing and regaining its credibility with that particular arm.
The Minister of Forests had several interesting comments. I look at one of them especially: "With the budget situation, with our inability to finance the capital costs that we're talking about in one year, it seems to me only prudent that we look at financing those capital costs over a number of years." He's
[ Page 5736 ]
certainly right: it appears to be prudent -- and that hiding of the deficit is what I've been talking about. The reality is that government revenues have increased quite dramatically with the growth of the economy in British Columbia. There's nothing lovelier than inertia to carry a government forward. I'm sad to say that we, or the next government, will be burdened by the loss of inertia that this current government.... Believe you me, this is a one-term government. But perhaps the nicest thing I can say is that nothing is quite so short-lived in the province as a socialist government. That's certainly one thing that I can look forward to, and Bill 3 will ensure that that comes to pass.
We're hiding the ever-increasing deficit. The Minister of Finance glowingly indicates that he has reduced it to $1.5 billion. He didn't have that glowing commitment to reduce the deficit in the earlier years, but he is reducing it now. But he's also hiding a $1.5 billion in this new Crown corporation, so we have a great deal of concern in the accountability of this current government.
The Minister of Finance, with his program of reckless spending in areas which are simply expedient political payoffs, with absolutely no benefit to the quality of goods and services that the people of this province receive.... The former administration made a mistake: we left several hundreds of millions of dollars in a fund called the privatization fund. It was co-opted and renamed the B.C. Endowment Fund -- I think the unofficial name is the party hacks' fund. A fund accumulated by taxpayers' dollars is now being spent by the current Minister of Finance in a reckless manner.
The real concern comes when we recognize -- and I know that you've heard a great deal about other jurisdictions, primarily New Zealand.... New Zealand, which has had socialist governments almost from the beginning of its history -- and I was there in 1958 and am familiar with New Zealand and their government -- has been forced to reappraise and reassess the direction that it's going and has taken relatively harsh measures in order to get its act together and get on the road. They were forced to do this simply by international borrowing authorities refusing to grant them any more credit, so they've led the field in privatization. As a matter of fact, New Zealand was leading British Columbia in privatization in our former administration because of the necessity of taking these steps.
They've privatized things such as the post office, for example, and many other institutions which we feel are in the public domain. They're privatizing education in New Zealand simply because of the inability and unwillingness of the taxpayer to fund areas which have become very wasteful, very large and very inefficient. In their privatization move, they've taken the attitude that public sector jobs are not sacred. The Minister of Finance has often said: "We will not compromise. The one thing that is sacred in the province of British Columbia is public sector jobs. We won't reduce the staff; we will increase them. We will not reduce the rates of pay, the benefit packages or the job-for-life type of situation." That would be untenable, the Minister of Finance has implied a number of times.
In New Zealand it's a little bit different. As a matter of fact, they've gone extensively to contractors to provide services for government. This current government has spent a great deal of public funds in making those contractors part of the public service. The reason they were contractors is that their services weren't required on a full-time, annual basis. When we needed the services, we went out and purchased them for the time interval. When they become full-time employees of the government, then we create jobs, inefficiencies and huge expenses on the public purse. I regret to say that New Zealand and their socialist government is far ahead of this government.
The last question I would like to ask is: how will we finance this? I know there are some proposals put forward, but I'd like to go back and remind the public of Maureen Maloney. She has proposed -- and the Minister of Finance has hired her and used her as a consultant -- that the idea of wealth tax follows naturally. Their belief is that the poor are poor simply because the rich have too much and that we must use wealth taxes to supplement the income tax system. She goes on to say that the reason people are wealthy is that this is either as the result of a legacy or because they have been very lucky. It's not that anyone in this country works for wealth; they've either been lucky or inherited that wealth. I guess the sadness in this whole thing is that here's a lady who is obviously very bright and well educated but not very smart or experienced. That's the sad truth.
If we don't attend to debt and deficit, it will crush us. It will crush the economy of B.C. Bill 3 is selling out British Columbia. We're creating a monster that will speed and expand direct debt accumulation at an unprecedented rate. If this government cares about the quality health system, one of the finest education systems in the world and superlative social services, then you will have to get rid of Bill 3, because with Bill 3, we will not be able to afford them. If you want poverty, joblessness and a crumbling economy as your legacy to the future, then carry on with Bill 3, because that's exactly what's in store for British Columbians.
A. Warnke: My voice has picked up a little from last week, but at times I'm still having difficulty recognizing myself after a few days. I feel compelled to respond to this particular amendment, and I support it wholeheartedly. I believe it is absolutely essential to support the amendment to deal with the very difficult bill before us.
Many people have spoken from this side -- and eloquently, I would say -- outlining the different problems. What is striking is that between our turn we have been waiting for members on the other side to give a detailed critical analysis of some of the concerns that we have raised and to put forward some arguments to reinforce the strengths and pros of this particular bill, but unfortunately, that has been really lacking in this debate. I suspect that my hon. friends across the way have actually bought the bill of goods articulated and formulated by cabinet. It's worthwhile, therefore, to touch once again on a few of the arguments presented
[ Page 5737 ]
cogently on this side. It's absolutely essential in order to make a strong case for the amendment that is before us.
It has been put forward time and again that Bill 3 is a fundamental altering of the process and the accountability of public works and public works projects in British Columbia. When funds go to a Crown corporation, how accountable will they be to this Legislature? I listened to the Minister of Finance put forward what he called the four strengths of the bill. Regrettably, he was the only person to mention it. One of those elements says that what we have before us is something that can capitalize highway construction; that this is simply a means of establishing some sort of an authority in which we really cannot spend more money than is generated by dedicated taxes. I like some of the words, incidentally. Dedicated taxes is a concept that I would like to see explored. What he meant by dedicated taxes is that we would simply establish a 1-cent-per-litre taxation on gasoline that would go into this Transportation Financing Authority. The problem is not that people do not want any extra taxation. The Minister of Finance conceded when he travelled around the province that many people said that they didn't mind paying extra taxes provided that they're going into something concrete, something that really builds British Columbia, something that perhaps should contribute to the substructure.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: It's interesting hearing the hon. member across the way. He mentioned everything but the substructure, which so seriously needs to be addressed in this province. That's what people are saying. It includes schools, courthouses and so on. I'll get onto that in a moment. Again, I warn that hon. member to listen to what is being said, something that is so lacking in this debate.
People have said they don't mind extra taxes, but they want you to be upfront about it. Here's a way to institute a tax through a financing authority in such a manner that once it is instituted, who's going to say that it remains at 1 cent a litre? Many members have pointed out, and I think quite correctly, that once the principle has been established, once we have a new tax instituted, guess what? It goes from 1 cent to 5 cents a litre very quickly. Once we have it up to 5 cents a litre, guess what? I would suggest that before too long it will increase to 6 cents a litre and 7 cents a litre. People have also pointed out that the Minister of Finance should have picked this up in his travels. The taxes on gas and other kinds of energy are already far too much, and the provinces have to be very careful -- each and every provincial government has to be careful -- about what it is doing in terms of generating revenue for itself and certainly on how it expends moneys. That was one element raised by the Minister of Finance.
[3:15]
Another cute term I liked, his first element, was that this will introduce an accelerated social capital. My hon. friend from this side, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, asked: "What does this mean?" To a certain extent, the Finance minister bears the responsibility to detail and give an explanation as to what the phrase "accelerated social capital" means. "Accelerated" means fast pace, and all the rest of it. "Social" means we can spend money in this particular area. It looks like "accelerated social capital," prima facie, means we're spending money on all kinds of projects that come up out of nowhere. It's a fancy way of saying that we're spending money to beat the band. I think the Finance minister bears some responsibility to explain himself when he uses such concepts as dedicated taxes, accelerated social capital and so forth. Though I want to address the amendment here, I digress. But nonetheless, perhaps these terms do need further explanation. After all, they're the composite of the elements of the argument, the supposed rebuttal against some of the ideas that were presented by this side of the House.
The second element the Minister of Finance introduced was that this particular bill facilitates regional economic development. Now I find this particularly interesting. Is this a concession that this government does not know how to facilitate regional economic development in its present state? I thought the Minister of Energy was from the Kootenays. I thought that many members of the caucus across the way, on the government side, were from the Okanagan, the far north and the Island, as well as from the lower mainland. I find this almost a concession that the caucus is not working properly on that side.
More than that, referring back to the original principles of confederation developed by the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, in forging his cabinet, one principle that he stuck to and imposed was that there had to be regional representation in the cabinet. Interestingly enough, premiers since then have also exercised that basic principle. Now what's this a concession of? The Minister of Energy is from the Kootenays. But is what the Minister of Finance saying here a concession?" It sounds like a concession to me, that not even cabinet is working in terms of facilitating regional economic development. If it's not working, don't blame something else. Don't suggest that what we need is a new Crown corporation or something like that which can facilitate regional development.
The fault lies within cabinet and caucus. Perhaps what it reveals is an imposition of ideas of cabinet on caucus. I would say to members across the way on the government side: wake up, members of caucus, and begin to exercise some gusto when you meet these cabinet ministers before you within your own political party, and exercise some gusto and present some ideas at the convention. If you cannot do that, you will be in very serious trouble in your own constituency. That member is from the interior. Knowing how Kamloops votes, it's a swing area. I warn that hon. member that he'd better pay very close attention to the people within his own riding.
However, another principle that I think bears some elaboration is the reference to a $100 million special fund. The Finance minister conceded that it does increase the deficit by $100 million." It does increase the deficit, and that's a concession by that Finance minister. The problem is this: once a $100 million special fund is
[ Page 5738 ]
institutionalized and is in existence, where does it end? Is it just $100 million? Well, somewhere along the line we'll make up for that $100 million later on. Frankly, I have my doubts. But even if I didn't, even if I conceded that the Finance minister was some sort of whiz -- and I'm certainly not convinced of that -- the fact is that there is no built-in guarantee that the $100 million special fund will somehow evaporate in the past. Pretty soon $100 million becomes $200 million, $500 million becomes $1 billion, and on it goes.
On this side of the House many members have put forward a warning to that side -- to the government and the executive council -- that they must begin to examine certain elements of this bill that set a possible precedent for financial disaster. The Finance minister said that the public misunderstands. Well, they do understand some things. One thing they have tried to convey to this government, to provincial governments right across Canada and to the federal government is that the whole manner in which revenue is raised, and the purposes it is used for, must be readdressed.
Indeed, what the public is saying to this government -- to many governments -- is that quite contrary to what this government is proposing, which is to take money that traditionally has gone to ministries and put it in a Crown corporation that is less accountable, Crown corporations must become even more accountable than in the past. You don't crowd more money and more government activity into a Crown corporation, simply because it makes the government less accountable in this Legislature. A point that has been raised time and time again on this side of the House is that it does set the prospect of money being shifted in such a way that it makes money less accountable in this chamber. In the whole history of parliaments and legislatures and congresses around the world, including the United States, ultimately financial authority rests in the legislative branch of government. That's hard for executives, whether it's the President of the United States or the Prime Minister or whoever, and for executive councils and branches of government to accept, I know, but it is a fundamental principle, because spending ought to come from the authority of the people.
That is why on this side of the House we are making such a stink over Bill 3. It is because we see the attempt in Bill 3 to make government activity and expenditure less accountable. This is so sad, because it is at a time when people are demanding that Crown corporations and all aspects of government become more accountable.
I have mentioned on previous occasions that Bill 3 does not stand on its own; Bill 3 is part of a package. It is part of a budget that was introduced by the Finance minister, and therefore Bill 3 is not the only contentious bill that has been around in the past year. There is more contentious legislation coming forth in this session. So when Bill 3 is seen as part of this package, it is no wonder that the opposition has some real concerns about the nature and the impact of Bill 3. If the Minister of Finance really believes there is nothing to fear, then he should also suggest some very significant changes to make Crown corporations more accountable. But I don't see that as part of the legislation in this session. I didn't see it as part of the legislation in the previous year. We know full well what some members were arguing on this side of the House that what we have is a package around a budget and an agenda that will be run essentially by a very tight group of people; call them the power elite if you like. But when my friend from North Vancouver-Seymour talked about the Guntonization -- which is a cute term in itself -- what he was really saying is that what we are creating in this government is a power elite enhancing and developing a socialist agenda. You really see it in Bill 3, as we will see it in legislation to come that is around the budget.
There is another part that is of considerable concern, however. It's bad enough to put in place and institutionalize some of the features that we on this side have talked about, but on a practical level, once we have it, what do we have before us? I know government members guffawed when they heard members on this side say this is nothing but a slush fund. It's obvious that government members either do not understand or are concealing, for their own political purposes and agendas, the nature of this bill.
If they are not concealing it, then it bears some elaboration as to why we are suspicious that this is a slush fund. Once a particular group -- call them a power elite if you like -- through the Minister of Finance is in charge of particular funds, where they go and so forth, those occupying the posts now certainly have the prospect down the road of setting up a situation where cabinet members on the threshold of an election will be very tempted, and I suspect would follow through, to allocate funds, hidden from legislative and public scrutiny, in such a manner that they would be targeted in specific areas to enhance the election prospects of the governing party. That is why members on this side are skeptical, are suspicious, and therefore strongly oppose this particular bill. We simply cannot accept prima facie the arguments put forward by the Minister of Finance. As we progress through those so-called four elements we find a lot of problems, contradictions, inconsistencies and anomalies.
[3:30]
We really feel that what is essential if this bill were to come into being is that at least the arguments must be fleshed out in full so that the loopholes are plugged. This amendment is a test of whether government members are really sincere, of whether they really want to bring forward a bill that has no loopholes. They know what the loopholes are, because they've been described and explained over and over again on this side of the House. As they are explained, they are exposed. It should be very clear to government members that there are some severe problems with this particular bill. It institutionalizes many problems that governments will have to overcome. This amendment is a test, however, and in that context we hope that some sober second thought will be reflected by all members of the House and that members will support this particular amendment. I hope it and I pray it, because it needs it.
[ Page 5739 ]
If government members get their backs up because it's referred to as the BS 21 fund, or the BS blackjack fund, and so forth.... Yes, we're making fun of it. But in all that fun, we're also very serious. We see severe potential problems with this particular bill. We see the potential for mischief in institutionalizing a gas tax that goes from 1 cent to 5 cents, and then to who knows where, and in institutionalizing a $100 million special fund that goes from $100 million to $200 million to $500 million to $1 billion, and so forth.
This government, as did the previous government, made some rather dramatic moves to increase the debt of this province. One thing we were proud of in this province over the years, even the decades, was that we were responsible for how we raised revenue and how we allocated it. Where we allocated it, we developed a very fine substructure, a substructure that is indeed the envy of this country and of the world. But the previous administration and this administration indicate that we are on the very dangerous course of repeating some severe mistakes made by other governments in the past. We on this side of the House don't want to see those mistakes repeated. We want to see a close examination of the relationship between revenue and expenditure, and how to make that responsible in the Legislature.
A personal quest of mine is to make this House the prime focus of responsibility, of where government is and where it is going. How a government conducts itself must first of all be exposed in this chamber, not hidden away in a Crown corporation, but it must also be subject to the approval of the members of this chamber. I strongly support this amendment and hope that it will be accepted by all members of this House.
L. Reid: I rise in support of my hon. colleague from Richmond-Steveston. I too support the amendment that we not go forward on second reading and that Bill 3 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. I believe this piece of legislation will be nothing more than a legacy of debt for this province. There must be a way for this particular piece of legislation to see the light of day. We certainly believe strongly that intense scrutiny must be placed on this piece of legislation, and we trust that by continually attempting to amend it, we will see some sober second thought from the government benches.
There needs to be scrutiny of this legislation because it is, in fact, simply the tip of the iceberg. We will continue to see legislation that allows greater and greater privileges to be extended to those who do not sit as Members of this Legislative Assembly. That is not a position that this caucus, the official opposition, can support. We only wish to see accountability within this chamber not continually diluted out to Crown corporations. We are talking taxpayers' dollars, their hard-earned money, and I believe that they wish to know exactly how it is spent. They wish to intensely scrutinize the dollars under Bill 3, Build BC.
Earlier in my remarks I talked about the game of blackjack. I talked about this being a gamble for British Columbians. I hold very strongly to that view, because I do believe that we are going to be involved in some game that becomes more bizarre by the day. We are going to indeed be gambling with taxpayers' dollars in this province, and I can't imagine that that's a justifiable position for anyone in government to adopt. I can't imagine that that's the way we would wish to see good, honest, responsible government proceed.
I believe that the role of government is to facilitate decent decisions. The only opportunity the public has to scrutinize those decisions is from within this chamber. That is the only legislative authority that they can examine in some detail. Again, if we allow the creation of jobs and the legitimizing of debt to be moved into another forum, I think we as British Columbians will be sorry. I think we will regret that kind of opportunity that we've let slip away. I think we will be letting it slip away if we do not stop and reconsider this particular piece of legislation.
I think the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services has a role to play in taking a look at this. I believe British Columbians are only too happy to pay reasonable taxation. They wish to be involved in the services they receive, but they must know that they are actually getting something for their money, that it is a reasonable expenditure of dollars that has some appeal, some accountability process in place. I'm not convinced this is happening under this piece of legislation.
My hon. colleague for Richmond-Steveston talked about loopholes and talked about different Members of this Legislative Assembly coming forward and acknowledging that loopholes were in place. What I need to see today -- what my colleagues need to see today -- is the resolution of those loopholes. How are we going to ensure that this is the finest piece of legislation this particular government has brought forward? We're going to do that by amending it significantly, because this piece of legislation needs tremendous work. It is an ideological bent that we on the opposition side of the House do not wish to see pursued. We do not wish to see less and less accountability.
This chamber is supposed to bring together some of the finest minds, some of the best decision-makers, some of the finest problem-solvers, to come together and seek resolution to pressing questions of the day. That is our role. We will not be able to participate in that or be part of that if that particular function is removed from this chamber. That is the overlying issue that my colleagues and I have today, because we wish to be part of that process. We were elected to be part of that process. Many of us worked extremely hard to ensure that there was some sense of participatory democracy in this province. We're not prepared to see it calved off into a number of different Crown corporations. We believe that those corporations must be accountable, and under this current piece of legislation, Bill 3, there is no opportunity to make them accountable. That is the situation that I find intolerable, and I trust that my colleagues cannot support it, because they are indeed supporting this particular amendment, which says: "Stop. Take a look at this in more detail to decide if it is the wish of British Columbians that we proceed in this
[ Page 5740 ]
fashion." This opposition is asking for some detailed consideration of this particular piece of legislation.
My colleagues and I do not understand the urgency with which this particular piece of legislation is being put forward. Is there some mysterious time line that this particular piece of legislation is attempting to tie into? Is there some opportunity that this particular piece of legislation will provide for the government benches? I'm not clear as to the urgency. I think an agenda item of this significance needs due consideration. I trust this amendment will be supported because I think it is the last opportunity that British Columbians have to engage in reasonable debate on this question, and it is a huge question. The question that must be posed to British Columbians is: do you wish to see decisions removed from public scrutiny? That is the basis of this bill and this entire discussion. I know I don't support that. My colleagues do not support that. We must ensure that British Columbians are at least aware of how insidious this particular piece of legislation will be if it is allowed to proceed without a general understanding on behalf of the public and without an opportunity for the public to come back and scrutinize where we wish to go with this.
We are institutionalizing further tax under this, and we're institutionalizing tax without accountability. That is a huge direction for the government benches in this thirty-fifth parliament to stand up and adopt. Yes, absolutely, we've seen how much they favour increased taxation. We cannot allow increased taxation to go forward without some kind of scrutiny in the process. What I'm asking today is that we come back to British Columbians and to this forum with some kind of time line. Are we going to take action? Will there be some response to the public as to where we wish to go? Where are we headed? I think that is the question the official opposition is posing today.
We've seen this particular government not accept amendments put forward by the official opposition on two occasions. We trust that reason will prevail and that British Columbians will be given the opportunity to examine this bill in more detail. We trust that will happen, because British Columbians must have a better understanding of where this bill will lead us; where we are indeed headed. I believe that the basic premise in the common statement that those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it is evident in this piece of legislation. If we do not look at taxation without accountability and that has certainly happened in this province in the past.... That is all Bill 3 -- Build B.C., or Bilk B.C. as my hon. colleague has referred to it -- will reflect: less and less accountability to the question and more and more opportunity for British Columbians to be less involved with their government. That is not the direction we have seen over the last number of months in this province. We have seen British Columbians only interested in participatory democracy; only interested in understanding the questions in more detail; only interested in coming to understand the bigger picture, the broader landscape. That is where British Columbians wish to go today. They don't wish to have less and less understanding of the issues. They certainly wish the reverse, in my opinion.
Where we are today, we're talking about responsibility. We're talking about the responsibility that this government needs to accept publicly for all the actions they would take. This particular piece of legislation, Bill 3, removes responsible conduct from this government. It allows them to step back from the process and say it's not their responsibility. "Those decisions were taken in a Crown corporation. Those decisions were taken by someone distant and removed from this chamber." We're not able to support that as the official opposition. It runs contrary to what the role of an opposition should be, which is to provide the checks and balances in any legislative, democratic system. Those checks and balances must be in place. If the official opposition did not wish to scrutinize Bill 3 in extreme detail, the official opposition would not be doing their job, in my view.
[3:45]
Our role and goal for the official opposition is to ensure that every single British Columbian understands the basic tenets of Bill 3, what the legislation says and the intent of that particular legislation. We're not convinced that has happened. Certainly I can only assume that is not the wish of the government; otherwise they would allow more time for debate on this question and not proceed into night sittings. They would do the business of the day for the people of British Columbia. The night sittings are another opportunity for the numbers game to come into effect, for a majority of the House to push something through. It is not appropriate and not something I'm particularly proud of. Certainly if you look at parliaments across this country, they do not stand up and take great pride in the fact that they ram something through in the dead of night. It's not an appropriate process to uphold and say: "Yes, we are indeed doing the business of the people." It's a bit clandestine and underhanded, and not particularly useful in terms of ensuring that all British Columbians understand the basic intent of this piece of legislation. It's not contributing to the process in any way, shape or form.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Certainly all members in this House have heard me speak on many occasions about the lack of process. If this piece of legislation is hurried through in night sittings, it will be another classic example of no due process. It will be an opportunity for this government once again to deliver something that British Columbians do not understand and are not convinced they want. Those two questions, in my view, must be addressed before any piece of legislation can be put in place in British Columbia. It hasn't happened in 18 months, and I'm not convinced it's going to happen this afternoon.
The most significant issue for me today is process, and it's a lack of process that would allow this House to legitimize debt -- Bill 3, a legacy of deceit. It doesn't really say what all it can accomplish, and that's a concern for the official opposition. The intent of Bill 3 is not well understood. Again, our goal in asking that this legislation be referred to the Select Standing Committee on
[ Page 5741 ]
Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services is for that very purpose: so that more British Columbians have a better understanding of where we're headed under Bill 3. It's going to be a long and arduous journey over some very rough road if indeed British Columbians do not get a handle on the direction in which this government is proceeding today.
We can't afford to wait another day. We can't afford to have one more insidious piece of legislation go forward unchecked by the official opposition in this province. This legislation must be brought to task, and it must be brought to task today. I can assure you that my colleagues and I believe so fundamentally in ensuring that British Columbians understand this piece of legislation that we are prepared to continue to battle this legislation and battle the members of the government benches, who do not seem to appreciate how important it is that British Columbians -- the people who voted for this government -- understand this piece of legislation.
This is a very significant direction for this government to take. It's removing accountability from the process, and it's somehow suggesting that they do not need to be accountable. As a legislator, I cannot accept that. And again, I'm dismayed that my colleagues in this House can justify that position and attempt to defend it in their home ridings. I'm not convinced that their constituents understand this legislation or even support it as it stands on the order paper today. It does not give comfort to the voters in this province. Indeed, it increases the apprehension with which people approach government in British Columbia, because again it's an opportunity for the government to distance itself from the people, to stand well back and not be directly responsible. Responsibility is rolled in very tightly with accountability, and it's a very big question. We're not talking about innocuous legislation here or an innocuous direction for this government to proceed. We're talking about a significant shift in how closely tied these members on the government benches wish to be to the electorate in British Columbia.
We're having an interesting time realizing that this is very patronizing legislation, because it does not demand understanding on behalf of the voter or demand accountability for the voter. It simply says: "We know what's best. Allow us to proceed." It goes even one step further. It says: "We're going to proceed, because we're going to win the numbers game. We're going to play blackjack in this House between the government and opposition sides, and too bad for the taxpayer; we know what's best for you." I don't accept that notion, and I can assure you my colleagues do not accept it. We find it insulting that anyone would suggest that they could somehow make good decisions for people. We firmly believe in facilitating good decisions with the voters in British Columbia.
I return to the funding question. What is the urgency with Bill 3? Why today? Why this week? Why is it appropriate to proceed when there is limited understanding in the province as to the entire intent of Bill 3, blackjack, Build B.C., B.C. 21? Certainly you will not find anyone on the opposition benches who does not support capital spending, job creation and road construction. But we have entities in our current system of government that allow us to do that. They are called ministries. They have ministers heading them up -- people who were appointed by the Premier of the province to take responsibility for those tasks. All we on the opposition benches are asking is that those people actually do the jobs they have been paid to perform. We're not seeing that happening. We're seeing the calving off of additional responsibilities to allow a dilution of that responsibility. It's not a position that the opposition is comfortable with.
This is the same government that came to the table and talked about downsizing government, streamlining the process and reducing the number of bodies involved in the delivery of government. They've done exactly the opposite. They have broadened the base, brought more people into the fold and continue to meddle in the process without ensuring that direct accountability is in place. That is another broken promise. It's an exact contradiction to what they said they would do. These are the same individuals who will wonder why British Columbians are cynical about government -- my goodness, they shouldn't be. They should be, based on this particular piece of legislation, because if this legislation goes forward, it will be the beginning of the end. It will be the tip of the iceberg, and we will see many more pieces of insidious legislation in this province that allow less accountability, less responsibility for members of this cabinet and allow other entities to be created which have no legislative funding authority.
No one will come back to this House and say: "These are the dollars that were expended and these are the opportunities in place for you to question us on those expenditures." That, which I believe to be integral to the process, will be removed. It is simply not appropriate that we remove that kind of process from what we see as one of the finest parliaments in the country, if not in the world.
We have members in this House who have attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meetings and who have believed fundamentally in the fragility of democracy. We have people who have gone forward and said: "This is really important." Those very same people will now stand back and say: "No, it's more appropriate today to calve off legislative decision-making and take it outside the legislative chamber." You can't have it both ways. Either you fundamentally believe in democracy and the accountability of democracy or you do not. And if you do not, stand up today in this chamber and you say so; you tell British Columbians that no, because it's more expedient, because it's somehow more useful to your particular agenda, you are prepared to ram this piece of legislation through without legislative scrutiny and without direct accountability to the taxpayer. And it won't work to see this government play both sides of the fence a whole lot longer. Either they're supporting participatory democracy and believe in their constituents to the extent that they must allow their constituents to respond to new pieces of legislation, to new ideas....
[ Page 5742 ]
This should be an exciting time for this government. They should have the opportunity to come forward and present this idea to British Columbians, and they should be able to put this idea into a legislative framework. They should have those expectations for their members of cabinet. You are going to build roads and create job employment. You are going to do some things that are exciting and innovative for British Columbia, and you're going to do it from within the legislative framework, because that's what you were elected to do.
I'll return to my point about streamlining the process. This will allow another layer of bureaucracy to be created in British Columbia. Are British Columbians interested in that? Absolutely not. British Columbians find this continual growth, expansion and taxation to be sheer lunacy and rubbish. They want efficient, effective and cost-efficient government. This is not going to add to what they wish to see their tax dollars fund. This is going to expand the number of dollars required to perform a job that British Columbians believe they have already paid for. Those are significant issues, and they are the themes that run through this piece of legislation. This is not going to help us get a handle on the debt and the deficit.
This creates an additional dilemma for British Columbians. We don't have an opportunity today to examine this piece of legislation in extreme detail. Voters in this province won't have an opportunity to examine the expenditures on the projects undertaken under this piece of legislation. How that's parliamentary defeats me. It absolutely is not. Public consultation is the order of the day. Governments in British Columbia, the other nine provinces and the Territories in this country are learning a very significant lesson: public consultation is the way to proceed. Governments that do not learn that lesson will not have a repeat opportunity to carry out their mandate. It's as simple as that.
Today this government is embroiled in the recall and initiative questions. They actually did strike a committee to travel the province and look at that very issue. The results are overwhelming: a majority of British Columbians do support participatory democracy, being involved in the process. How a government can say on one hand, "Let's listen to the taxpayer and understand the tone and tenor of debate in the public forum," and on the other hand say, "We are going to ram Bill 3 through the House in the dead of night, because it is our personal agenda"? It must be a personal agenda, because it's not a public agenda. The public has had no opportunity to examine this particular piece of legislation. In the eyes of the opposition and in the eyes of a decent government, they must be given the opportunity to do that. Otherwise, we're creating more bureaucracy, reducing accountability and going on our merry way. That's not an appropriate way for a legitimate government in the province to proceed.
These are the same cabinet ministers and MLAs who stood up and demanded due diligence. They stood up and said that it's absolutely critical that British Columbians understand how the process works and where their tax dollars are going. Neither of those beliefs are reflected in this piece of legislation -- again, another broken promise. What they said they would do 18 months ago is absolutely not reflected in this particular piece of legislation.
I don't take any issue with ministerial responsibility; I think that's where the responsibility lies. It's absolutely critical that we ensure, demand and expect that ministers in this government do the jobs they are paid to do. If not, downsize the cabinet. Keep one or two, and go the Crown corporation route. If we're not going to have accountability from our ministers, frankly we're paying money that we don't need to be paying.
I'm a firm believer in the need for reflection, in the need to stand back and look at the issues and ensure that there is understanding across the board on all issues. We haven't seen that with this particular piece of legislation, and this government doesn't appear to want to give British Columbians any time to reflect on where they're headed with this particular piece of legislation. I believe it's absolutely critical that there should be some understanding and reflection in the next number of days. There has to be some second thought given to this particular piece of legislation.
[4:00]
As it stands today, British Columbians are not sure where we're headed, but they're very uncomfortable. They do not find this particular piece of legislation to be particularly reassuring. They don't know who it was written for, and they don't know why they're being sold a bill of goods surrounding this particular piece of legislation. They don't know why members in this government stand up and say: "Bill 3 will be good for you." What part? Where? For how long? How long are we going to institutionalize debt in this country? How long are we going to continue to create different levels of bureaucracy and then rise up in this House and justify them? It's in direct contrast to the direction the government said it would proceed in, and I have significant problems with that. It brings back the question of who's in charge. Who is responsible for creating this Crown corporation, and why is it necessary? I have yet to find a single government member stand up and answer those two very direct questions. Those questions are posed to me by my constituents. They wish to know how they will benefit from the creation of Build B.C. How are they going to see their lives enhanced? I haven't found the kernel of wisdom in this particular piece of legislation.
I'm all in favour of supporting the best ideas that come down the road and understanding how they are going to fit into an overall plan, but I need to hear it from the government benches. British Columbians need to hear it. It's not just an opportunity to ram something through the House, lay on another piece of insidious legislation and walk away. There is accountability in the understanding of this legislation that has not happened. If this government is going to stand firmly behind this legislation, would someone on that side of the House stand up and tell us how it fits into the overall game plan? What is the direction? Where are you headed with this? Why is it urgent? Why is it important that it not be an accountable piece of legislation? Give us the
[ Page 5743 ]
background. If this is about something you believe in strongly, you should have no difficulty standing up and selling this particular idea.
I believe that government is about carrying forward the finest ideas, but it's also about bringing people on board, ensuring that they understand and believe in what you wish to accomplish. There is no understanding about Bill 3, just tremendous uncertainty and anxiety that this is another NDP patronage appointment. A number of British Columbians have tremendous fears about the creation and growth of other Crown corporations in British Columbia. We need to understand their impact on the growth of our economy, and I'm not convinced today that it's a positive impact. I see it as a negative force -- an opportunity to funnel taxpayers' dollars and for British Columbians to be removed once again from the process.
I find nothing in this legislation that would allow me to sell it to my constituents. I'm not clear if it fits the mandate of this government. It certainly doesn't fit the mandate upon which they were elected. It may fit with today's mandate, which seems to be patronage, diluted responsibility and removal of accountability. That's not something I would be particularly proud of. It's certainly something that I hope this government does bring back to the legislative Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services, because this piece of legislation does require significant reflection and a sober second look.
I have stood in this House for 18 months and said: "What is wrong with process and consultation?" This is the government that said they believed in it. They would consult widely, and they would bring British Columbians on board. Now that they are playing the numbers game with the voters in this province, they are prepared to disregard the wishes of British Columbians and to discount the fact that British Columbians don't understand this legislation.
I speak today as a teacher. You do not proceed unless the people you are speaking to understand the issues. The government is speaking directly to the people of British Columbia and saying: "It doesn't matter that you don't understand the intent of Bill 3. We have decided that it will be good for you." That is unacceptable to me, to the official opposition and to the people of British Columbia.
V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I call a quorum. I don't believe we have a quorum here.
Deputy Speaker: We now have a quorum, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I met earlier today with grade 10 and 11 students from Gladstone Secondary School in my constituency -- very near yours, hon. Speaker -- who showed a keen interest in parliamentary democracy. I would ask all members to join with me in making them welcome.
H. De Jong: I rise today to speak in support of the amendment, and I suppose there are a number of reasons for that. We've debated Bill 3 for quite some time, and certainly a lot of good argument has been presented, but the government just doesn't seem to listen or even indicate that it may want to amend this bill at some time in the future. While some statements may be repetitious, the fact that the government isn't listening does bear repeating.
The theme of this bill is build British Columbia. If this bill really would do what it says, I don't think anyone on this side of the House would oppose it. But this bill is a no-down-payment bill: no money down; why should anyone frown? Recognizing the demonstrations here on the lawn last week and elsewhere in various communities throughout B.C., the people not only frown but know very well that with Bob Williams at the helm, this promise will drown. No down payment, only pay later -- pay later, but much more. This is what is in store for the next generation. Most merchants who sell things for no money down and pay later are either in the process of foreclosure or the foreclosure is imminent. Perhaps it's time for the Minister of Finance to come clean and tell this side of the House what's really at stake. Are we perhaps close to that step as well?
We talk about the No Development Party. The Minister of Highways is probably a busy man, and I know that roads take a lot of money. Everybody knows that. But for the Minister of Highways to demand in excess of $1 million for one commercial developer.... I believe it is ludicrous for that developer to spend $1 million on improvements to a highway fronting that particular property while many other businesses are fronting on the same street.
This government seems to be out to kill development. By the initiation of the minister, he has indeed killed that proposal in the Abbotsford constituency. It was the type of proposal that would have helped to avoid cross-border shopping. Is this government out to kill even the initiatives on the part of British Columbians and to avoid having people shop elsewhere? This government seems to be specifically on the road to kill those who are doing business in Socred ridings and, moreover, entrepreneurs who have always supported the Socred Party -- and car dealers are no exception.
The Premier promised no new taxes. He also promised to work with industry. Is this working with industry and commerce? When a proposal fits well within the planning guidelines of a municipality -- in this case the district of Abbotsford -- the Minister of Highways' reaction is none other than to kill the project.
The new demolition party. This bill is killing democratic rights and responsibilities: the democratic rights on the part of the opposition, but the democratic responsibilities on the part of the government. It's demolishing the faith and confidence of the voters.
[ Page 5744 ]
In this House and elsewhere, the Premier said: "Read my lips." The voters have read the lips of the Premier, but they have lost trust in his actions and in the current affairs. How can the Premier expect the people to trust him when he's placing such a major thing as highway building in the care of a Crown corporation? Because of a comment once made by Mr. Williams, surely they would not trust that type of thing being put in his hands. I'm not sure where he made it, but he said: "If you think '72-75 was bad, just wait, my friends." The people of today are frightened about what this government is doing to them, not for them. They are presently demolishing the trust and confidence of British Columbians.
[4:15]
"If that is not enough," says the Premier, "why not take a shot at those British Columbians yet to be born? What's wrong with being born with a mortgage around your neck? What's wrong with saddling future generations with the philosophy of Bob Williams and Ms. Maloney?" It's not democratic, it's demoralizing. But worst of all, it's going to throw British Columbia, young and old, into a state of poverty.
But amid all this, there are also some bright lights. I understand that the clothing designers in British Columbia are now busily working on designing new deep pockets to fit into the new style of clothing. They're quite confident that that particular style of pocket will be with us for some time to come. They're a little worried, however, whether what may be deep enough this year will prove to be deep enough the year after or perhaps even the year after that. If in fact the Premier's statement was "no new taxes," they could get on with the design and sewing of the dresses, pants and whatever. But again, the philosophy that goes with people like Bob Williams and Ms. Maloney is the scary scenario -- indeed, a very scary scenario.
Bill 3 is specifically designed to avoid accountability; but worse -- yes, far worse -- is the fact that the minister is avoiding accountability. We all know where this lack of accountability has led this country, particularly at the federal level. It was during the seventies and early eighties, when the Liberals were in Ottawa, that they also started all kinds of Crown corporations. It was not acceptable to Canadians then, and it's not acceptable to British Columbians today.
When I listen to the backbenchers' statements, the backbenchers seem to be of the opinion that schools, hospitals, court buildings, bridges, highways and practically everything else can be built through a Crown corporation, and only through a Crown corporation. How misleading. If the government backbenchers truly believed what they have said here in the House, they should acknowledge that they have been badly misled by their cabinet colleagues.
I can understand this because the Minister of Finance has not in any way convinced anyone in this House or the people of British Columbia why this move towards a Crown corporation is a better way. Availability of money is not the case; though if it were, then it would be time for the government to come clean and tell us and tell the people of the province exactly why this Crown corporation has to be established. Surely, if in fact it was due to the lack of credit available, then the motion under discussion at the present time would be that much more essential. I believe the general message from the public to all levels of government is not to spend beyond the means available through annual revenues.
If in fact there is no problem to get the additional credit under the normal channels, as has always been done, why then borrow these funds on long-term rather than short-term loans? Anyone in business today knows that long-term financing is more costly than short-term. So why make this move? The minister hasn't even touched on this. This legislation will have no say in the loans and mortgages to be arranged by Bob Williams and company. It's doubtful whether the cabinet will have any say. The minister has not confirmed that there will be any savings at any time with the establishment of this Crown corporation. He has not convinced the members of the opposition parties, and he has not convinced the public. I'm sure that if he tried to explain it to the public, he would probably have a more difficult time than here in the House, because the public is outraged.
I believe that the people of B.C. are quite prepared to forgive and forget when a government or a member of the government or the Premier makes an honest mistake, but failing to admit or participate, as the Premier did last year during the NAFTA discussions, is not easily forgiven, and it's not forgotten. Today in the paper I read an article that says an interim report released on Thursday said that Socred, Liberal and NDP MLAs agree there's a serious concern about the impact of NAFTA. All of the parties were lumped together in that statement, but I can assure you that my fear is not so much for the NAFTA agreement but for the lack shown by the Premier and the government in that process. This government is handing the people of B.C. a blow: more bureaucracy, more taxes and higher fees. Labour and business are now their foes.
D. Symons: Again I rise to speak on Bill 3, and in this third amendment we're asking you to send it to committee. I will speak very strongly in favour of the amendment, because I believe that the committee procedure here in the Legislature is a very good vehicle that has had minimal rather than maximum use. We must look more carefully at using the committee stage in this legislative chamber in order to bring forward legislation that has been thoroughly investigated and adjusted to make it the best possible in Canada. That is not the case at the present time.
If we look back quite a while in British Columbia's history, we may find that one of our previous Premiers, W.A.C. Bennett.... I hate to refer to the Social Credit Party, but one thing I must say is that although a bit of a joke was made of Mr. Bennett because he would often have what was referred to as a second look at something when he found that he'd made a mistake, at least he was man enough to admit that something was wrong and deserved some looking at.
J. Beattie: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. I hardly think the comment about the Premier of the past
[ Page 5745 ]
being man enough to make some decision is an appropriate remark for this chamber. I suspect that that kind of sexism is gone. I think the member should withdraw the remark.
Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member who has his place would withdraw the remark in deference to the hon. member's feelings about it, it would be of great assistance to the Chair.
L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, the member was surely referring to a very historical and credible individual who led this province for a number of years, and was obviously making no reference to any member of this chamber.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. It's been a custom in the House for members to rise if they feel there's been an improper motive attributed to any member or any aspersions cast on any hon. member. It's not a matter which the Chair can rule on other than to ask the member who made the remark to withdraw in deference to the feelings of the member who objects. Would the member consider that matter and therefore withdraw?
D. Symons: Well, I have no problem. I'm just surprised at the member being offended by that particular statement. I would certainly withdraw and simply add that if this person were a large enough person they would recognize that when something needed adjusting they would be willing to look at it and make that adjustment. In that sense, that person would be of a large stature. I would hope that this government, even with their very thin sensibilities, would consider what Mr. Bennett was able and willing to do, and maybe take a bit of a lesson unto themselves.
I have some obvious concerns, and the reasons I have these concerns are the reasons I support bringing this forth to a committee and having a committee look at it. What I see or don't see in Bill 3 is a great deal of accountability. I think that it's extremely important in these times, when the electorate seems to be rather antsy about government and so forth -- calling for recall and this sort of thing -- that we better be very careful that any legislation passed in this chamber is legislation that will bear with it and contain within it the accountability the people of British Columbia are demanding of their legislators. That is not the case with this rather open-ended bit of legislation. This legislation seems to give the government a blank cheque, so to speak, and I think we have to be very careful with the economic climate in the province that we do not allow ourselves to move into the mode of thinking that this is the way government should do it, that it should be done by government and that government is omnipotent and therefore knows what is right for the people of British Columbia. It's not the right move or the right direction to go.
We must also, I think, be considering that this legislation does allow for unlimited borrowing, and I believe the people of British Columbia are going to be concerned about that sort of open-endedness. The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, if it's to be self-financed, needs a close look at how future revenues will pay for the present spending. Again, I do not see that contained in this bill. I do not agree with the Finance minister's remarks in the budget that it's going to be self-financing. That is not the case. The only financing I see built in to the authority is the fact that it will have a 1-cent-per-litre fuel tax in British Columbia, which this year will bring in about $33 million, and in a full taxation year will bring in somewhere around $50 or $60 million. This is not going to be enough to pay for the sorts of promises that this Government seems to be making to the people of British Columbia for the projects that are going to take place -- the highways, construction, the hospitals, the schools, and so forth. Along with that they have another tax on car rentals. But add those two together, and they simply are not going to be enough to carry forth even a small portion of the sorts of projects that the government seems to be implying they're going to be doing -- the way they're going to open British Columbia up to development and all the rest through capital projects once this bill has cleared the House.
[4:30]
Therefore I think that we have to go back and look at this in light of the talk the government is making on the projects they're going to do and in light of what is allowed in the bill, both in the way of borrowing and in the way of paying back that which is borrowed. There is going to have to be a lot more scrutiny made of that, and going to committee would be one place this could be done.
Also under scrutiny, I believe we need built into the bill -- which I don't see here -- disclosure of the projects beforehand. We need to know the costs of these projects beforehand. We need to know the reporting of the revenues that are expected, as the government says, for this to be self-financing. We need to know the spending and the total debt that's going to be done that year. These are not built into it. What we really need -- and I would love to see this here, and certainly in third reading we'll bring in an amendment to this effect -- is an audit by the auditor general of the province.
The only spending authority that does any sort of looking into and auditing of this seems to be Treasury Board, which is really a part of cabinet. In other words, it's going to be hidden within a clique of government cabinet members what authority they're going to have for auditing it and for spending, borrowing and so forth. This is all done by a group of cabinet, or by their chosen representatives on boards. That does not really mean that it's going to have proper authority looking into the auditing of it from a non-self-interest viewpoint. I believe we need that third outside body to take a look at that sort of responsibility of government spending.
There are some very strong advantages to doing a committee study. One of them is that this could, by having a committee look at it, either allay the concerns of the public that there might be something devious, as has been suggested by some members of this House in
[ Page 5746 ]
the bill being brought forward, or it would allow the government to make changes. As I mentioned about Mr. Bennett before, his famous second look would make the bill more accountable and more viable to the public of the province. By going to committee we give the opportunity for public input. It gives the government time to explain what the contentious parts are. This government has said that it's an open government; it wants to be responsible -- freedom of information and all that. What we really have is the opportunity in committee for the government to carry forth those fancy words. They're going to give the public an opportunity to look at the bill, discuss it and bring forth their concerns before it's passed.
This will give the government time to generate public understanding and support for their bill -- if the government really has confidence in its legislation. Maybe this is the important point here: if the government has confidence in its legislation, it would be willing -- no, it would be anxious -- to give the public a chance to examine the bill before it's passed. That would be a very strong motivation for the government to say: "Yes, let's support this amendment; let's support the concept of going to committee." That way we can say: "Here, public, we have a bill that's worthy of your consideration. We have a bill that we can stand behind, and we're going to show you that you should stand behind it too. All that's happening is that this Liberal opposition, in trying to hold it back, is obstructionist. Let's bring it to committee. Let's show up the Liberal opposition for what it is. If they believe we're being obstructionist, let's take it to committee, have that committee look at it and prove that when the opposition members are saying we're wrong, the public will buy this bill. They'll think it's a wonderful piece of legislation." And I'll be willing to eat crow, if that's the case -- if the hon. member doesn't have an objection to that phrase,.
We have an opportunity to hear the public's concern in committee -- if there is one -- over its proposed legislation. It will give the government the opportunity to claim that it's consultative and open. Right now, I'm afraid the opposition fears that the way they're trying to push this bill through, that's not the case. There seems to be non-openness here -- a lack of consultation. I'll get to that point a little later.
We have concerns in the opposition about the apparent desire of the government to rush this bill through. Good legislation is well prepared. Good legislation will stand public scrutiny before it's passed. Good legislation should be valid regardless of which party forms government. Maybe this is something that the hon. members opposite in the government benches would like to consider, because I believe that safeguards should be there to prevent the abuse of power by whichever party may be in power.
Interjection.
D. Symons: I would ask the member over there who is kibitzing me a wee bit to take a bit of consideration here and fancy that the situation were reversed: you were in opposition and Social Credit was government, and they were bringing forth the legislation, Bill 3. Would you be supporting this bill? Would you be willing to live with this bill, with all of its faults and blemishes, when you're in opposition a few years from now and we are in government? Will you think the shortcomings in this bill that we are complaining about today would still be okay when you're in opposition and we have the unlimited power to borrow and spend the future generation's money that's contained in this bill?
I hardly think so, because you would be irresponsible as an opposition if you were not raising these concerns. And you're being equally irresponsible as a government in trying to bring forth a bill with these loopholes and defects in it. It's going to allow this of any government -- not only you, who might be pure as government and say: "We will not abuse the open powers that are given here." You're leaving those powers also to any future governments that may follow you -- and that most likely will follow you. So I have concerns about the faults and defects that are built into this bill, and I think this government, if it were in opposition, would be equally vocal in opposing it.
My concerns are reinforced by comments made by Mr. David McLean of the Vancouver Board of Trade. I'm only too ready to recognize that probably the government members opposite don't consider the Vancouver Board of Trade as one of its friends and insiders. They probably don't go to them too often asking their advice on things. But I think we must remember that the board of trade shares some concerns with the government members. The board of trade shares the concerns that they have been telling us, both before and after they were elected, about the size of the deficit and the debt of this government. Also, the board of trade does have members that have an interest in and expertise in economics and finance, and this government should be willing to listen to them. Nay, it really is incumbent upon the government to listen to people who have some experience and expertise in the field of finance, including the Vancouver Board of Trade.
What did the board say in a newsletter they put out about two weeks ago? They said:
"'The Harcourt government's rush of Bill 3 is irresponsible and unnecessary.... Why are they in such a rush to spend our money?' Bill 3 is represented as being 'self-supporting,' but the money ultimately comes from the taxpayers.... 'What's more worrisome is that there are no safeguards for spending limits or accountability'."
It seems familiar; I think I've been hearing the opposition say something similar.
"'It's an open invitation for fiscal mischief.' Bill 3 is too far-reaching in its implications to be rushed through the Legislature, and the board is therefore calling for a legislative committee to study, review and give full opportunity for public input into Bill 3. 'People deserve to know the truth and to have input into where their tax dollars are going....'"
Further on they bring up some real issues raised by Bill 3:
"Bill 3 will create more bureaucracy, which means additional public sector workers and additional patron-
[ Page 5747 ]
age appointments. What does it do that cannot be done by existing ministries? Generating revenue in creative new ways is just another means of extending taxation. Bill 3 offers no assurance that the funds will be carefully spent, with open competition for contracts. Will it provide more openings for government patronage? Bill 3 appears to be a sleight-of-hand move to remove some expenditures from the government's accounting mainstream, thereby obscuring even further the province's true fiscal picture."
Those are comments from the Vancouver Board of Trade, and I believe that those comments deserve and need serious consideration.
We find also that the board of trade chairman and chief executive officer sent a letter to the hon. Minister of Finance on April 23, in which he said: "In the due course of prebudget consultation, our membership have not recommended anything like Bill 3, and I am not aware of anyone else having recommended it." This government, which claims to be a government that has consultation and listens to the people, obviously does not seek or listen to advice from people who are most qualified to give it. It should weigh heavily upon members of this Legislative Assembly when the government members ignore such groups as that and the advice given by them.
I think what we have to do is compare and contrast Mr. McLean's statements with the remarks made by B.C.'s Finance minister just last week with regard to the federal budget. I'm quoting our Finance minister from an article in the Vancouver Sun on Tuesday, April 27: "'It's kind of a sad legacy of the Conservative administration that they've made no progress in reducing the deficit and no progress in reducing unemployment across the country', Clark told a Vancouver news conference." Further on: "He also expressed disappointment that spending cuts announced in other areas won't occur until two, three or four years down the road -- which he labelled 'classic' for a government facing an imminent election." Well, we may not be facing an imminent election in British Columbia, but we certainly are facing a series of large numbers of people in the province calling for the recall of members of this government. So in a sense we have that issue facing us as well.
What we find here is that the Finance minister is criticizing the federal government for doing some of the very things that it's currently trying to do through Bill 3. Through Bill 3 they're going to be increasing the deficit of the province, and this in a province that already has the fastest-growing deficit in the whole of Canada. The rate of increase in the deficit and debt of this province is greater than in any other province, in spite of what our Finance minister might be telling us to the contrary. Therefore, we have to be careful that we don't criticize the federal government for what we're doing in this province as well.
Bill 3 is really nothing more than a vehicle for hiding a growing deficit, not a shrinking one, as the Minister of Finance would have us believe. It is important that we do ask that this bill go to committee, that we do seek the advice that can be given to us and that we look for input into where this bill can be improved and adjusted in order that it will indeed do what the government claims it will do and yet, at the same time, safeguard the interests of the people of British Columbia.
I would like to go through the bill and just explain where my concerns come in. I got part way through this before, so I won't repeat myself; I'll skip on to the point where I left off before, when the time had run out on me. We find that the Transportation Financing Authority is going to be established, and it will consist of a board of directors made up of the minister and not more than four other members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- in other words, by the cabinet. This, of course, will then mean the added bureaucracy, and so forth, because once you have a board, you're going to have a chairman, you're going to have staff, and you're going to have meetings that are going to generate expenses. All these sorts of things that go along with this added bureaucracy will be built into it.
[4:45]
"The purpose of the authority is to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure throughout British Columbia and to do such other things as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may authorize." As I mentioned the last time I was speaking, these are all things that are already relegated to various ministers of the cabinet, so it seems we're getting a great deal of duplication built into this bill. As I asked then: who's going to be the arbitrator when this new authority differs with the recommendations to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure? What happens when this authority brings up something that's contrary to Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Highways, which also have those authorities vested in them? As I suggested, maybe we'll need another authority put on top to be an arbitrator between the two.
H. Giesbrecht: It's already there.
D. Symons: True, hon. member.
This authority is going to be an agent of the Crown, and it will have all the property of agents of the Crown, and so forth, which I will not read. One thing I do note is that it will acquire property by expropriation or otherwise. It will create subsidiary corporations to carry out the purposes of this act. Indeed, notice it beginning to grow here: the rabbit effect, where you create one and you're suddenly going to have a litter of more -- because it can create more subsidiary corporations to carry out the purposes of this act. It seems that we already have ministries to do that, but they're going to create more subsidiary corporations. It has the power to do that.
Those are pretty powerful words, and a pretty open-ended bit of legislation here. The board that has all this authority must meet at least four times a year. So we seem to be giving this board an unlimited amount of power, but we say: "Well, you only need to meet four times a year." In other words, I rather suspect that we're going to have the backroom boys simply carrying this forward, bringing forth recommendations and so on;
[ Page 5748 ]
they'll be rubber-stamped four times a year. It's not the sort of thing that sounds like responsible, open government to me.
Along with that we have board remuneration. Well, we're going to have more expense. We're simply going to have to pay these people at the rates fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. We might have a few more patronage appointments built in as well. We find that on the recommendation of the minister, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint a person as the chief executive officer of the authority. I can be pretty sure that that "may" will be "will" appoint, and we will have a new high-paid patronage appointment.
"The chief executive officer, to the extent authorized by the board, may appoint officers and employees of the authority necessary to carry on the business and operations of the authority, and may define their duties and determine their remuneration." Indeed, nothing is spelled out. It simply says that we're going to set up a Crown corporation; after we've got it set up, we're going to let it evolve on its own. Like Topsy, it will grow and grow and grow; and the taxpayers of British Columbia will pay and pay and pay.
This is simply not acceptable. It has to be brought to a committee so that we can bring in some safeguards here to protect the people of British Columbia from the possibilities that are built into this misuse of power. Therein is the real reason that this has to go to committee. The bill could be workable, but it must be adjusted so that the open-endedness of it can be well defined and its powers can be limited, and so that the Legislative Assembly here would be responsible for overseeing the authority and for scrutinizing its actions. That is not the case in the way this particular bill is crafted.
We find that all these new employees that are going to be generated out of this -- and I won't read them here -- are in line for all the government benefits, pensions, etc.
Under "Financial administration," it says: "All books or records of account, documents and other financial records must at all times be open for inspection by the minister or a person designated by the minister." Notice that they're open and inspected only by the minister. Where on earth is the freedom of information of Bill 50 brought in in the last legislative session that this government said that they were going to adhere to? Indeed, this is not open; it's open for the inspection of the minister. That's not freedom of information at all. "The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may direct the comptroller general to examine and report to the Treasury Board...." Indeed, we believe that this should be an operation of the auditor general, and not "may" but "must." So there are certainly many things that will have to be corrected in that respect. "The authority must, at the times specified by the minister, submit to Treasury Board for review" -- Treasury Board is simply a creature of the cabinet -- "and approve a business plan with respect to projects to be undertaken by or on behalf of the authority that includes," and then they name the things that I mentioned earlier in my talk that should be taken care of.
What I want to know is: when are these things going to see the light of day? When are they not going to be just hidden in cabinet? When are the revenue expenditures, borrowing and lending proposals going to come before this House? When will they be reported to the auditor general? When will they be public knowledge to the people of British Columbia? When is there going to be a statement of the assets and liabilities? All that this says is that it reports to Treasury Board and that there's going to be a business plan. When will that business plan be made public? Too much of this seems to be hidden from the public eye. Too much of this does not open itself to the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly to which we were elected, to hold the government accountable for its actions.
"The report and financial statement referred to in subsection (7) must be laid before the Legislative Assembly by the minister as soon as practicable." I would like to see that happen yearly.
I mentioned earlier the revenue from gasoline tax. It's going to have the authority to raise revenue from a gasoline tax, and indeed it is currently said that this gasoline tax -- to raise money to make it self-financing -- will be 1 cent per litre. But nowhere in here is it limited to 1 cent per litre. All we can say is that that's what the government is planning to do for this first year. Very soon they will discover that the debt service charge on the money they are going to borrow for carrying out these projects is going to be more than the money generated from a 1-cent-per-litre gasoline fuel tax, or from the money that they are going to get from car rentals. If they are going to pay off any of the money that is borrowed, very soon they are going to have to jack that up to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5 cents per litre to keep their heads above water.
Besides the gasoline tax, under this authority it also has the car revenue tax -- another little thing here called "tolls and charges." In this section they will have the opportunity to levy tolls and taxes. What I find most interesting is that I really do not see a connection between the tolls and taxes that may be, say, put on a restructured Lions Gate Bridge. Would those tolls and taxes be used only for paying down the debt on the Lions Gate Bridge? I see no correlation in here that that would be the case. The people of the North Shore might indeed be paying through tolls and taxes for construction elsewhere in the province. Nowhere do I see -- when it said that they would have the power to raise gasoline taxes in specified areas -- that that gasoline tax that might be raised on Vancouver Island here would also be used as a tax for paying for something somewhere else. There's no real dedication of these funds. From our viewpoint, I think that's another fault or weakness. Maybe the government thinks that's a strength, that it simply gives them the ability to move and shift moneys from one area of the province to another.
But I believe that those sorts of things have to be addressed, and a committee may be the best place that the government could bring this so that these sorts of things can be ironed out, brought before the public, brought before the committee and then brought back to
[ Page 5749 ]
this House in a good, final forum that all members of this House would be pleased to support.
With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you.
H. Giesbrecht: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. Giesbrecht: Listening to the scintillating debate in the gallery is a member from my constituency, Chief Gerald Amos from the Kitamaat band. He's also the chief band councillor of the Haisla. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.
J. Beattie: It's a pleasure for me to rise today. I wasn't intending to speak but, having listened to the opposition's comments over the last three hours, I've been overwhelmed by the complete lack of inertia that seems to be coming from that side. I feel compelled to rise to offer just a few comments.
The Liberal opposition has been spending an awful lot of time talking about democracy. I think the problem the opposition side has at this time is government envy. They fail to recognize that there is a government in this province, a government composed of cabinet ministers who have sworn an oath to the Queen and taken on the responsibility of governing this province. That's a responsibility that the opposition doesn't have. It's a government that has taken this mantle and is going forward. Unfortunately the Liberals squeaked through and got themselves a number of members elected. Somehow they now feel they should be government. They don't understand that government means that you have the responsibility to make decisions, you have the responsibility to take on the authority, which is exactly what this government is doing.
The Liberals have a very restricted vision. Their vision extends to putting things into committee ad infinitum. All we've heard today from the opposition is: wouldn't it be better if they could have the opportunity of vetting this further and further in committees. The fact of the matter is that this issue can be dealt with extremely well in this House. We hear talk from the opposition about ramming this bill through. What on earth are they talking about, ramming a bill through? Do their minds shut off when the sun goes down, pray tell? We can discuss this bill as long as they're willing to discuss it. Some members on the opposite side are trying to glean from your comments some worthwhile statements that we can grasp onto and consider. But from what I've heard today, the fact of the matter is that whether it's in this chamber or in some select standing committee chamber, the comments that are coming forward can be dealt with quite adequately here.
Interjection.
J. Beattie: I hear the member from the north saying he's going to give us some good comments. Well, I look forward to it, because quite frankly so far we've heard very little.
I want to talk about the accountability that this government has within this bill. It's good, I think, for the province and the people of this province that there is some accountability. First, on the expenditure proposals from the special account, I want to say that there are criteria and there are recommendations that must go before Treasury Board and cabinet on proposed funding allocations. Those funding allocations can be questioned during estimates. Unfortunately, this opposition -- not so much the Social Credit opposition, but the Liberal opposition -- is failing abysmally to find out about the true operations of government during estimates, because they can't do their homework. They can't get down to asking the right questions. You could lay it all out on the table and there wouldn't be enough accountability.
The moneys will be paid out of the special accounts, subject to Treasury Board approval. This is the government that was elected. The Treasury Board is made up of cabinet who are accountable, through their oath, to the people of this province. I'm quite confident we don't have to be paralyzed as this opposition would have us be. They would have us continually go to committee to discuss things, instead of having a government that can make decisions. The authority under this bill will be required to submit a business plan, with respect to projects to be undertaken by it, for Treasury Board approval, which must include expenditures, revenues, borrowing plans and related information. To answer the Highways critic from the Liberal opposition, who was wondering when this would come forward, it is very clear that as projects come up, these expenditures and revenues have to be justified at the cabinet level. The money will be transferred. The money can be questioned during estimates. That's the job of the opposition.
I wanted to speak just briefly, and I think I've covered the things I wanted to talk about. When they talk about the extra costs involved in this Build B.C. authority.... That authority will monitor and develop infrastructure across this province, which I think is very important. I'd like to just reflect on those before I sit down. This opposition has very little understanding about the real costs of government. They talk about committees being a way of having accountability. But when they talk about costs, they don't recognize that select standing committees are far more costly than debates that take place in this House, the legitimate forum for looking at questions and raising real issues -- not these bogeyman and paranoia issues. The Liberal opposition has a lack of inertia. It's ridiculous to hear speakers talking about their political agenda, which is really only done to differentiate themselves from the Social Credit -- or vice versa, from the Liberals. They fail to do that, because there is no difference.
In the end, Build B.C. is an initiative to accelerate the construction of very necessary social capital facilities -- something I'm committed to. It's an initiative to mesh the actions of Crown corporations with other development in the province, to make sure that taxpayers' dollars are being spent in a very worthwhile way. The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority will
[ Page 5750 ]
help capitalize projects in a way that many capital projects have been done in this province for years.
I was interested to hear the member for Okanagan West talking about the failure of his government to come in on budget on the Coquihalla connector. He talked about managing a peanut stand. They were $500 million over budget on a circus. The peanuts were for the circus that Social Credit ran with regard to the Coquihalla connector.
I'd like to close by saying that the opposition has been unable to put forward any legitimate arguments during debate.
[5:00]
C. Serwa: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. Perhaps the member would read the commission of inquiry report on the Coquihalla before he carries on and makes misleading statements in this Legislature. I think it's inappropriate to mislead the public on an issue as important as the Coquihalla.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair is not aware of any violation on any matter. However, I appreciate him raising that matter for the hon. member. Please proceed.
J. Beattie: It's really nice to hear the member for Okanagan West talk about misleading the public. The issue of the Coquihalla connector is an important part of this debate, because we're talking about building roads and infrastructure in the interior. Of course his party will benefit from that as well.
The hon. member says that they didn't have a $500 million overrun on the Coquihalla connector. It seems to me that all the audit reports say that they did. So I'd like to know who's misleading the House here. Is the hon. member for Okanagan West saying that they weren't over budget on the Coquihalla connector? If he's saying that, then we should debate that further. Certainly the audit reports say that they were $500 million over.
I'm going to try to sit here and listen to some more remarks from the opposition. Perhaps they'll become more cogent as time goes on. I'm looking forward to the next reading of the bill, when we can get down to the particulars and really find out what's bothering them.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure for me to enter into the debate in support of the amendment to refer Bill 3 to committee. I was extremely impressed when I listened to the last speaker talk about the costs of the committee structure. Two committees have spent a substantial number of dollars going around the province on issues that are already faits accomplis because it was in their political interests to do so. One committee is asking whether or not the 82 percent of the province that voted for recall and initiative really knew what they were voting for. This committee is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars travelling around the province doing something that, in my view, is absolutely useless. The other committee is dealing with the NAFTA agreement. We're spending thousands of dollars travelling around the province trying to give the federal party a little boost in its lack of good fortune -- a lack caused by this government, I might add. They're trying to react in a more positive way, with the dollars of B.C. taxpayers, to their federal counterparts through the committee structure.
If this government is prepared to spend tax dollars on those two frivolous kinds of issues -- issues that are already decided in the minds of British Columbians -- why won't it consider referring something of this magnitude to the committee? I will tell you why. If this issue went to committee, government members would have to stand up in a public arena and justify the spending priorities of the regular budget before they could justify borrowing another $1.5 billion a year to finance away our children's future. They would have to stand up and justify the fair wage policy, the patronage appointments that they've made over the last two years and the contract they just signed with the chairman of B.C Hydro. Those are some of the issues they would have to stand up and justify if this were referred to committee, and they're not prepared to do that. That's why they will never support this going to the committee.
When I looked through some of the quotes and columns in the newspapers, I found one dated April 7 in the Terrace Standard where the member for Skeena suggested that the deficit will help the economy. That's the mind-set. Ontario had that same mind-set two years ago. They have been doing exactly that for the last two budgets, and look what's happening in Ontario now. They're feeling the pinch of the decisions they made, where they were going to spend Ontario out of the recession and into a better economy. Now they have to face the truth that the debt created over the last two years is taking away the flexibility of government to deal with today's social and economic development concerns.
On April 7, in that very same paper, the Minister of Finance defended B.C. 21 by saying that it will also be authorized to borrow money to be paid back over a long period of time, and that it's getting money that would otherwise have gone to the Highways ministry to build highways. That's the point we've been trying to make all along: that B.C. 21 is nothing but a shell company to hide the debt of this province. Every initiative in this book for B.C. 21 can be done by a line ministry. There is nothing new here, other than to hide $1.42 billion in debt this year. That's shameful. If we look at the speech the Finance minister made when he introduced the budget, he very clearly stated that there was only $350 million worth of new money for projects this year -- and the balance came out of last year's operating budget. In other words, this budget this year, instead of $1.5 billion in deficit, is $2.5 billion, with an additional $350 million being borrowed in order to supply this government with enough money that it can spend $3 billion more than what we're collecting, even though we increase the taxes to the public by a billion dollars. That sums up to $4 billion in extra spending. I really believe -- and I've said it before -- that the government that has the courage to develop policies, and take these initiatives through a committee process and allow the public to give input so that when it comes back into this
[ Page 5751 ]
House it has the consensus of British Columbia at heart and the consensus of all the elected individuals at heart. Then that government would stay elected for a long time. But the attitude that this government is showing, and the lack of responsibility that it is showing towards the taxpayers' dollars in this province, will assure this government's defeat in the next go-round.
J. Beattie: You wish.
L. Fox: That member's worst fear is that somehow the bridge is going to be gapped between the Liberals and the Socreds. He knows that if that is ever achieved, he's history; that those members in the back bench are history.
I think the epitome of the understanding was stated in this House the other day in question period, when the minister of no economic development answered a question, by saying: "...anybody laid off in an industry, especially in those industries that are so aggressive, as the automotive industry is.... I'm sure those people will be able to find employment if there's some dislocation." If people stop buying cars, then they'll buy other things. "...retail sales are more than double" -- in this province -- "what they are in the rest of Canada...." That's the kind of policies these people are projecting day after day in this Legislature, that kind of lack of understanding of the importance of those jobs to the economy of the province and to the economy of those communities that they reside in. They do not understand what role business plays in those respective communities. That minister, the Minister of Small Business and -- supposedly -- Economic Development, didn't even have the courtesy to recognize that importance. What faith has small business got in this government when the minister makes those kinds of statements? It's absolutely pathetic.
The right place to go for this legislation is the standing committee. Let's refer it to that standing committee process, and let's go through the priorities of this particular project. Let's go through the mechanisms of reporting. Let's go through all that process and see whether or not there is something there that all of us could feel comfortable with. Why must this government insist on creating this shell company, this shell bureaucratic mess that will be placed there? If I were the Minister of Finance, if I were the Minister of Education, if I were the Minister of Health, I'd be extremely concerned about the autonomy that has been taken away from me as a line minister and placed in the hands of Bob Williams and Ken Georgetti. That's who will be making the decisions under this new Bill 3 -- or bilk 21. It will not be Treasury Board. It will not be the backbenchers, even though each one of them has listed the projects that could happen in their constituencies, and in ours.
[5:15]
We saw evidence today in the Premier's presentation.... After being in small business for most of my working life, and certainly being in sales for a long time, I learned one particular rule: you don't misrepresent the goods you're trying to sell. You lay it out openly and honestly. You sell the goods on the basis of what they really are. Otherwise, it comes back to bite you. People find that the goods they've purchased really are not the goods they were sold. That's what's happening with Bill 3. This government is trying to sell a product that really isn't what they say it is, and it's going to come back to bite them.
The public and the taxpayer are well aware that this government is hiding debt in Build B.C. They're well aware that there is going to be the opportunity to mortgage our future beyond what we can afford, to the point that we will be facing exactly the same problem in two to three years as Ontario is facing today. I think it's quite phenomenal when we look at that situation, and we see the federal party just fired its finance critic because he criticized an NDP government that was seeing the errors of its ways and actually trying to deal with the deficit. This government has the opportunity to do that today. They have the opportunity to do it now. They don't have to wait three years to see the error of their ways. We're telling you right now, right up front, that if you mortgage our future, we are going to fall down the very same path as Ontario. We are going to have difficulty maintaining the public employees and delivering social services, health care and education. Those are realities.
If you put yourself so far in debt that your debt services take up as much of the budget as in Ontario, you can no longer, because of a lack of ability to pay, meet the requirements of the day-to-day government. All you have to do is look at our budget documents over the last two years. Two years ago our debt services were $600 million. This year our debt services are $1 billion. That's an increase of $400 million in two years in debt services. This is going to increase that substantially. Next year we will be looking at $1.4 billion or $1.5 billion in debt services. We're fortunate right now in that interest rates are very low. What would happen if we saw the interest rates that we had in the early eighties, when interest rates for the government got up to 16 percent and 17 percent? We would literally go broke overnight with this kind of policy.
The member from Penticton across the way talked about the Coquihalla. I wasn't here when the Coquihalla discussions were taking place, but I'm aware of one thing...
An Hon. Member: Neither was he.
L. Fox: Yes, that's a good point -- and neither was the member.
...that's very important and very different from this bill. It was negotiated and debated right here in the Legislature. Each one of the members of that day had the opportunity to join in the debate on that extra expenditure in order to speed up construction so that it could accommodate Expo 86. Bill 3 does not allow that opportunity. Those priority decisions will be made by the minister, by Treasury Board and by some political hacks who were appointed by this government.
J. Beattie: Duly elected people.
[ Page 5752 ]
L. Fox: Duly elected people. Hon. Speaker, that member should do his homework. Even his government, which he likes to claim was duly elected, is a government by default. They didn't win the majority of this province.
Interjection.
L. Fox: This government was elected....
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. We are on the amendment to Bill 3, and if the member would keep that in mind, it would be most helpful.
The hon. member for Okanagan West rises on a point of order.
C. Serwa: I know that the member was making a point, that he was just elaborating on it and that he will be getting to his point.
L. Fox: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for reminding me that we are speaking to the amendment. Certainly I'm speaking in favour of the amendment, and part of the process was to try to point out the government's shortcomings, and why the government should support the amendment. In fact, the amendment would show that they really do want to involve the public in their decisions.
The other day in Health estimates, when I asked why there was no public process involving the closure of Shaughnessy, the minister suggested to me that the decision had been made and that it would have been a useless process to go through a public hearing. This is just the opposite. Although the decision has been made, I think this government could gain a lot by referring this to the standing committee. It could gain a whole lot of understanding as to what the real wishes of the public are.
I'll be the first member to tell you, as I'm sure all opposition members will, that if the government creates this pie there will certainly be people from my riding who will want me to ask for it. They know full well that once the pie is created, they as taxpayers are going to be paying for it. So if they're going to be paying for it, they'll say: "Why shouldn't we at least have some of that benefit?" In saying that, it doesn't mean that they endorse the process. In fact, the opposite is true. All they are saying is that if they're going to have to pay for it, they might as well reap the benefits.
It's not only the taxpayer today that's going to pay for this; the taxpayer of the future is going to pay for this. That member from Pencticton's children and my children from Vanderhoof are going to end up paying the burden.
Interjection.
L. Fox: There you go. That member says: "That's the way it's always been." Well, it hasn't always been that way. In fact, those projects that are asked for under B.C. 21 have been paid for in cash through the operating budget in the line ministries....
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton has had his opportunity to speak in the debate, and I would urge the member to permit the member for Prince George-Omineca to complete his. Thank you, hon. members.
L. Fox: I always welcome interjections. It makes the debate a little more lively, and it certainly helps me to spin off the remarks.
There's no question that we have, up to this point in time in British Columbia, built roads, hospitals, courthouses and schools. We did all those good things out there out of the operating budget. True, there have been some deficits in years gone by. If you look from 1986 through 1990, you will see that those deficits were paid down -- in fact, decreased every year until 1991. All you have to do to find that out, hon. member, is look at the auditor general's report. That in fact happened.
This particular bill is going to compound our debt problem, compound our ability to pay and compound our ability to deliver the social services that this government asks for and stands up and speaks for every day. It compounds the ability of the Education minister to meet the needs of education, and compounds the ability of the Ministry of Health to meet health needs. It's going to compound our development. And once more it's going to reduce the opportunity to create jobs in British Columbia, not increase the opportunity, because as the debt comes due, this government is going to have to raise taxes, and as we raise taxes, we reduce investment opportunities and put ourselves in a non-competitive position in the global market.
Those kinds of things will come home to roost. I really hope that this government will see the light of day and allow this to be referred to the standing committee.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to rise again and continue debate of Bill 3, Build B.C., Bilk B.C. or B.C. 21 -- whatever name you want to call it, it's a mess -- on the amendment that would refer this to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services.
It would be only logical, if logic prevailed on the part of government, to put this bill into this committee to allow the people of British Columbia to get involved in it. This bill is going to really involve them, and it's about time they got involved, because it is going to cost and cost and cost them. This bill is going to be a true ripoff of the taxpayers of British Columbia, as well as our children and our children's children. And so it will carry on, because it's open-ended. It gives no control and accountability to the people of British Columbia or this Legislature. All control is in the hands of the dictatorial Minister of Finance. Even the committee structure is in his hands. He may not even have to appoint a committee, because this legislation does not require him to do so.
This province is getting into a worsening financial quagmire. That really shows up when we read the latest
[ Page 5753 ]
auditor general's report, in which he states that the expenditures for the last five years for health, education and social services combined have, on average, accounted for 64.8 percent of the total expenditure of the province. He has noted in his latest report that health costs have increased from $4.1 billion in '88 to $5.6 billion in '92, an increase of $1.5 billion or 36.6 percent over the past five years. Education costs in British Columbia have gone up from $2.7 billion in '88 to $4.5 billion in 1992, an increase of $1.8 billion or 66.7 percent over the past five years. Costs of social services have increased from $1.3 billion in 1988 to $2 billion in 1992, an increase of $700 million or 53.8 percent over the past five years. In that five years the population of British Columbia has only increased by 11 percent, from 2.98 million to 3.31 million, and its gross domestic product has grown by 32.6 percent, from $62 million to $83 million.
The reason we're talking about this is that the taxpayers of British Columbia are having to pick up those bills, and their indebtedness is increasing at atrocious rates. Indebtedness has gone up for the province of British Columbia. In 1990 in the Minister of Finance's report the actual debt was $16.2 billion, and for next year it is projected to be $26.379 billion. That's a lot of money.
H. Lali: Could you repeat that?
K. Jones: It's $26.379 billion. The member would like to hear it again. He obviously wasn't listening before. He has to have things repeated sometimes. Perhaps that's just an indication of the lack of attention on the part of the government.
Deputy Speaker: Please address the Chair. We are on the amendment.
K. Jones: I am speaking to the amendment. I just want to make sure the member was clear about the debt that the Minister of Finance is declaring for this province -- not including anything that can be presented through this vehicle, Bill 3, which will add to that indebtedness without the accountability of even this information that we have through the budget process.
[5:30]
The government really wants to take the people of British Columbia to the cleaners. They want to make sure that every red cent we've got or anything we work to develop as an asset is stripped away so that they can spend it on whatever they feel like. They have no process of accountability, and no intention of a process of accountability, because in this bill they specifically prevent accountability with the sections that prevent the public from knowing what's in the books. It says that all the books or records of account, documents and other financial records must at all times be open for inspection -- not to the people of British Columbia or this Legislature, but only to the Minister of Finance or someone he personally designates. That's total control. On top of that, it says in the next clause: "The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may direct" -- and the emphasis is on "may" -- "the comptroller general to examine and report to the Treasury Board on any or all of the financial and accounting operations of the authority." Normally, the comptroller general is the watchdog of government and has the ability, not on the basis of the Minister of Finance's wishes.... By this "may" in here, the Minister of Finance can block the comptroller general from doing any investigation into this Crown corporation or this whole series of organizations that's created under Bill 3. The comptroller general will not be able to investigate or pull an audit, as he has the authority under regular ministries to do. This bill could be accommodated within the regular line ministries of this government, but they would be a little bit too open for this government's wishes. They would have to be accountable. They would have to prove before they spent our money what they were going to spend it on and why.
We want value for our money. The people of British Columbia are saying: "We are fed up with not having value for our money. We're fed up with having the money just squandered by governments." This government has gone further than any previous British Columbia government to put this province into debt, with a continuing deficit. Instead, they were given a very marginal mandate to represent the people of British Columbia on the promise that they would not spend money they didn't have. Now in one of the early bills they bring forward, they want to put in the authority to give them a carte blanche Visa card, a Visa card that is wide open -- without any charge limit, without us even seeing the bills. We can't even look at what the charges are. They want us to trust them. Well, I'm afraid I don't trust them. I don't trust this government to do anything, because they have broken their promises. They have broken practically every promise they made to the electorate.
They promised not to give jobs to friends and insiders. They turned around without a moment's hesitation and completely outdid the previous government. The previous government had been criticized for that by the present government in opposition, but they turned around and outdid them. They have more friends and insiders that are now running the government, more appointments in plum positions with open-ended paycheques, with severance payments and contracts that go beyond even the extent of this government's mandate. They're going on for six and seven years. This government has a limit of five years, yet the government is giving contracts to people that keep them in power and in positions of control. They've got beautiful severance contracts to go along with that too. If I have a say in what happens to those people who are appointed by orders-in-council in the future when we become government, my feeling is: we'll see you in court before we'll make those payments. Those payments were done on a usurious basis and should never be considered in the future. I think that this government is not to be trusted. It's trying to put its power into the whole system of government and keep it there even when they're not in power, after they're thrown out at the next election by a
[ Page 5754 ]
public that is so angry with them today that they'd love to recall them. If they had the opportunity to recall, they would have them recalled today.
We have a continuous litany of disaster in this bill. It's shameful that any bill could be brought to this Legislature with so little forethought for the interests of democracy or the province of British Columbia. Perhaps that was done by design; perhaps this was brought forward with a lot of forethought. Perhaps the whole purpose of this government is to make this bill the cornerstone of their operations for the future. Under this bill, in part 2, we're creating a Committee on Building British Columbia's Future. I thought that was the responsibility of our government. How is that responsibility of government being designated to a private little club operated totally by the Minister of Finance? I almost said the Premier, because he often relates to being the Premier. It's hard to tell who is the Premier; I wish the real Premier would stand up and take his position, because it's evident that the Minister of Finance is the true Premier. Even the elected Premier has to check with him to find out the answers to questions that are offered by the official opposition. It's really a sad case we've got here. Everything is coming under this Finance minister's control in this bill. This committee will provide advice to the executive council. The executive council is the cabinet; they are supposed to be governing. I don't know why they need outside advice other than the committees they've already got coming to them from the various ministries and all of the high-paid staff that they have within those ministries who are advising this government on how to run this province. I don't know why they have to have another committee made up of their friends. Maybe that's it: maybe there isn't enough control yet, so they need this special committee to advise the executive council with respect to appropriate economic, regional, sectoral, equity, employment and training goals for government spending. All of these are detailed right here in this bill; all of these are the direction and intention of this bill.
What's the point of having all the line ministries? We might as well collapse the line ministries and operate with this family compact, this committee of the Minister of Finance, which is going to run everything, because every aspect of government is detailed here as being their responsibility to advise the government on. They are going to develop criteria for reviewing, monitoring and evaluating expenditures from the special account. They are going to create a special account so that we can spend more of our money and provide the whole basis for operating outside of the normal monitoring, reviewing and evaluating process that we have within the line ministries, because they are not to be trusted. This bill says to every ministry staff person in this province that they cannot be trusted to do their job.
Hon. Speaker, I think it's a shame to this House and upon this government that they can put this type of legislation in and condemn the line ministries that have done yeoman's service over the years -- outstanding work, talented people. Yet here they're saying that they need somebody else to monitor them, to bring forward a review to evaluate the expenditures. We're going to put money into separate funds so that we don't have to go through the line ministries. We're going to review expenditure proposals for this special account on the basis of criteria developed in another section and make recommendations to the Treasury Board on proposed spending allocations. They're going to be telling the Treasury Board how to spend this money. This committee is sure getting to be very powerful. They're also going to develop new initiatives that fulfil the purposes of this act. That could be anything. They could create new Crown corporations, new ministries, extra indebtedness; they could create their own government completely separate from the present government. It's wide open.
This is totally unacceptable to us in the opposition. This is not what we call a democratic bill. In fact, it's a farce for these people to call themselves democrats. Everything they've done throughout the last year and into this session shows their inability to even understand the words "democrat" and "democracy." They are autocratic, dictatorial and power hungry. They are attempting to take control of everything that the taxpayers in this province build up in the way of their hard-earned money so that they can control. This NDP government knows better than the rest of the people in this province as to how they should spend their money. If we continue much longer with this government, we're going to need very deep pockets. They're going to be reaching in for that last penny at the very bottom, even with a vacuum, I think, because they want to take it out that much quicker. This legislation is totally unacceptable to anybody who is at all concerned about the direction of their country and their province.
[5:45]
We have to make sure -- under the guise of providing a vehicle for the Highways department, and sometimes they talk about building hospitals and schools -- that this bill is going to be necessary. But when we talk to the Minister of Education, she denies that this bill will be used for Education; she doesn't need it. She's got her process within government under the Education financial authorities to provide for the capital funding she needs. The Minister of Highways has a process whereby he also can raise funds. The Minister of Health has a vehicle for raising funds for capital health care facilities. So why this bill?
There is something rather suspicious about this bill, because not only is this kind of legislation brought forward, the Government House Leader is trying to cram this bill through. He's trying to force it through done more quickly for some reason. We don't know why he wants it so quickly, because he won't tell us. He's very upset with the official opposition taking the time to discuss this so that the public can have an opportunity to know what this bill is about. We in the official opposition have worked continuously to try and bring the message to the people of British Columbia.
With the amendment that we've brought forward to take this into committee, it would give the opportunity for this committee to take the message out to the province and allow the people to know what's in this bill and to have their say, to bring forward their
[ Page 5755 ]
opposition. They might even give a few plaudits for some aspects of this bill. I'm willing to take that chance as a member of the official opposition. But I don't see this government prepared to even give the public a say in what this bill will mean to them. This government of secrecy, this government that claimed openness and spends its time in secrecy, tries to bury everything. It tries to slip bills through under different labels to make their agenda, like the Forestry Act amendments that were brought through under Bill 2 that we just finished. There are very major changes being slipped through -- or that they are attempting to slip through.
This government really gives me the feeling that there is something sleazy going on; that it is not in the direction or in the best interests of the people of British Columbia but that there is some hidden agenda that is really going to be unfolding in the near future. The people of British Columbia are probably going to have one of the worst nightmares in history when they find out the real purpose and intentions of this government. Even the backbenchers aren't informed of what's going on. They're kept in the dark. The backbenchers are totally used as puppets, as cannon fodder for the government, with the ability to do nothing else.
This section 4 that talks about the B.C Transportation Financing Authority, which is supposed to be for building highways, is really concerning me because it's rather broad in its scope. It's headed by a minister who is the chairman of the board. It has the ability to acquire.... What really bothers a lot of people is this ability to acquire, particularly in the clauses that describe its powers. It says that the authority may for the purposes of this act "plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure." That doesn't just mean highways. All of that power is in the capacity of the Ministry of Highways at the present time. But it also has the power to acquire property -- not by the usual method of purchasing, as most people would expect, but by expropriation. I think most people know that expropriation means that the government can come along and take it.
Then the rest of the clause is: "or otherwise." That's the part that scares a lot of people. "Otherwise" could be anything. It could even be to the point of just taking it. I think that's called theft or stealing, but that's allowed, because this is the government. This is a government-made bill, an NDP-government-made bill. This government is standing by and defending this bill. They have stood up on a series of votes here, stating that they will continue to....
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. I think the hon. member realizes that references to "stealing" are clearly unparliamentary, even in the instance where you are speaking of the government as a whole rather than an individual. I would ask the member to rephrase his statements.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I'm just putting a definition to the words that are in this bill. I'm not speaking of any individual member of this House, but it is a description that is laid here....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, order. The Chair was making reference to the term "stealing," regardless of whom you were referring it to. In this House it is an unparliamentary expression. Would the hon. member simply withdraw and proceed.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, it's with great reluctance that I would even consider that, because it is descriptive of the function that is in this bill.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member should understand that under the standing orders, when there is a question of unparliamentary language, it has always been the practice for members to withdraw unconditionally. That is not a debatable matter. Would the hon. member please withdraw.
K. Jones: I will with great reluctance withdraw that statement, but it is very much with reluctance.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.
K. Jones: We have a bill here that the province of British Columbia could best do without, but this government insists on bringing it through the many processes where the opposition has attempted to modify it and set it aside to give the people of British Columbia an opportunity to be aware of the draconian steps that are being taken in it. As a result, we have asked in this amendment to have it referred to committee so that the committee can go through its processes and this bill can be shown for the sleaze that it presents to this House, and is no....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, again, the expression "sleaze" is clearly unparliamentary. I'm sure the member must realize that. Would the member please withdraw the reference to sleaze.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I'm not questioning your authority in regard to this, but it's a word that's been used in this House previously....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, that may well be the case, but this is not a debate on what may have passed the Speaker's attention in the past. It is clearly an unparliamentary expression, and we're dealing with the here and now. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression "sleaze."
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, with great reluctance I will withdraw a word that I found to be very appropriate in....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, it's not your option to express reservations. The standing orders are clear; tradition in the House is clear. Unparliamentary language is simply withdrawn without debate and without reservation. These are the rules by which the Legislature has operated for some time, and I would ask the member to withdraw.
[ Page 5756 ]
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, with reluctance, I withdraw.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the withdrawal has to be made without reservation -- not with a preamble. Would the hon. member simply withdraw the remark.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I withdraw.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until later today.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?
Hon. M. Sihota: Next sitting, hon. Speaker.
I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned for five minutes.
A. Warnke: Point of order, hon. Speaker. Since the Government House Leader did say the next sitting, could the Government House Leader qualify whether Committee A will meet in five minutes or tomorrow?
Hon. M. Sihota: I will clarify that, hon. Speaker. Committee A will not be sitting tonight; it will sit tomorrow. The purpose for moving the motion is to allow for continuation of this debate, as agreed to by the parties.
Deputy Speaker: The motion is that the House stands adjourned for five minutes.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:08 p.m.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading debate on Bill 3, debate, I am sure, which will be short, concise and to the point.
BUILD BC ACT
(continued)
On the amendment (continued).
H. Giesbrecht: After the previous speaker's inspired oration, I felt compelled -- I guess the proper word is "moved" -- to get up and say a few things. I am reluctant to do so, because it would be very unseemly for me to get up and filibuster the government's own bill. But I think it's important to mention to anybody who might be watching that in this House I have probably heard, by rough count, at least fifty speeches of half-hour duration in the last little while, all on the same bill. We've debated a portion of second reading, we've debated a six-month hoist and everybody has spoken to that, and now we have an unreasoned amendment. And we've been debating that ad nauseam.
By now most of the members on the opposite side have spoken at least three times on each one of these. It's interesting to note that I have heard much the same rhetoric in all of the speeches -- the same vacuous nonsense, the same incorrect conclusions drawn from what's in the bill and repeated over and over again, in the hope that somehow that might be believable.
I would have thought by now that there would be a great hue and cry out there for some kind of public consultation process; for us to get out on the streets, talk about this bill and get public input. I would have thought that by now people would be writing me letters saying: "Please don't pass Bill 3." I would have thought that by now there would have been letters saying: "Please don't build any more highways, schools, courthouses or hospitals. Please don't pass Bill 3, or the Build BC Act."
I wonder how many letters they have received on this particular bill. Perhaps that would be one of the questions I would ask as I'm sitting here listening to this repetition over and over again -- probably more than 50 speeches, all saying the same stuff, over and over again.
They would have you believe that they've received thousands of letters, and that the public is clamouring for us not to pass this bill. The world will collapse, free enterprise as we know it will disappear if we pass Bill 3.
Interjection.
H. Giesbrecht: The hon. member mentions it is debt borrowing -- borrowing to construct schools, to construct hospitals and highways. I want to briefly point out that the precedent was set back in 1986 by the then third party, when they were in government, in something called the Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act. They set the precedent for borrowing, and yet they sit here and talk about borrowing as somehow being something very nasty. So it's only a matter of degree; it's only when someone else does it that they get concerned. They also should understand that eight out of their ten budgets were in deficit. Now if that's not borrowing, what is? So it can't really be borrowing. After all, I remember reading newspaper reports that in 1991 the provincial debt was somewhere in the range of $18 billion or $19 billion. So it can't be a hang-up about borrowing.
The Speaker: A point of order has been raised. The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.
L. Fox: As is the custom in the House, at least on occasion the member could refer to the amendment that is before him for discussion.
The Speaker: I'm confident that the member was just about to do that.
[ Page 5757 ]
H. Giesbrecht: I've listened to at least 50 speeches on borrowing, and I thought I was talking borrowing and how it related to the unreasoned amendment. But I'm debating the amendment, and I'll try to get back to it.
The opposition seems to be very concerned about us mortgaging our children's future. I thought it was a little like saying to one of my kids: "I'm not going to borrow to send you to college, because I don't want to mortgage your future." It's a little bit like that.
L. Fox: That's called an investment.
H. Giesbrecht: That's exactly what Bill 3 is -- an investment in the future. I would ask the opposition: How are our children served if we don't provide the services necessary to get them into the future, or to let them participate in the future? How is their future served by learning in portables? How is their future served by not enough colleges? I think the issue of borrowing is a kind of smokescreen that fits into the philosophy of the opposition, and I guess we'll hear about that in the next few speeches as well.
The other issue has to do with this paranoia about accountability. "There isn't going to be enough accountability; there's a sinister plot here to somehow circumvent all of the regulations and accountability in this House." What nonsense! Don't they try to hold the government accountable for ICBC? Good heavens, the members opposite have even pilloried some poor employee that was working for ICBC. It got down to that level. Don't they try to hold the government accountable for what happens in B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro? Of course they do, and they could do exactly the same with this other organization. I said in one of my earlier comments that it must be a kind of admission of incompetence from the opposition. They just don't think they can do it as an opposition. I sometimes wonder why they're not demanding an abolition of all the other Crown corporations that we have in B.C. If they were consistent, then that's exactly what they should do.
[6:15]
I said I was reluctant to speak, because I don't want to delay the passage of this bill. I'm going to let the opposition do that for the next little while. But when my constituents come to the Legislature and they comment on how green the lawns are, I tell them that it's the opposition out there practising their speeches -- and the lawns are very green these days.
The Speaker: On the amendment, the member for Peace River North.
R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Actually, I'm pleased to see you're back in the House, because just earlier before we broke, it was getting a little tight with some of the speeches and with the other Speaker there. Maybe you'll allow a little more latitude, as I saw given the member for Skeena to the members of the opposition.
I speak in favour of the amendment. It's interesting to listen to two members of the back bench get up and speak to the bill today, the one for Penticton and the one for Skeena. Both of them talked incessantly about the Coquihalla. That highway was built in the mid-eighties, 1985, and at the time those highways were being built, the difference between what's happening now and what was happening then is that now the government wants to set up a Crown corporation to borrow money to build those highways. Before, even if there were some deficits in those years, the government of the day was building those highways out of the operating budget of the government. That's the absolute difference between then and now.
When they say that the opposition hasn't caught on, I don't think they've caught on. When we think about Bill 3 and Build B.C., the public harkens back to the election campaign and to the Premier saying "Not a penny more than you can afford" and "If we don't have it we don't spend it." Maybe the people aren't out in thousands and thousands beating down the doors of politicians, saying: "We don't like Bill 3. We shouldn't have Build B.C." But what they are saying quietly on the streets -- to me anyhow, and I think to many of my colleagues, the official opposition and the third party members -- is: "Enough is enough is enough." People are saying they cannot stand any more taxes. That should be plain and clear. It should be very easy to understand. I can understand it. Why can't the government understand it?
It's all a shell game, as my colleague said. It's a shell game moving it from one area to the other, and it's being less than honest with the people out there. When we think about the election campaign and the open and honest attitude that this government said they were going to present, they blew that within about six months. Maybe that's why the taxpayers of British Columbia are apathetic about this government and all governments. They're tired of it, and they don't want to say too much. They say it in quiet circles. They say: "Yes, that government will answer." It will answer to the taxpayers, because it's the taxpayers who are going to pay the bill.
The back-bench members from the NDP get up and talk about the Coquihalla and how this should justify Build B.C. According to their numbers, there was a $500 million overrun on the Coquihalla, so now we can justify borrowing all money for future construction of highways in B.C. That's absolutely ridiculous. Just because Johnny did it, I'm going to do it. The taxpayers of B.C., the people who pay the bill, are saying: "No. Just because Johnny did it doesn't mean you can do it." This government is the one that said "Not a penny more than you can afford" or "If we don't have it we won't spend it." This government is being less than honest with the people in B.C. when they try to shuffle operating debt into long-term debt. That's exactly what they're doing. They're saying that because it happened before, because there were deficits before, we can continue this. We'll just get our operating deficit down by turning it into long-term debt.
The only one of the government members that I can say is truly honest, other than the member who sits down in the corner there.... I can't remember where he's from; Parksville-Qualicum, I believe it is. Before the
[ Page 5758 ]
election that member was one of the more honest ones when he said: "If you elect us and we live out the promises that we've made, it's going to cost you more money." That was in direct opposition to what the now Premier was saying. That's what people in British Columbia are upset about. They know we need infrastructure, they know we need roads, but they don't like the way it's happening. The minister of no economic development, as my colleague calls him, stood in the House and said that they have reduced the operating deficit. They are going to deny investment in this province. He said that if we reduce the operating deficit, then we have the ability to pay off long-term debt. I'm not exactly sure what the minister means, because I can't imagine that a government like the one that's in power now would ever think about paying off any long-term debt. They're talking about reducing the operating deficit, but they brought it on themselves. I'm not going to deny that there was a deficit when they came to power in October of 1991. There was less than $2 billion in a deficit position, if I remember correctly.
H. Lali: A $20 billion debt. Just say it.
R. Neufeld: The member over there wants me to say it. I think it was about $1.7 billion, according to the auditor general.
Interjections.
R. Neufeld: There was a $1.7 billion deficit when this government came to power. They've increased taxation by almost $1 billion each year in two successive budgets, yet they've tabled the largest deficit -- over $2 billion -- in British Columbia's history. This year they are tabling one that is $1.5 billion.
The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet.
H. Lali: I would like to mention to the member opposite that we're debating the amendment to this bill, and maybe from time to time he would like to stick to that topic while he is speaking.
The Speaker: Members have been reminded from time to time. But for the benefit of all the members, we are debating an amendment that the subject matter of Bill 3 be referred to a select standing committee. I'm sure the member who has the floor will address that.
R. Neufeld: Yes, thank you, hon. Speaker. That's exactly what I'm addressing. I mentioned it a while back, but it's typical of that member over there. He doesn't listen, so it's no wonder that he didn't hear me talk about it.
We are talking about the amendment to take Bill 3 to a standing committee. We should toast it, burn it, turf it and do whatever we have to do with it, but we should not pass it here. Each one of us should be responsible for doing that, not just the official opposition and the Social Credit Party. It should be the NDP. If they are answering their telephone calls, and if they had the courage to walk out on the streets in their own communities and talk to people other than their own party members, they would find out that people do not want more taxes.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: That's exactly what they're saying. The member talked about how many letters we're getting. I'm not getting thousands of letters, but I'm getting all kinds of phone calls. When I'm out on the street, many people who didn't vote Social Credit and maybe didn't vote Liberal tell me that they are tired of debt. All this government can table in this House is debt.
We listened to the Minister of Finance talk about how British Columbia is in such a great position, because we have the lowest per capita debt of any province in Canada at this time. There's nothing wrong with that. Why can't we stay there? The same Finance minister has increased the total debt for the province by about 30 percent to 35 percent in two years -- 33 percent, to be exact, and we still have the lowest per capita debt of any province in Canada. Can you imagine where we would be today if the Social Credit government had not kept debt down? We still have the lowest per capita debt of any province in Canada, even though this NDP government has increased it by 33 percent in two years -- absolutely amazing. I guess they think that you just go out in the back yard and pick a few more pears off a pear tree and bring them back in the House and spend them.
Hon. Speaker, that doesn't work. To talk about the Coquihalla -- and that's the justification for Build B.C. -- and that we don't want any hospitals and we don't want any libraries; in fact to even talk about building libraries, fire halls, hospitals.... All that type of borrowing is already in place in the budget by lending agencies and has been there for a long time. We're not talking about building hospitals here. That's the fallacy; that's what's not true; that's what the government is not saying. Why don't they quit talking about: "Oh, we don't want hospitals and we don't want fire halls and we don't want schools." That's absolutely ridiculous. There's not one of us who doesn't want those things, and there's not one of us who doesn't know that we need them. But those financing authorities are already in place. We don't need another Crown corporation, that has a whole bunch of patronage appointments to it, to borrow that money. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Build B.C. is there for one purpose: to take deficit financing out of the operating budget and put it into long-term debt and relieve the Highways ministry of a whole bunch of its responsibilities. The member talked a while ago about education borrowing. That's funded through property taxes. In fact, that's how the debt is paid off: under the education financing authority. It's not true, as this government says, that they have to put into place 1 cent a litre on gasoline and diesel fuel and $1.50 per car rental. That's what's going to fund almost $1.5 billion worth of expenditures? That's absolutely ridiculous. We already have in place 10 cents a litre on
[ Page 5759 ]
gasoline. We have licence fees that are supposed to go to capital construction; that's what they were designed for.
If the government was realistic about wanting to set up another Crown corporation, then they should take that whole 10 cents that was there before and the 1 cent that they're adding and put that into revenue for the Crown corporation to pay off the debt. But it should only spend that money that it raises, not borrow money, because we continue to borrow and we continue to borrow. We all know what's happening federally. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we're in trouble. In fact, the IMF is telling us that we're in trouble; it's telling provinces and it's telling the Canadian government to get their debts in line. Even Bob Rae is catching on. That's how serious it is. But this government won't listen.
[6:30]
I'm glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture just entered the House. I don't mean that negatively. I'm sorry. I welcome him here. It's good to see a smiling face in the House. I should say something nice about him, because I watched him on TV the other night talking about mining, and it was quite interesting.
But that member has stood up many times and spoken against a road tax -- until he got elected; until he was appointed to that executive council. Then all of a sudden he's mum about it. He's quiet. He doesn't want to say anything, because he doesn't want to upset the applecart. Can you imagine?
Hon. B. Barlee: It's not a road tax; it's a gas tax.
R. Neufeld: He doesn't like road taxes, but when he gets in the executive council, it's fine to add more to it and to create more Crown corporations.
Hon. Speaker, I also noted that one of the members mentioned eight out of ten budgets tabled by the Social Credit Party being in a deficit position. That means two of those were in a surplus position. If we go to the NDP record, we find three in a deficit position from 1972-75, and two so far. They're five out of five in a deficit, and people should remember that. When you go around and talk to people in British Columbia, they know what this government is all about: it's tax and spend. If anybody can tax and spend, it's the NDP government. They've proved it time and time again.
Let's get back to the amendment. I don't want to cause another point of order. I'm speaking in favour of the amendment to send it off to a committee. When we look at the bill, we see that silviculture has been mentioned. This is supposed to be a job-creation program, I'm not exactly sure. But a few hundred million dollars.... They talk about doing silviculture out of Build B.C. Yet when we go to the Forestry budget, we find that this past year there is about a $220-million or so increase in revenue from forestry. I still can't understand, and neither can a lot of people, why the money coming out of that industry -- silviculture, forestry -- isn't used for planting trees or job creation. Why don't we use that money? No, what we do is take that into the operating budget and spend it on something else.
What's also happened in the main budget is that they've cut the Highways ministry budget by over $200 million in two years. That money, even more than that, should have been destined to build highways. This government is on a road to setting up another Crown corporation -- as if we don't have enough already. We have the systems in place through the line ministries to carry on life just as normal. The systems are there to meet the needs of the people of British Columbia by what they can afford to pay.
It's not that government, it's not those people and it's not us. We pay our share, as every other British Columbian does. They should be more concerned about the average British Columbian. They talk about 25 percent or 27 percent receiving a cut in taxes, but what about the others? What about the other 70 or so percent? What did they receive? They got an increase -- because somebody has to pay for this stuff.
You see increases in fees that are astronomical, absolutely ridiculous. Ambulance fees do not fit into what we're discussing tonight, but they do play a part. They were $144. They're now $450. They say they're not increasing the taxation on people, yet they keep raising and raising it. How can you say that's not increasing taxation? To subdivide a little piece of land off your farmland just went up about 400 percent, and that should be noticed by the Minister of Agriculture. It went from about $125 to over $400. Where are they getting their money? Through the back door.
They're still spending too much of it on the operating budget, obvious by the increase in the Social Services budget of $900 million over two years. I'm not going to say some of that wasn't warranted. But it's absolutely ridiculous to increase spending in the Social Services budget by a billion dollars in two years. That's an awful lot of money. It's no wonder that the wealth-generating ministries have all been cut. There's no wonder that the opposition has no choice other than to speak against Bill 3, and in favour of taking it to a committee. It's been said that members of the opposition, both parties, are delaying the bill. You're right, we are; right on the money. That's the only thing that government over there has caught on to. They haven't caught on to the fact that people don't want more taxes. They haven't caught on to the fact that people don't want more government intervention in their life. They haven't caught on to a lot of those things happening out on the streets in British Columbia. They should go to their coffee shops and talk to people. People will tell them -- and it doesn't matter whether they're Liberals, Conservatives, Social Crediters, NDPers, Reformers or with any political party, but they come out and vote -- they're telling this government: "No more taxes."
There is no way I can support Bill 3. Although it will come to pass -- and we know that because of the way our democracy works it will happen -- I hope they don't do as some members have talked about and only spend the money in their own collective little areas, but that they spread it across B.C. as they promised. It will be very interesting to see, because all the members in the back bench who've got up and spoke -- I don't know if maybe not enough of them know about the bill, but not a lot of them have got up and spoke about it --
[ Page 5760 ]
they all say: "Don't you want any development in your area?" Well, of course we all want development in our area. It's just the way it's happening that we don't agree with.
An Hon. Member: You can do it.
R. Neufeld: That's the difference. It's obvious that we've been out in the street listening, but this government has not been out on the street listening.
An Hon Member: They don't want to.
R. Neufeld: I doubt they want to go out on the street.
An Hon Member: They probably wouldn't cross the street for fear somebody would....
R. Neufeld: They could be in an awful lot of trouble if they crossed the street, or went out on the street.
An Hon. Member: That's why they don't want to put it into committee.
R. Neufeld: But there is a rush to get this bill passed. I want to again say that there's no way I could support it, and I support the motion to take it to a special committee. With that I'll sit down and listen. Maybe there will be some members of the government who'd like to stand up and tell me how great it is.
G. Wilson: I'm delighted to rise to speak in favour of this amendment, because it's a sensible amendment. We haven't heard from any member of the government or the back bench on the government side as to why such an important departure from traditional financing should not be referred to a standing committee. We don't know what it is this government's afraid of, in terms of what might happen.
Certainly, if we're to go back to the portion of the debate given by the Minister of Finance, he would suggest there's some urgency to get this bill through. He suggests that the urgency is because of the silviculture program now being held up in the province of British Columbia as a result of the lack of passage of this bill, and tries to suggest it is the opposition that is making the silviculture program less than what it might be because of the delay and the climate and the need to get people into the bush early this year. I think we have to nail that comment down right now.
It seems to me that there is nothing more reprehensible than a politician, and especially the Minister of Finance, suggesting something in this House that factually, in terms of application, is not so, which could have been avoided. Indeed, there are programs available right now that would allow the silviculture programs to go forward. While perhaps it serves his purpose to suggest that, and while certainly the government may have it in its power to withhold funding to the silviculture programs as the result of a lack of passage of Bill 3, it's less than forthright for the minister to say that that's the reason why silviculture programs can't go forward.
In response to the Minister of Finance, who stood up and said that this was going to result in an accelerated social capital of $1.4 billion -- a sizable chunk of money that the people of British Columbia are going to have to either finance through their taxes or amortize through long-term debt servicing -- it seems perfectly logical and reasonable for members of the opposition to expect a very thorough understanding of exactly what that money is going to be used for, how that is going to be accounted for in the normal accounting process and what form of expenditure that may take, especially in light of the rather confused statement of purpose in Bill 3.
I don't want to go back through what I have said in speaking to the two previous amendments, but it is important to recognize that Bill 3, in terms of its stated purpose, is more than just constructing highways and more than simply financing capital projects. What it says is that it's going to coordinate "the government's activities to achieve overall economic development and job creation goals."
What are the government's job creation goals? We haven't heard from any government member what the goals for job creation in this province are. The Minister of Economic Development -- as members from the third party refer to him, the minister of no development; or judging from the record, I would say the minister against development -- has told us that there are going to be projects outlined to give us a greater expectation of job creation potential in British Columbia. Well, what are those goals going to be? How are they to be directed to the communities that are hardest hit by the downturn in the primary extractive sector? How are they to be geared into communities such as mine in Powell River, where you're seeing the eventual reduction of employment in the mill, the single largest employer in that region? How is it to affect people in Port Alberni? How is it to affect people in the interior communities and in the north?
[6:45]
If this is going to coordinate "government's activities to achieve overall economic development and job creation goals," then it seems to me a perfectly logical, reasonable amendment to suggest that prior to rushing this bill through, we should go back to a standing committee. That committee can hear from the people of British Columbia what they would expect from a bill that is going to give these unrestricted borrowing and spending powers into the hands of a government that's already demonstrated it can't keep a lid on spending. On that point and that ground alone, given that that is one of the stated purposes of this bill, I'd like to hear back from the Ministry of Economic Development or the Minister of Finance why it is not sensible to take this to a standing committee.
The second purpose is to ensure "that all regions of the province benefit from economic expansion and diversification." What does that mean? Diversification from what -- existing primary extractive industries? Diversification from the existing systems they have now? And if that's so, diversification toward what?
[ Page 5761 ]
What are we diversifying the economy to try to accomplish in those communities? Is there any evidence whatsoever that this government has gone out into those communities to sit down with people in the chambers of commerce, business associations, professional associations, unions, small business and industry? Have they gone to hear what they believe those communities could diversify their economy to benefit from? I would suggest that there has been no discussion of that. What better way for this government to take a responsible, sensible attitude toward listening to the people of the province than to move this into a standing committee that could hear firsthand from the people what kind of diversification is going to be meaningful and workable and will provide for British Columbia the kind of expenditures that will give some kind of hope to the people in those small communities?
It's too easy to sit in a large, centralized and ever-increasing government here in Victoria and dream up in the back rooms -- or wherever the big boiler pot of thought is that this government has -- and sort of distill, like some southern distillery, a kind of white lightning to come out with this Bill 3. As we see, they have bottled up this elixir that they're going to take to cure all the social and economic ills of the province of British Columbia.
We have to look at the third stated purpose that says "encouraging public and private sector investment and job creation activities in an innovative manner." What better way to encourage some kind of dialogue from the public in British Columbia, who are going to be paying for this expensive bill to talk about innovative job creation activity, than to have this in a standing committee that will take it out for review so that people can start to hear this?
I don't think this government has ever consulted on this. It hasn't gone and dealt with the people of British Columbia. I hear one hon. member saying that the government is way ahead of us on this, that the government is way ahead in its thinking. That tends to be a somewhat arrogant attitude, that we here in Victoria know better than the rest of the province what's good for each community in the province. We're not going to go listen to the people. We're not going to go ask the people. Heaven forbid that we would have a participatory democracy in this province. No, let's not do that. Let's just sit down in the boiler rooms here in Victoria and distill some kind of concoction we call Bill 3, which is supposedly going to create these innovative job creation and public sector investment opportunities for the province.
When we talk about public sector opportunities, let's not forget that that means taxpayers' money. These are investment opportunities that mean the taxpayers are going to be financing more government-controlled activity, government-legislated activity and government-directed activity in this bill. We need to hear about that.
We've heard an awful lot from the Minister of Highways. We've heard some from the Minister of Finance. We heard a rant -- I don't think you could call it anything other than that -- from the Minister of Labour, who got up and just basically flagellated for a little while, talking about building ships in his riding.
We've heard that this is about capital construction projects. We've heard about this being a means for the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who's going to become a very powerful minister because it's that ministry that's going to chair this new Crown corporation, in conjunction and cooperation with the Minister of Finance -- this dynamic duo; this sort of Batman and Robin team -- to go out and cure the ills of the province by going to Bob Williams's still, where he's got this elixir called Bill 3, to create a new super Crown corporation, which is going to be able to provide for the people of British Columbia.
Let's look at purposes (d) and (e) of this bill, because this means an awful lot more than just capital investment. It says "promoting training and investment in people." It is going to be a significant component of public sector investment activity. What exactly does this mean? We're talking about an accelerated social capital -- $1.4 billion, the minister told us -- to invest in people, promoting and training. If ever there was a reason to take this to a standing committee, it is to work out some kind of definitions for the rhetoric and jargon that is the stated purposes of this bill.
Purpose (e), the last of the five purposes of this bill, is the most confusing of all. This bill, which is being touted as a means for borrowing for capital construction, has as one of its five stated purposes " to target activities under this act, which are capital construction activities, toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups." Who are these people? How is it that capital construction programs will be targeted toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups?
Hon. Speaker, we have a line ministry for virtually every stated purpose of this bill. There is not one stated purpose out of the five in this bill that could not and in fact is not already being done, that does not have a well-financed, properly staffed ministry with a solid public sector staff behind it already in this government. Yet we have the duplication of virtually every one of those line ministries in this Bill 3: a duplication in service, a duplication in cost and an increase in size of government.
Surely the minister and the backbenchers on the government side recognize that if we are going to have such a significant departure in the financing of capital projects, as Bill 3 suggests we will, we need to send this to a committee. Given that there is already an existing line ministry with existing financial opportunity to achieve every one of the five stated purposes, surely it's sensible to take this to a standing committee before we commit the duplication of expenditures and cost to the people of this province of hundreds of millions of dollars in incurred deficit and debt. It's a sensible thing to do. To have the Minister of Finance stand up and say, "Well, it's the official opposition and members of the third party that are killing Bill 3, and therefore prohibiting us from going and investing in needed job-creation activities, needed capital investments, needed highway construction," that is just absolute nonsense.
[ Page 5762 ]
The Minister of Transportation and Highways has the capacity right now to be able to prepare a budget that will put in place the highway construction, and get it up and running on already prioritized highway construction items that exist in the province of British Columbia. The Minister of Advanced Education and Training already has in his budget the proposition that will allow him the dollars within this budget to initiate the kind of training programs that are needed. The Minister of Labour has it quite easily within his mandate to be able to work with organized labour and with the management of companies in this province to initiate the kind of apprenticeship programs that were applauded by the member for Vancouver-Hastings when that member stood up and said that this bill is all about training people and giving disadvantaged people work. If that were true, then what's wrong with the Minister of Social Services? The Minister of Social Services has an escalating budget, a budget almost out of control that is providing additional dollars right now for those traditionally disadvantaged people, those people who, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to seek work.
So, hon. Speaker, there isn't a single one of the five stated purposes of this bill that couldn't already be done by existing ministries, and every single member of the opposition, whether they're in the official opposition or in the third party, has pointed that out time and time again. So what is it about this bill? What is it about this whole proposition of the Build BC Act that is so important, so necessary, that moving it now to a standing committee for the public to read, to review, to listen to, to put in place their ideas and propositions, to allow members in communities in the interior and the north and north Island...? What is it about this bill that is so critical that this kind of consultation, something that was promised by the government opposite during the election, cannot now take place? Well, I think that the ministers of this government need to tell us exactly what it is that is so urgent.
I think when we start to look at exactly what this is all about, we can see it on page 10 of this bill under section 23, borrowing powers. Hon. Speaker, this is what the nub of this is all about. This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposition of a new and different way to put in place innovative capital construction programs. Read section 23 of this bill and it will become clear to anybody who cares to look at it and to read it with any kind of objective analysis that this is a bill that allows the government to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars outside of the normal borrowing process, outside of the normal budgetary process and outside of the process that would require them, through estimates, to come in and tell us in advance what they intend to spend those moneys on. That's what this bill is all about.
I ask the people of this province to pick up a copy of this bill and read it, and I ask the government to respond to section 23(2): "The board may, by resolution, delegate any of its powers or the powers of the authority under this section to any director or officer of the authority." This board is one minister along with four patronage appointments. Read "delegate any of its powers," and we take a look at who is running the government and who is at the head of this octopus.
An Hon. Member: Bob Williams.
An Hon. Member: Oh, you're paranoid.
G. Wilson: An hon. colleague in the third party says it's Bob Williams, and we hear from a member opposite that we're paranoid. Paranoia doesn't run when the truth is aflow, because that is exactly what's going on.
If you look at how that delegation of authority is going to work, we can see that the projects will be developed in that big boiler room of thought above the wax museum. We can only hope that it doesn't overflow, because if it does, we're going to have melted wax all over, and the whole history of this province is going to be one melted mass on the floor. As it boils over in that boiler room, we're hoping that the people of the province don't find themselves in a similar state where their hopes and dreams have simply melted away because a high-handed government didn't take the chance when it was offered by this opposition to take a more sensible, reasoned and rational approach and move this to a standing committee. It's pretty scary. I hope the people of B.C. at least hear.... Sometimes I realize that this is a little like a Bruce Cockburn song: When the members of the opposition speak, does anybody hear? I think it would make a good title, actually.
Nevertheless, they should read section 23(3): "A resolution under this section approved by the required number of directors by telex, telegraph, facsimile transmission, telephone or any other similar means of communication confirmed in writing or other graphic communication, is as valid and effectual as if it had been passed at a meeting of the directors...."
This resolution can transfer all of its powers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and those directors don't even have to meet. They don't even have to come into a room and look at the whites of each other's eyes and say yes, this is a good idea. Perhaps they can do it by telepathy that engenders some kind of spirit of past governments.
[7:00]
Essentially what this does is expedite the spending and borrowing of money. It puts into the hands of ministers the authority to borrow and spend unaccounted. The people of B.C. should be alarmed at what it does. If they think the removal of the supplementary homeowner tax was something to get agitated about and to go running around in large numbers shouting about, which it was, they ought to think about what this is going to mean, not just to them but to the future generations of British Columbians who are going to be saddled with the debt that Bill 3 is going to incur.
There isn't one member in the Liberal opposition who would say -- I doubt if any member in the Social Credit third party opposition would say it either -- that we don't need to spend on roads. We don't need to take the federal money -- and it's largely federal money --
[ Page 5763 ]
to put into the construction of new hospitals. We don't need additional dollars to assist us in the development of our post-secondary educational institutions. Of course we have to have capital construction. Everybody recognizes that. But the people of British Columbia demand accountability. They demand a government that is forthright enough to come out with an economic plan that says: this is our program of expenditure for the year. This is what we believe are the highest priorities, and we believe they are the highest because we have listened to the people. We have heard from the people in the interior, the north and the north Island -- not just in the lower mainland. Having listened to them and having reviewed what we can afford to put forward with the limited amount of dollars that our taxpayers can afford, these are our spending priorities for the year. That's what is called a budget.
If we were in government -- the Liberal opposition, as I've said before -- we would have in place an exchequer, a single spending authority that would put a check on this kind of activity. A single spending authority would essentially be empowered to review and to ensure that expenditures meet the budget. When line ministries overspend and line ministers decide they simply don't have enough in their kitty to put in place the new programs that may be demanded of them by special interest groups and vocal community groups that often oil the wheel, when those groups run into deficit spending, this House should be consulted.
The elected members of this House should be consulted prior to deficits being incurred. If we're going to put the people of British Columbia further into debt, the people of British Columbia should be asked to approve it sooner or later. As I travel the province -- and I'm doing that in a big way right now -- I hear from virtually every sector, including those that voted for this government and don't mind standing up and admitting it. They are saying: "We cannot put future generations into further debt by unrestricted, unaccounted spending." We can no longer continue to put money into projects that are essentially discharged by government warrant without a fiscal plan in place that people can buy into.
I haven't heard one British Columbian say: "I refuse to pay taxes if those taxes are going to be spent on projects that are wise, sensible and considered, which I can support." Most of them will pay their fair share of tax if they can support the projects, if they can understand how the money is going to be spent and if they know there is a check and balance within government that allows an opportunity to measure the expenditure in terms of its overall worth to the community that is largely supporting it.
This doesn't cut it, hon. Speaker. Not only does this bill not allow that kind of check and balance; it is deliberately written to overcome it, to bypass it and to do an end-run around it. It's deliberately written and structured so that this board, by resolution, can delegate its powers under section 23 -- the borrowing powers of this board. This board, and I quote from section 23(1): "may borrow the sums of money it considers necessary or advisable." This Crown corporation can borrow moneys which four patronage appointments and a minister decide are necessary. If they can convince the Minister of Finance, they go out and borrow the money. Where's the check and balance in that? Where's the accounting in that?
I want to take issue with the Minister of Finance, who stood up and said that this is going to provide an opportunity for Crown corporations, which are currently not subject to review, to be reviewed. I think that we have to understand that the Minister of Finance is talking about one of the consequential amendments. If there was ever a need for this amendment to be passed, let's consider that this bill amends the Financial Information Act, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Social Service Tax Act in order to provide the necessary funds and flexibility it requires to bypass the legitimate process for spending.
Hon. Speaker, the Minister of Finance told us that this is going to hold the Crown corporations accountable and responsible. He's talking about section 30 under consequential amendments, which is essentially an addition to the Financial Information Act of section 2.1. It says: "Every corporation shall provide to the minister, Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations or" -- and the "or" is a big "or" -- "a committee of the Executive Council that is designated by the Executive Council, strategic plans, business plans, capital and operating budgets and other information requested by the minister...." When you have a chance to read the Financial Information Act to see what is already in section 2 -- and I would urge everybody to read it -- we can see that the only thing that section 2.1 adds to the very long list of 2(1)(a) through to 2(1)(f) under section 2, which is essentially a financial information statement required of Crown corporations, is a business plan. It doesn't provide the accounting to this House or to any of the standing committees; it certainly doesn't provide us any kind of opportunity for scrutiny, review or approval of the process. Of course it doesn't; all it does is simply say that a committee designated by the executive council is able to review the business plan of this new Crown corporation. Business plans are made, changed, reviewed, reformed and revised, and who knows what can happen. It means that the Minister of Finance gives himself a nice little additional plum that he can chew on, but the stone inside is equally as bitter when he chews into it as any other Crown corporation, because there is no adequate accounting, no aggressive auditing, that we would argue is necessary on a quarterly basis, of the existing Crown corporations so that we can get a handle on their spending.
The power of Bill 3, this Crown corporation, I would warrant.... I'm glad that Hansard will record these words, because believe me, people will read them in future and say: "I think this guy was right." When you look at this Bill 3, remember that only one Crown corporation will have more power in British Columbia than this new Build B.C. Corp.: B.C. Hydro. And do you know why? B.C. Hydro is right now without a doubt the most powerful Crown corporation in the province. Indeed, one would argue -- and I think I would even get support on the opposite side -- that B.C. Hydro is
[ Page 5764 ]
more powerful in some aspects than government, because of the authority it has to borrow, spend and maintain and control the power that goes to the people. The only other authority that will have equal power is B.C. Hydro. This new Crown corporation will have similar powers in terms of its mandate and direction and a very small group of people who are able to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to put into capital construction and investment.
When you talk about the delegation of its powers under section 23, you cannot convince me that the Crown corporate czar of this government didn't sit down and put this thing together, because by controlling this expenditure of Crown corporate capital investment -- highways, schools, hospitals -- there is no larger corporate capital investment than this. Tie it to the energy production under B.C. Hydro and we might as well all just pack up and go home, because what's the point of government? The vast majority -- over two-thirds -- of the expenditure of the people's money will be expended by those two corporations.
That's not my vision of new government or how we should reform government, and I don't think it's shared by the people of British Columbia. They want open, accessible and more democratic government and more empowerment to the people of the province. They want to be able to decentralize authority and have it available to them in their communities. They don't want to create another Crown corporation similar to the B.C. Hydro Corporation -- even though it's running efficiently now; I don't argue that. No, if ever there was a need to review this to the standing committee, if ever there was a bill that should go before a standing committee and the people of British Columbia, it's Bill 3. That's why I would urge all members to vote for the amendment.
J. Tyabji: It's unfortunate that there's no provision in the House to give one's time up for someone else, because the previous speaker has a better understanding of the specifics of the implications of the bill as it relates to other legislation than I do.
However, one thing that's being missed by the government is the fact that not only is this bill something that fundamentally restructures our financing, but also that the way that this bill relates to the existing government structures is something that's going to take the province in a very different direction than the way we've gone before.
It's ironic -- with a government which doesn't understand, for example, highways privatization or the increased privatization of our waste management -- that we have, in effect, an executive style of government coming through this new Crown corporation. It's really frightening when we see a Crown corporation like B.C. Hydro -- which has sweeping powers, which is going to be in a position to basically determine the power direction of the province for the future without any public debate and nothing that comes before the House -- that we have a duplication of that kind of power structure in something that has to do with the debt that we'll be passing on to our children and our children's children. As we've said numerous times before, the people of the province are really worried, not only about their taxes going up and not only about the fact that the deficit and government spending continues to increase, but that the debt is increasing. And here we have an amortization and a capital debt increase that no one is even aware of yet, and I think when people find out, they'll be extremely angry.
One point that I wanted to make tonight that obviously couldn't be made before, because it just happened today, is that anyone who was watching the news today will find -- in terms of a public relations perspective at any rate -- that there was a very surprising electoral victory in Newfoundland for the provincial Liberal Party. The reason it could be considered surprising is that there was a very large publicity campaign waged by the public servants and the teachers' unions to try to convince the voters that the government restraint program was going in the wrong direction. This even got national coverage, because Premier Clyde Wells -- who is seen across the country and who has a lot of integrity -- was pulling in the reins and trying to control government spending, which is clearly the opposite direction from that of this government.
There were all kinds of publicity campaigns, media campaigns, newspaper ads and demonstrations by the unions which were being affected. It could easily be argued that in British Columbia -- in order to have avoided Bill 3 -- if the government had had the courage to do what's being done in Newfoundland, we would have ended up with very much the same campaigns underway in British Columbia. The point that is very important to bring forward is that in Newfoundland, just as they got national attention for the kinds of publicity campaigns and the negativity from the government unions being affected, still there was a sweeping victory for the party putting that agenda forward.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
We can see that the energy level of the House is somewhat low. I know I can't mention that there's nobody here, so I won't mention that, but it's unfortunate that we don't have a little bit more participation from the government, who should understand that the direction they should go in....
[7:15]
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: If this government would like to be rewarded with a second mandate, they should understand what Clyde Wells....
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: Not yet. It's kind of nice to see a little spirited heckling from the lonely members over there. I'd like these members to understand that the point that's being made is that in Newfoundland they had the courage to continue with an agenda that is in the other direction from this. That is the agenda that this government should follow if they want a hope of a
[ Page 5765 ]
second term, because what is affecting the taxpayers of the province isn't so much that this government may have a political agenda or an ideological agenda that goes in one direction.... There may be some voters who would appreciate that agenda, who would understand that we have to aim a lot of policies at the working poor, that we have to try to have some kind of economic diversification incentives, although I don't understand where this government thinks they're doing that. They keep claiming that there's going to be economic diversification; then we have all kinds of things happening in the mining industry, for example, that's shutting that industry down.
Even if this government wants some ideological priorities that would be different from the Liberal opposition's, for example, I think it's very important for them to understand that until they come to grips with the fact that a couple of special interest groups will not get them re-elected, until they understand that it's extremely important to the people of the province to feel some comfort and some security that their future isn't being mortgaged 50, 100 or 150 years from now in terms of the continuation of increased government spending and the perpetuation of debt.... Anyway, the point I want to make is that I think it's really sad that this far into the debate we've had so little input from the government side; I think it's really unfortunate that here we are three amendments into second reading on the bill, and the government that is supposedly championing this brave new world of capital debt and continued government expenditure has so little ability to come forward and articulate the reasons for it.
Let's look at some of the reasons that the Minister of Finance has given us for this. Let's look at his reasons about silviculture, and all these tiny little baby seedlings shivering in anticipation of being planted, and how awful the opposition is in holding up these baby trees from finding their home in the woods. I'd like to say that anyone who understands anything about the way government financing is constructed will understand that that is absolutely false: there's no way on earth that government can't continue to finance the very basics of expenditure in the line ministries.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I'm sorry, hon Speaker, but I'm actually quite offended by some of the heckling that has gone on, especially a little earlier, and it's thrown me a little bit. I won't bring it up for an apology, but I hope the member does take note that what he's saying could not only be misconstrued, but it could be very offensive.
If you look at the Minister of Finance's justification for trying to push the bill through.... I mean, what are we doing here? It's 7:20. We have an extraordinary meeting of the House for second reading of a bill this early into the session. Why is there such a rush? Where's the hurry? And if there is such a rush, why don't we hear more from the government side as to the pressing need, other than these make-believe reasons that there are seedlings that need to be planted? We know we have the estimates, that we have a quarter of the budget approved, and that if it's a priority it can be taken care of outside the workings of Bill 3. As the leader of the Liberal Party has pointed out a number of times, we believe there are megaprojects that are waiting for the passage of Bill 3. We believe that the Island Highway and the tolls that will be imposed on the Island Highway are part of the package of Bill 3 that is just waiting, and that's why we're here at 7:20 on Monday night debating an amendment to Bill 3 that is one the government should be aware of. This is the opportunity for the opposition to stand up and fight for the rights of the citizen; although it's very difficult to do that with any great passion because the government has been so lacklustre in terms of finding some justification for this bill in the first place. The government has repeatedly, as we can gather here, hidden from the challenge of coming forward and saying that this bill must go through for these reasons -- or even that we are here at 7:20 on a Monday night for these reasons. It's unfortunate we don't have some dialogue with the Minister of Finance, in which he would stand up in the House and say: "Well, I know that in Newfoundland the situation was like this, and this is why B.C. is different."
If this government had followed the economic strategy as outlined in the last general election by the leader of the party and by members of the party who talked about economic diversification and investment and freeing up the private sector so we'd have some healthy economy, there wouldn't be a need for Bill 3; we wouldn't need to have legislation in place to have capital debt that was being amortized 20 years into the future. If we didn't have a general slowing-down of the economy because of the repeated ineptness of this cabinet in understanding the fundamentals of economics, if we didn't have a total lack of comprehension of how money works, or how important it is to have some kind of credibility in the international investment sector just to be able to attract the dollars to keep the economy going; and if we had some kind of commitment to research and development so that this cabinet could actually bring forward an economic strategy that involved a land use strategy, and an advanced education strategy, and these kinds of things, we would have the dollars necessary to bring in the kind of capital projects that this government needs.
We had the Minister of Finance in the weekend Vancouver Sun stating that the reason the budget came out the way it did, Bill 3 being an inclusive part of that, was that if he hadn't done the things he'd done we would have had to close half the hospitals in the province. That's just scaremongering; that's just absolute nonsense. We can't stand here with the kind of government....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: We're hearing: "What's the alternative?" The alternative is to be courageous, as Clyde Wells was. Not only did he pursue that agenda because it was necessary, but he did it...
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I won't even repeat that on the record.
[ Page 5766 ]
R. Chisholm: And that's from the hon. member from Lillooet.
J. Tyabji: Yes.
...at a time when he was going into a general election, when he knew that the people who were being affected by that would be the ones in a position to be able to wage very powerful media campaigns. In fact, as we saw, he got national....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I can't read this note. It's too messy.
The thing is that the Liberal opposition is committed to try to talk some sense into the government. So even if it is 7:25, and even if I haven't spent as much time on my homework as I'd have liked to, I'm actually standing here with the hope that the Minister of Finance will leap in and say that they've accepted the amendment, that the bill will be going to a standing committee of the House and that there will actually be public input into the bill.
One reason the opposition is so committed to continue to carry forward this message, even though the government is not listening, is that when the day of reckoning comes and the public comes forward and says, "How did this bill get passed, and how on earth did this type of financing come into place without us hearing about it?" we'll be able to say that not only did we stand up and speak out in the House, but that when the opportunity came to collapse the debate we refused that opportunity, that we took the debate as long as possible. We've sent the message out to as many people as possible, to as many community newspapers as possible, in the hope that somewhere along the way this message would get through -- not to the government, because we've seen very clearly that this government doesn't listen, but to the people. The people are being affected. The people will be saddled with this debt for years and years to come. Hopefully those people will be able to respond to the government's legislation. In responding to this legislation, they will come forward to the government, and maybe the people of the province will have more impact on the government than we have had.
I'm not sure if I'm witnessing some kind of religious ritual happening in the corner, or some kind of socialist or Marxist ritual. Maybe it's a way of kick-starting the brain -- I don't know.
Why is the government afraid to take the bill to the people? What is it they're hiding? Why are they not willing to have public input? We know clearly that the Minister of Finance claims some important projects are being held up. The government already has money in line ministries to pursue things like silviculture -- which we know because they've done it before -- so that just doesn't wash.
My own guess on the reason that the government won't take it to the people is that they're afraid to, because they would find that the demonstrations and the feedback they would get from the public would far outweigh the kinds of demonstrations we've seen before. Rather than having 5,000 fishermen, 500 environmentalists, 500 taxpayers and 500 business people, we would instead have millions of scribble-sheets being handed around. Instead, we would have tens of thousands of people marching on the Legislature and saying: "Enough. We demand accountability."
Where is the voice of the people heard in this House? Where is it that the government -- in particular, the cabinet, so well represented in this debate so far -- hears from the public? The cabinet clearly hears from the public through the opposition. We don't hear from the public through the back bench. We don't hear anything on behalf of the public from the back bench, as was clearly evidenced in the referendum campaign, when we had 50 little Yes buttons sitting in the House. Where was the public heard in this House? It was through the opposition, through the leader of the Liberal Party, through the third party and through the Liberal members who stood up and represented the people in this House. Where have the people been heard in this House? Repeatedly in debate on the labour bill, through the budget, through the taxation policies.... The only avenue -- and this is unfortunate; this is something that needs to be reformed -- for the public to be heard by this cabinet is through this opposition. Unfortunately, the cabinet isn't participating in a dialogue that would enlighten us as to why they have to have this autocratic style of government, this dictatorial style, as we saw with the labour bill. It was passed unamended despite the fact that every business in the province was writing in -- and in fact, union workers were writing in -- saying they didn't want the labour bill.
We know that there is a real nervousness right now with the kind of socialist spending priorities of the government. We know that unprecedented powers of spending and borrowing is the wrong direction for the government to go in. We know that there have been a number of public outcries, and people speaking up at public forums saying that they're very nervous about the kind of ideologues we have in the existing executive structure of the government, whether that be some of the Gunton-type policies that are coming forward, or as the leader of the party was talking about, the czar of Crown corporations, Mr. Bob Williams. These are the kinds of people that the people of the province don't want to have more spending authority and more power. Yet not only do we see them have more spending authority and more ability to spend, but we have so much less accountability. The people of the province surely would be rioting right now if they understood that the bill before the House is going to be passing along more power, more authority and basically a blank cheque to the people they are currently speaking out against.
It's unfortunate that the government doesn't understand the importance of consultation before enacting legislation. Oh yes, we saw some of the travelling road shows that were going around to try to justify a bill that was already written. We've seen the kind of consultation that we have on electoral reform: after the people have already spoken in favour of something, then we strike a committee so we can try to
[ Page 5767 ]
talk them out of it, or at least delay it long enough that we won't be able to do anything about it. Real consultation isn't the Minister of Finance going to a few communities, hearing the message and then coming in and doing what he pleases. Real consultation is a back-and-forth approach; it's some kind of dialogue -- a constructive approach.
This cabinet keeps standing up and saying: "Where is the constructive opposition that we were looking for?" Well, we're here. Where is the constructive cabinet that we were looking for? Where is the cabinet that comes forward and meets with the opposition and says: "Let's use our standing committees, let's get some debate in the standing committees, and let's have an ideological debate before we bring the bill before the House"? How is it that the bill will come to the House in finished form before any of us even has a clue about it; that it was only the Leader of the Liberal Party -- because he happens to have contacts in the ministry -- who even knew this bill was coming before the House? That was only a week before the budget speech. Here were the rest of us, duly elected members.... In many ridings -- if you include the 33 percent that the Liberal Party received, and the 17 percent that the Social Credit Party received, and the balance -- we know that 60 percent of the people are going to be represented by the people who were voted in on the opposition side. And yet there's no consultation; there's no prior notification. Bills come before this House without us even understanding it, and we're already into a debate before we can have any input in the construction of the bill. How is that consultation? How is that fair? How is that balanced and how is that constructive? How can this government stand up and be proud of their record when they're too afraid to have a dialogue with the opposition? What are they afraid of? We know that when the final count comes they've got more votes than we do; we know that the government ends up winning the vote. But where are the amendments that are brought forward?
[7:30]
Surely to goodness this government doesn't think that it has a monopoly on common sense, or that this government's perception of how the economy should run is the only possible perception, especially considering that many members of the government have never really had a job. The Minister of Finance himself went from university to being a union organizer then an elected member. In terms of having his mortgage on the line, in terms of a business, in terms of going out and having to borrow the capital and pay it off through 20-hour days in a competitive market.... If the Minister of Finance is trying to tailor policies to the competitive market, maybe he should go out to the school of hard knocks and get a lesson in it. Then maybe we'd have some common sense coming from the government.
I don't understand how we can have a bill before the House that will allow a Crown corporation with no accountability to expropriate private property. And yet there's no debate or dialogue, no forewarning or community input. When the Minister of Finance visited the communities of the province for input from the people into his budget, surely he had an inkling that Bill 3 was on the horizon. Two or three weeks before the budget was tabled, surely he had a clue he was going to fundamentally restructure the way we spend. Isn't it fundamentally dishonest to go to those communities asking for input when the Minister of Finance is standing up there knowing full well the lives of the people he's talking to will be affected by amortization of capital projects, and yet he doesn't share it with them? He doesn't say: "Yes, you the taxpayers -- I want your input. Mind you, I will be introducing a Crown corporation to expropriate private land, borrow, lend, give things away, sell them and lease them out, and I'm not telling you about it." Where is the openness of a government that not only goes on a tour to get input but doesn't even give anybody any idea they're bringing up this bill up? It is really unfortunate we don't have any justification from the cabinet for why they did this.
I'd like to see the Minister of Finance go back to those communities, explain to them what he's doing and ask for their input. If the Minister of Finance had had the courage when he first went to those communities asking for input, he would have started off by saying: "Before I start this public forum, let me tell you that I'm going to start this Crown corporation -- Bob Williams, of course, being the czar of Crown corporations -- and it will be allowed to borrow, amortize and expropriate, and sell and lease the land -- give it away. It will have carte blanche in terms of the capital projects it will develop." If the Minister of Finance had done that -- if he'd given them a 20-minute spiel on the kind of direction he was taking the province in -- and then we'd the bill come to the House, that would be fine. He would at least have been open enough to let his agenda be heard by the people; we would say the people are at least aware that this is happening. But the worst and most dishonest part of this process is that he went on a tour at the taxpayers' expense, spoke to the taxpayers, gave them a false sense of security that there was some input into the process and then threw Bill 3 on the House without any prior notification to the public.
Surely the Minister of Finance is going to realize that that kind of dishonesty will come back to haunt him when the people wake up and realize that this amortization process is in place. Some of them may even agree with that. Some people may say: "All right, I understand. We've got spiralling government debt, we've got increased taxes, but we really need this ideology to be adopted. I can therefore support this process because we need the jobs, because we're in a recession." They might support that. But surely the Minister of Finance isn't going to think that they're going to support that kind of dishonest tour at the taxpayers' expense without any kind of accountability coming into of the process. For him to stand up nopw and try to justify rushing it through the House, without those people he met with....
I'd like to talk to them now. I'd like to have been in the room with them with the Minister of Finance when he was there on those tours, found out what they've said, and then go back to those people afterwards and say: "By the way, did he mention anything about a
[ Page 5768 ]
Crown corporation? Did he tell you how he's going to hide all the debt and shuffle it off to the side? Did he mention that? Did that come up?" I'd like to talk to the reporters who were there and say: "Did you have any awareness of this? Was it raised?" Did somebody even say to him: "What are you going to do? Are you going to have your own version of the BS fund?" Did he say no? At what point is there any credibility in that process? At what point can this government have any kind of credibility when they talk about open and honest government and they're trying to pull that type of shenanigans on the people of the province? They are pretending openness and honesty.
The Minister of Finance must have known about Bill 3, must have known about the Crown corporation and the government agency. Why didn't he say something? Why didn't he at least phone the leaders of the parties and say: "All right, this is what I'm about to do, and I'm giving you a little bit of time"? With the labour bill -- which was a $3 million waste of taxpayers' dollars to bring us in here for one piece of legislation -- we at least knew that was what we were here for. We know there was a sort of would-be consultation process while the bill was being drafted. There was a sort of nebulous area of consultation so the government could say they consulted. This bill has much bigger ramifications than the labour bill, yet nobody's been able to be prepared for it.
We all know the reason. If a process similar to that with the labour bill had been followed, there is no way this bill would ever have come before the House in the form it's in right now. There's no way, because we would have not had environmentalists rioting on Clayoquot. We would not have had the taxpayers and the business people rioting because of those kinds of taxes. We would have had every single person in the province stand up and say: "We need to talk about this. If this is my future, my children's future and my children's children's future, I think we should have a discussion, because this is a change of democracy." This is a movement into executive-style democracy; that doesn't serve the people. It's a movement into greater debt; that doesn't serve the people -- or if it does, let's take it to the people.
Let the Minister of Finance -- and we all know what a great salesman he is; we know the Minister of Finance is great.... In fact, if there was a product around and they were having difficulty marketing it, he'd probably be the guy for them. If he does decide to go out into free market competition, I encourage him to take on sales -- not used cars, mind you, because I don't know that any of them would have him. Maybe he could find himself a job as a salesman, because he's a good salesman. Why would a good salesman, who really has this bill close to his heart, who is on a...?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I'm hearing from a backbencher that the Minister of Finance is gender-neutral. That's interesting. So the Minister of Finance must be referred to as a salesperson. I wasn't referring to a saleswoman, you'll note.
Anyway, if we have a great salesperson on a tour of the province at the taxpayers' expense, and if the purpose of that tour is to inform the people of the province about spending priorities and to get their input into his budget, and if this bill is something that he thinks is an incredibly great idea to revolutionize the way that government spending is done, why doesn't he tell anybody? Why would he miss that opportunity? We know the Minister of Finance loves a stage. We know there's nothing he likes better than to stand up in the heat of a debate and put forward his argument. Why didn't he?
An Hon. Member: Why wouldn't he now?
J. Tyabji: Why wouldn't he do it now? Where is he in this debate? Why have we not heard from him in this debate? Where is his legion of loyal followers in this debate? Maybe the Minister of Finance would like to stand up and tell us why this vibrant young Minister of Finance couldn't go out there -- even a couple of weeks before the budget was tabled -- and sell this bill that he considers to be fundamentally important to the government, when the people of the province were asking him what direction the government was going in.
G. Wilson: For the same reason he couldn't sell the Canadian constitution.
J. Tyabji: That's right. I'm sure one lesson the government learned in the referendum campaign is that sometimes, despite the best sales pitch, when the people of the province know the product is bad, they won't buy it. And when the people of the province find out what's in Bill 3, they'll be very upset that the purchase has already been made on behalf of this cabinet. They'll also be upset that part of the referendum package they defeated is being passed in the House right now. They'll be extremely upset when that starts to surface, but that's for another debate. That's when we get into a different debate, but that's the kind of attitude this government has: "Well, we know that we tried to sell it to them and they said no in the referendum, so we'll just take parts of it and push it through somewhere in the back, and by the time they find out about it, it will be too late." We have the same mentality in this bill, except there was no forewarning. If this Minister of Finance has a good reason why he travelled the province and didn't tell anyone what was going on, if he has a good reason for not telling everybody about this wonderful idea of his, I hope he shares it with us, because we could certainly use some justification for the kind of horrendous change in government spending and accountability that Bill 3 represents.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will now call the question. The question before you is the amendment to the motion. I'll reread the
[ Page 5769 ]
amendment: "That all words after 'that' be deleted and be followed by 'Bill 3 not now be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services'."
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
[7:45]
|
YEAS -- 18 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Wilson |
Stephens |
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
|
De Jong |
Neufeld |
Fox |
|
Hurd |
Warnke |
Anderson |
|
Jarvis |
K. Jones |
Tyabji |
|
NAYS -- 33 | ||
|
Petter |
Boone |
Priddy |
|
Edwards |
Cashore |
Charbonneau |
|
Jackson |
Pement |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Hammell |
Lali |
|
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
Hagen |
|
Sihota |
Clark |
Cull |
|
Zirnhelt |
Barnes |
MacPhail |
|
B. Jones |
Lovick |
Ramsey |
|
Pullinger |
Evans |
Dosanjh |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Streifel |
|
Lord |
Krog |
Janssen |
On the main motion.
L. Stephens: It is a pleasure for me to rise this evening to debate second reading of Bill 3, the Build BC Act. A number of my colleagues have risen to speak on this bill, and they've all discussed the implications of some of the authority that this bill gives. One of the main objections of members on this side of the House is that it's a vehicle to incur more debt than what we currently face. There are functions in this bill that can be handled by existing ministries. This bill creates more bureaucracy and more spending on salaries and per diems, and it also provides the opportunity for more patronage appointments of the friends and insiders of this government. If we're going to move into double financing and paying ministries for the functions that this bill says it is going to do.... Clearly this is a form of doubling and allowing the Build BC Act to take on independent authority from the Legislature.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
It says that it's a comprehensive and multi-year plan to invest in and to improve the province's economy. It has three key features. One is to accelerate development of the economic tools needed for long-term prosperity, like highways and schools. I don't think anyone disagrees that we need schools or hospitals or justice buildings, or anything of that nature. It also targets government investment to the regions and the people who need it most. Again, I don't think anyone will argue that we don't need to develop the regions of B.C. Certainly we need to provide for the people in those regions as far as jobs and development are concerned. It says that it will break new ground by enabling much needed highways and transportation links to be built more quickly and in a more businesslike manner. It's probably open to interpretation as to whether the government is capable of doing anything in a more businesslike manner. However, as far as development of the regions, the people and the long-term economic prosperity of the province are concerned, we have no difficulty with those objectives. As a matter of fact, they're quite admirable.
However, this bill sets out to accelerate government spending to the tune of $1.42 billion this year, an increase of 30 percent. With the deficit and debt that we have, it's debatable whether or not this level of debt financing is a good idea. I would say that it's not, even though it's supposedly going to support vital services in health care, education and justice. We will be talking a bit more about that in third reading.
The businesslike approach to transportation spending will include a new B.C. Transportation Financing Authority to finance and construct the new highways, and it is authorized to borrow $800 million. There will be major regional transportation initiatives, which will be announced later this year. So we are asked to buy a pig in a poke, if you like. We are not given any indication of what those major regional transportation initiatives might be. The financing is supposed to be self-generating, and the revenue is to come from a 1-cent-per-litre fuel levy and a levy on vehicle rentals. I think a number of members of this House have pointed out that those two initiatives alone will barely, if even that, cover the interest on a debt of $80 million. The argument government members have put forward that this is a self-financing initiative simply doesn't stand up.
There are new mechanisms to focus the investment activities of Crown corporations, which will themselves invest more than $900 million during the coming year, including $500 million in new projects. Again, there's been no indication of what those new projects will be and where that $500 million is going to be spent, or even if it will be. Certainly that's something we're going to want to know more about, and particularly in third reading of the clauses that have to do with borrowing and Crown corporations.
There's also going to be a special account formed that will have an additional $100 million directed to it to develop innovative approaches to investment and job creation. Again, this is just broad, open-ended rhetoric as to what may or may not come forward. It says a variety of initiatives, one of which may be a new student summer program. A housing pilot project and training opportunities for young people will be launched. That's the extent to which there are any details at all in this bill on what it is purporting to do and what kind of economic development it is purporting to put forward. It says nothing about the regions, or any kind of development that we could
[ Page 5770 ]
expect to see in the regions. It simply allows the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority to borrow and to spend large amounts of money -- and the Crown corporations.
There are other initiatives that will be brought forward by this bill as well, and one of them is to encourage private sector investment. The B.C. Investment Office is one that the government lists, and this has been an office that's been in use for some time. It has been open for almost a year now, and my understanding is that its mandate is to help cut government red tape and to facilitate private business to do export and import business in the province of British Columbia. We have a B.C. Trade Development Corporation whose mandate is much the same, and we also have a Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade which has a number of trade-related initiatives as well. So this particular one seems to be redundant.
Regarding the additional use of the B.C. Endowment Fund to support new private investment in B.C. businesses, we've seen over the last couple of months that some of the investment that this particular fund has been engaged in is open to scrutiny -- and indeed is being scrutinized, hon. Speaker. So there are some things that have to be discussed a little more fully and in more depth in this bill, and that's one of them.
The bill also talks about a new high-tech link between government and its suppliers to ensure faster payment of bills. I would suspect this is the old VentureNet, on which we are going to see a federal initiative come forward. So my quarrel is with where they say that B.C. 21 is a multi-year initiative which will grow over time as other new and innovative projects are developed, because we're talking here about debt and the accumulation of debt. That's what Bill 3, the Build B.C. bill, does. It enables the government to borrow independently with very little scrutiny by the Legislature.
[8:00]
One of the clauses of this bill allows for the creation of sinking fund accounts. These are used by business institutions, and there's nothing unusual about sinking funds. The bill sets out the limitations of the outstanding debt able to be carried by the authority, and it sets out that the outstanding debt may not exceed the limit set by the cabinet; however, it does not specify exactly what that limit will be. So these are some of the areas that have to be looked at carefully, and again, these will be questions that we're going to be asking more fully in third reading.
The Company Act and the Company Clauses Act do not apply to the authority, except as prescribed by the cabinet. So there are a number of areas that we're going to be looking at more closely in third reading.
Because this particular bill is an accumulator of debt -- and at this point in time we really do need to be very careful about the amount of debt that we incur and the form of the debt that we incur.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. Could I ask the House to please come to order. I am having difficulty hearing the debate. Continue, hon. member.
L. Stephens: There's an article here from the Taxpayer that is quite good, by Craig Docksteader, spring of 1993. I'd just like to quote a few areas here that say:
"Per capita government liabilities in B.C. have increased by 669 percent..." -- from 1981 to l991. "...this deterioration has not only continued over the last two years, but...accelerated.
"...with a current operating debt of $8.3 billion and an annual deficit promising to add over $2 billion to that each year, taxpayers of B.C. have reason to be alarmed. Even if the government balanced its budget tomorrow and began making payments of almost $1 billion a year toward retiring the province's $8.3 billion operating debt, it would take 20 years before the debt would be paid off, and would cost over $19 billion after counting in the interest. In other words, the $8.3 billion the government has borrowed could actually eat up more than $19 billion in future taxes. That is the equivalent of over $5,500 in taxes for every man, woman and child in British Columbia, or over $22,000 for a family of four, just to pay for B.C.'s existing operating debt. When you consider this represents an additional tax burden and does not take into account paying for the debt of Crown corporations" -- which is what we're talking about in this bill -- unfunded pension liabilities or loan guarantees, then the true depth of the problem begins to emerge."
Hon. Speaker, I would like to urge all members of this House to vote against Bill 3.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers....
The member is rising on a point of order?
G. Wilson: The rules of the House are very clear that if a member is not on his feet, in his seat or able to stand to enter into debate, he loses his position in the debate. Clearly the member for Langley has taken her seat. There was a time passage; no one stood. Hon. Speaker, you correctly indicated that nobody else had stood to rise in this debate. It would be clear to me that the debate is terminated.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your input, hon. member. The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll be delighted to close the debate on second reading of the bill which stands in my name on the order paper, Bill 3.
Hon. Speaker, I want to again reiterate for members of the House the purpose of this piece of legislation, because from listening to members of the opposition over the last few days, indeed weeks, it's quite clear that they don't understand the legislation. It's important that we put on the record, because we've not had interjecting speakers, the facts of what the bill attempts to accomplish and why we think it's an important piece of legislation for the future economic development of the province.
There are four components to the Build B.C. legislation. The first is coordinated Crown corporation
[ Page 5771 ]
investment. There have been some allegations that this is somehow a radical revolutionary idea. In fact, the commercial Crown corporations of British Columbia have always invested in the province. They've always made capital investments year after year, but we have never attempted to take all of the Crown corporation investments made by those corporations and coordinate them to ensure that regional economic development and training strategies are pursued, that there are equity considerations so that there are more women, aboriginal people and others being trained at the same time, and that the investment made by Crown corporations is strategic and helps to build the regional economies of British Columbia. One of the key aspects of B.C. 21, one of the four components, is to take all of the Crown corporation investments, have them coordinated for the first time and take into account those kinds of considerations so that we can get good value for taxpayers' money, so that we can promote economic development, using strategically the kinds of investments that are made year after year by Crown corporations but that heretofore have not been coordinated.
We have a Crown corporations committee of cabinet, and that's one of the reasons that this kind of initiative can happen. We have the mechanism and the staff in place, so a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, rigorous capital valuation guidelines and rigorous regional impact analysis can take place for the first time. We can make these investments and get the biggest bang for the taxpayer's dollar. That's good for British Columbia. That's the kind of investment we've seen the Crown corporations play a role in historically in this province. But again, we now have the opportunity to make sure that that investment is made with other factors in mind.
The second component of this initiative is the Build B.C. special account. We have allocated in this budget $100 million of new spending, of new investment in the province -- again, to achieve some major goals. First and foremost is to get people off welfare and into productive work. Secondly, it's to target those initiatives so they have the biggest long-term impact on the regional economies, as the underpinning of the future economic development of the province. That's why the first major expenditure from that special account will be on silviculture. It is a new program in which the majority of employees to be engaged in tree planting and the like are former social assistance recipients who are getting the training required to get off welfare and into productive work. It is also an investment in the forest industry in this province so that we can lay the foundation today for long-term economic development in British Columbia.
Thirdly, we have another major initiative, which is the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Everywhere I went in prebudget consultations -- 11 public meetings all across British Columbia, talking to British Columbians about what they wanted to see in their budget -- they said repeatedly: "We want more money spent on infrastructure." Whether it was business groups or labour groups or people in the communities, they said: "We need road construction; we need transit initiatives; we need to be spending money now to lay the groundwork for positive economic growth in the future."
In fact, just a couple of days ago in the Globe and Mail's "Report on Business," a poll conducted in Canada said that over 70 percent of private sector business organizations in this country said governments collectively are not spending enough on strategic infrastructure to lay the foundation for positive growth in the future. Anybody in the Coquitlams or the Surreys of British Columbia, the growing suburbs, will tell you that we have to do more to invest in transportation infrastructure in this province.
As well, people around the province said: "If you're going to put the tax on gas, make sure it doesn't get sucked into that black hole in Victoria and spent on whatever the Ministry of Finance or the government wants. Make sure it's dedicated to building roads and investment in infrastructure."
For the first time in British Columbia's history, we've taken that 1 cent a litre and it goes right into the Transportation Financing Authority. We have said that the $1.50-a-day tax on rental cars goes right into building transportation infrastructure. We've said that any tolls or any user charges on roads go right into improving roads and transportation infrastructure. And we have said that this Crown corporation, unlike any others, cannot spend or borrow more money than there are dedicated resources available to it to repay the debt and interest charges. So through the Transportation Financing Authority, we have ensured that for the first time that debt is not a burden on the operating expenditures of the government. It is in fact money that goes directly to support the programs which we are initiating.
Finally, hon. Speaker, there is a fourth component, and that's what's called in government social capital. That means investment in courthouses, in justice institutes and facilities, in hospitals and child care initiatives, in education facilities -- in capital spending on those kinds of social capital -- in order to provide quality education and health and other services. Since 1967 in this province we have borrowed money to build schools and hospitals. We have established sinking funds, so that not only is the interest cost covered, but also the repayment of the principal of the borrowing is covered every single year in the current accounts of the province of British Columbia.
That means that yes, we are borrowing more money for schools and hospitals, the same way every government has in this province since 1967. We are not increasing the long-term debt of the province. If we need a new school in Surrey, if we need a new hospital facility or a new courthouse, those are facilities which have to be built in any event, because this is a growing and dynamic province. We're simply moving those expenditures up this year, rather than have them spread out over years to come. So the social capital expenditures will go down over time. But we've moved more of them up this year, so that we can invest in those kinds of facilities in the regions of the province -- as we build this province, as we have lower costs of construction today, as we put money into regions like
[ Page 5772 ]
Prince George and Kamloops and the Kootenays and Vancouver Island. Those kinds of social capital investments are made today in order to lay the foundation for growth in the future.
It's astonishing that the Social Credit Party and the Liberal Party are standing up here day after day and opposing that kind of investment in the future of the province. I heard them. I heard the leaders of both those parties say we should not be investing in schools and hospitals as long as we're running a current account deficit. Social Credit has repudiated the last 20 years of history in this province, hon. Speaker. They've stood up here and said: "No, W.A.C. Bennett's capitalizing of hospitals and schools is no longer acceptable to Social Credit. It's pay as you go."
I respect the Social Credit and Liberal position on this matter. But in the next election, for every single school and hospital and road and transportation initiative they're now opposing, I want them to go to the electorate and have the guts to stand up and say to the people of Prince George or the Kootenays or Vancouver Island that they would not build the Island Highway, that they would not have capital construction in those facilities. I can't wait for the debate for those courthouses and institutes and hospitals. All those Surrey members who are opposing construction of schools in that community stand here and oppose social capital investment that lays the foundation for a healthy social and economic environment in this province for years to come.
[8:15]
Hon. Speaker, there are four components to B.C. 21. Firstly, enhance social capital investment the way we always have, but move it up this year to get the economies moving in the regions, and to ensure training facilities and programs for our young people. Secondly, coordinate Crown corporation capital investment -- for the first time again -- so we can achieve those training targets and get people off welfare and into work. Again, they're opposing the Transportation Financing Authority because they don't believe dedicated money, dedicated tax revenues, should go to building roads. They're going to oppose the Island Highway, and I can't wait for it. Finally, they oppose $100 million for training initiatives and regional economic development to get people off welfare and into work.
They don't care about the fact that the business community is saying en masse there needs to be more money spent on infrastructures. They don't care that we need hospitals and schools in this province because we have a 3 percent population growth. They don't care that Surrey schools.... It is atrocious that we have miles and miles of portables so that our young people are getting substandard training because of the legacy left behind by Social Credit.
They're going to oppose those initiatives, and that takes real courage. I admire them for opposing it. But if we're to move forward with courage and conviction to lay the foundation for positive economic growth, if they want to see government initiatives to get people off welfare and working, and if they want to see regional economic development so that we can have the government building courthouses, hospitals and schools in the regions of the province, then this is the bill that I think British Columbians have been wanting. This is what they've asked for, and I'm delighted that for the first time we have a vehicle here -- no pun intended -- to move forward these kinds of strategic investments.
This is full public accountability. Every year in this House, members opposite can ask us why. They can question our $500 million in construction activity for schools. Every year they can ask about that. Every year they can ask us, and they can, each and every year, oppose the spending on transportation initiatives by the Transportation Financing Authority. Every year this Legislature is accountable, and ministers are accountable. Members opposite can ask those questions. This bill gives full accountability on the dramatic initiative by the government to promote regional economic development and to deal with some of the problems we see.
I hope, over the coming couple of days when we have clause-by-clause analysis, that we can deal with the facts and not deal with some strangely held views of members opposite -- weird and wonderful allegations about accountability and about how we're shuffling debt around. None of them, held up to the light of day, are worth anything. We've just heard rhetoric on the other side. We've heard some members make strange allegations in this House. But this time, as we move forward in committee stage, they'll be able to see how all of those statements they've made are rubbish.
I look forward to that discussion and to members opposite opposing this major economic development initiative, because then the public will have a clear sense of the priorities of members opposite and the priorities of this administration. I look forward to it. It is a key piece of legislation. It will be a key piece in the next election campaign, and I'm delighted that members opposite are opposed to it.
C. Serwa: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The member is on auto-rant. I wonder if he could turn to manual.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted that we're now moving into committee stage. When members get a chance to ask questions and test these weird and wonderful hypotheses we've heard for the last week or two, they will realize that this is a positive initiative in the British Columbia tradition to build the economic development of the province, create jobs and promote regional economic development. I'm sure they will see the error of their ways. I urge all members to vote in favour of this bill.
The Speaker: The motion before you is second reading of Bill 3.
[ Page 5773 ]
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 31 | ||
|
Petter |
Boone |
Priddy |
|
Edwards |
Charbonneau |
Jackson |
|
Pement |
Beattie |
Schreck |
|
Hammell |
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
|
Cashore |
Smallwood |
Hagen |
|
Clark |
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
|
Barnes |
MacPhail |
Lovick |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Dosanjh |
Doyle |
Hartley |
|
Streifel |
Lord |
Krog |
| Janssen | ||
|
NAYS -- 15 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Wilson |
Stephens |
|
Hanson |
Serwa |
Neufeld |
|
Hurd |
Warnke |
Anderson |
|
Jarvis |
K. Jones |
Tyabji |
Bill 3, Build BC Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met a 2:58 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 49: minister's office, $350,350 (continued).
D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could explain to me some of the labour problems pertaining to highways construction that I've been advised are going on on the North Shore, in North Vancouver-Seymour and North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I've just received a report on it.
The Chair: Hon. minister, as it pertains to your ministry, it's difficult....
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know how this pertains to estimates. If the hon. member has some material, perhaps he'd table it. I'll take a look at it, and I'll be happy to give an answer.
[3:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to concentrate for a few minutes, if we can, on the labour relations division of the minister's responsibilities. During the debate on the Labour Relations Code last fall, the minister stated that there would have to be an increase in the rate of arbitration; that the level of arbitration was increasing as a result of the changes that were made in the labour relations branch last spring; and the minister made comments that arbitrators would have to be brought on, and that that level would increase. Can the minister tell us what allotment has been made for that in the upcoming budget?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that we have no arbitrators on staff.
G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly, there are, under the administration of the Labour Relations Board. The minister himself has stated that now the boycott is over, mediation and arbitration will increase. Perhaps the minister can tell us where those people are in the allotments that the ministry is going to be paying out?
Hon. M. Sihota: They are mediators, not arbitrators, and there is a budget provision for an additional two, which brings us to nine.
G. Farrell-Collins: Also, within the labour relations portion of his ministry, there is an allocation of $227,840 for professional services. Can the minister advise us what those professional services are, and what work they will be doing?
Hon. M. Sihota: There is $60,000 for the labour relations division, and $160,000 for research on policy issues.
G. Farrell-Collins: Is the $160,000, which is for research on policy issues, primarily concerned with planned changes to employment standards and the policy development that will be taking place under that?
Hon. M. Sihota: It could be. It could also be for manufactured homes, or any other work that we're doing in residential tenancy.
G. Farrell-Collins: Have those people been brought on already or are they going to be on very short-term contracts? What is the plan in the ministry for that allocation? How did they arrive at the $160,000 provision?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's an estimate based on previous experience.
[ Page 5774 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe $160,000 is just a ballpark figure that they have come up with, but I would imagine that there have been some plans for.... Having gone through the review of the Labour Relations Code and the process that took place there, I would imagine that under the development for employment standards, there would be some idea of the people and the contracts that will be involved and the levels of research that will need to be done. Can the minister advise us as to how many people and contracts they are planning? Is there any sort of detail there, or are we just pulling a figure out of the air?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm still not sure if the hon. member understands that we have a policy division within the branch where we engage in a wide variety of research into issues. We look at pension standards, workers' compensation, residential tenancy issues, matters relating to consumer services. In that context individuals have a wide variety of issues to deal with -- security deposits and fair wages, to give two examples -- and we may have to go to outside consultations. The number is a general one based on our experience in the past in terms of what's arrived at. If we don't expend it, we don't expend it. If we need it, it's there, so we don't have to go to Treasury Board for additional requirements should they arise.
G. Farrell-Collins: Last year there were other allotments in the same category. Can the minister advise us whether all those were expended? Does he anticipate this level being completely expended, or is it likely there'll be some leeway there?
Hon. M. Sihota: Public accounts deals with expenditures, and when we get to that point the hon. member can ascertain what was expended -- although from memory, we had money set aside for Labour Relations Code review and it was not totally expended. With regard to the $160,000, I've already indicated the extent to which we're contemplating expenditures.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us whether any people have been brought on board under that $160,000 or the $67,840 provision? Are there any people currently under contract?
Hon. M. Sihota: No one is currently working in the ministry with regard to that money. There has been some attachment of those funds for some work we have done on plain language -- that's complete.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us where the $30,000 contract falls for the gentleman we discussed last week, Mr. Hans Brown? Is that going to be under this provision, or is it elsewhere?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's not within this provision; it is elsewhere, under the Labour Relations Board.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll move on to a slightly different matter -- another fund. It seems that the allocation the minister has allotted for building occupancy charges has increased from last year's vote of $881,085 to a level of $1,047,223. Can the minister explain the 24 percent increase?
Hon. M. Sihota: It is due to increased space requirements for pension benefits standards, which I explained the other day; the collective agreement arbitration bureau; and the initial staff requirements for the employment standards branch, which I touched upon the other day.
G. Farrell-Collins: If my recollection is correct, the minister stated last Wednesday or Thursday that the net increase of persons working in his ministry was certainly below 20; I think it was even less than 17. It seems to me that's a fairly substantial increase in space allocation for a fairly small increase in the size of the ministry. Could the minister reconcile those two at all?
Hon. M. Sihota: We had a rent increase with regard to the Labour Relations Board.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know who holds the lease on the Labour Relations Board's office space. Is that a BCBC holding, or is it privately held?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a publicly owned building, leased through BCBC. I should let you know we also incurred new costs with regard to a new employment standards facility we were pleased to open in Port Coquitlam.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just curious that there would be an increase, given the rental market in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island at this point in time. I'd be surprised that landlords would be requiring increases from their tenants. My understanding of the office vacancy rate in the lower mainland and Vancouver is that it's quite substantial. I'm wondering what level of increase was imposed on the Labour Relations Board for their accommodation.
Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to the Labour Relations Board, we originally had a very beneficial rent. It was better for us to take the 7 percent rent increase than it was to move elsewhere, given the fact that we started off with a relatively low rate. It also saved significant moving costs. On balance, all the numbers are up. The situation is still in the interests of the taxpayer.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister, I believe, said a 7 percent increase. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: On that one building.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can he give us a bit of a breakout on that increase from $843,000 to $1,047,000 as far as what those increases are, and the corresponding allotments -- so we have a better idea of where it's an increase in rent, and where it's an increase in office space and the provisions of those leases?
[ Page 5775 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: It's remarkably detailed, but if the hon. member wants to put it in writing, we'll respond to it in due course.
G. Farrell-Collins: The last time we put something in writing for a response in due course, it took six months. I don't imagine these estimates are going to continue for six months. I don't think it's beyond the realm of the minister to offer in estimates some accounting of the office space he currently holds, what increase in office space there has been, what the cost is going to be and what rental increase has taken place in what he says is only one place. I can probably sit down -- I'm sure the minister could too -- with the deputy in a few minutes and find out what those numbers are. Is there no way the minister can answer those questions? Does he not have those numbers readily available so that he can give us a breakout of increased size of office space, the cost of that and where the increased rents have taken place?
[3:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: In management services there was a reduction of 4.9 percent in building occupancy charges. In labour relations there was an increase of 18.9 percent, which I indicated was basically based on staff and changes to the lease arrangements. With regard to the Labour Relations Board, there was a 7.1 percent increase, which I've already explained. With regard to WCB advisory services, there was a 5.5 percent increase in building occupancy charges. In consumer services, it was zero percent. So the increases occurred in the areas that I've enumerated for the reasons that I've already articulated.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know that there was some canvassing of the Workers' Compensation Board the other day, and I don't intend to go into it at any great length right now. I am curious about the 5.5 percent increase for WCB. Perhaps the minister can tell us where that came from.
Hon. M. Sihota: That 5.5 percent was due to new requirements in the advisers' end of the work we do in the Workers' Compensation Board. As the hon. member should know, we opened up a new office in Prince George for workers' advisers and employers' advisers. As I've indicated, we're expecting to enhance that as time goes on. So the amount there covers what we've done and what we hope to do.
G. Farrell-Collins: With regard to the new regulations the minister brought in last week, can the minister tell us if there's going to be any increase in office space for the WCB in order to monitor or administer that?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think the hon. member understands the relationship of the ministry to workers' compensation. The allocation here is for the review board, not for the WCB.
G. Farrell-Collins: If we can go back to the 7 percent, I believe it was the LRB for which the minister stated a 7.1 increase. Having been in business a little bit myself and negotiated leases, etc., I know that a landlord will often give a fairly favourable rate for the first few years or so -- for a five-year or sometimes a shorter lease -- knowing that once you are in there and once you are established, a larger increase will come. They try to anticipate how much it is going to cost you to move out, so they can increase the rent to a level where it is not in your best interest to leave, so you end up absorbing the cost anyway. How competitive is a 7.1 percent increase with the surrounding properties? Are we being taken advantage of here, or is it still a reasonable rate?
Hon. M. Sihota: Prior to a new, renegotiated lease, we examined similarly situated properties in the area and looked at other options that were available. This was the most cost-effective option available to government.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assumed that, because they are staying. I would assume that that was behind the decision; that it made sense. The question isn't whether or not it was cost-effective to stay. The question is: how competitive is that rate with surrounding rates, not including the costs of moving? Although I know there are realistic costs, I am trying to get a sense of whether we've gotten ourselves into a lease that's realistic and competitive, or if we are being pushed a little bit.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's competitive. The BCBC did a survey, and apart from moving, you have to remember that we would have to do tenant improvements if we were to move.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister talked briefly about the policy and legislation branch of his ministry. I assume it is included under this vote. We talked yesterday, or the other day, about an actual increase of 17 FTEs in the ministry. Can the minister advise whether these people have been brought in to deal with the issues of employment standards, fair wages, etc.? Has there been an increase to the policy and legislation division as far as FTEs go?
Hon. M. Sihota: No.
G. Farrell-Collins: If I can move over a little bit now to employment standards, the information the minister gave us on March 19 of this year, giving the program-by-program allocations, shows the expenditure for the labour relations review committee was $1.5 million, and the allocation for professional services alone was $952,600. Could the minister indicate the type of allocation that has been set aside for the employment standards review committee?
Hon. M. Sihota: There is $500,000 for everything, including advertising.
G. Farrell-Collins: That seems to be at least a third of what was spent on the labour relations review committee. Can the minister explain why this one is operating at a so much more efficient level than the previous one was?
[ Page 5776 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a totally different review. The Liberal Labour critic understands that the reviews are totally different, certainly in terms of their structure; structurally they're significantly different.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm aware that they're structurally different; that's quite clear. It was also stated when the minister made his announcement in the press conference that the job of this review committee would be to bring forth some recommendations. If my understanding was correct, some sort of draft legislation would be tabled and thrown out for discussion, and people would have a chance to discuss that -- a much more positive process, I might add, than what was followed for the labour relations review panel. It would seem to me that the time frame is longer, and that the discussion is going to go on for a much longer period. Certainly there's a smaller group of people involved. I'm trying to understand where the savings and the cost increases are, because obviously certain aspects of the structure of this review are going to be more expensive and certain aspects less expensive. Can the minister tell us what the advantages of this one are?
Hon. M. Sihota: There were nine people in that process, as the hon. member knows. There's only one person in this process who makes the decision. There are a lot of savings there. In that process they were to draft the legislation; in this process they are not to draft the legislation. In that process their terms of reference were broader, in terms of the inquiry, than they are in this one. So there are significant material changes, and the hon. member should congratulate the ministry for being far more efficient.
G. Farrell-Collins: I always congratulate the minister whenever he's efficient. Unfortunately, I don't have too many opportunities to do so. But if this process is working much better and on a much more consultative basis, as he said at the time it was being brought out, I would hope that he would have followed this process during the Labour Relations Code. We could have saved ourselves a million dollars and had a more involved process. Had we taken a little longer, perhaps, had the original recommendations been thrown out to the public for discussion, it would probably have been a little more harmonious reception for the recommendations than what we saw.
If the minister is being more efficient and if the end product is that much better, then I would assume that the minister has learned his lesson from the Labour Relations Code review, and has changed his tack and changed his structure for this next review. I would congratulate him for making himself aware and for acknowledging the errors of his ways in the past, and I congratulate him on his newfound wisdom.
One thing I wanted to look at just briefly is the $500,000 expenditure for this committee. Can we get a breakout, please, of what are going to be the salaries, travel, public consultations, etc., etc.?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's tough to answer a question when he says, "etc., etc." I'm not sure what....
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, answer the first part and I'll fill in....
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows, because I'm sure he looks at OICs, that Mr. Thompson is paid $150 an hour. The hon. member knows, because he should look at OICs, that it's $175 a day for the other members. Sorry, in that case there were no OICs, but for Mr. Thompson it's $150 an hour. Besides that, the information is already made publicly available. With regard to travel, the panellists have decided they're going to visit 12 different communities and, of course, there will be some travel costs. So the envelope is $580,000.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says it's $580,000. I understand that is the envelope they're working in. I have heard the whisper that it's actually $500,000, not $580,000, but that's fine. Can the minister advise us under what provision or allocation the payment will take place to Hans Brown? Is that under the policy and legislation division? Is it under this committee? Where is that $30,000 being allocated?
Hon. M. Sihota: Under the Labour Relations Board.
G. Farrell-Collins: So are we to understand, then, that Mr. Brown is being employed by the Labour Relations Board, not the employment standards branch? Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
G. Farrell-Collins: I do want to look for just a few minutes at the actual Labour Relations Board. During the last year, the minister has appointed 12 new adjudicators and five new mediators. Are there any further anticipated positions being brought on stream during this fiscal year?
Hon. M. Sihota: One additional vice-chair, two mediators and support staff are contemplated.
G. Farrell-Collins: There's a vice-chair position coming in under the Labour Relations Board. Can the minister tell us what the duties of that man or woman would be?
Hon. M. Sihota: Vice-chair.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm trying to be very specific, if I can, for the minister, because we all know his ability and his leanings to try and avoid the question. If I can be blunt, it has been rumoured in public and among others that Mr. Brown will be hired in the vice-chair position to administer the appeals division of employment standards. Can the minister explain if this is the position that's being created?
Hon. M. Sihota: Administrative matters with regard to assignments fall under the authority of Mr. Lanyon.
[3:30]
[ Page 5777 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: That's not news to anyone, but the minister is ultimately responsible for the accounts of his ministry, and for the expenditures of the Labour Relations Board. He said only the other day that he was personally responsible for every dollar spent, and for every appointment that's made within his ministry. So can the minister answer the question: is this vice-chair's position going to be that which I described earlier?
The Chair: The minister has already offered the answer, hon. member, that it comes under the administrative purview of the board, not under his office.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think the minister can answer for himself, and say whether or not he wishes to. I don't think that it's appropriate that we have rulings when there are no points of order being raised.
The Chair: Order, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Who raised the point of order?
A question to the minister, who stated two working days ago that he was personally responsible for every dollar spent and for every position that was hired within his ministry, that he accepted that responsibility, and that he was willing to answer questions in that regard. Can the minister tell us if the vice-chair position that is allocated under his ministry, under the Labour Relations Board, is going to be that of a vice-chair responsible for appeals, incorporating the appeals division of the employment standards branch?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says I'm accountable, which I am, for the decisions made when they are made. When a decision to fill that vice-chair position is made, I will be happy to answer any questions in terms of both the choice of the individual and the assignment given to that individual -- and any other matters that may arise. At this point, there is no position filled and no duties assigned.
G. Farrell-Collins: A decision quite clearly has been made -- a decision to incorporate into the estimates of his ministry and the Labour Relations Board the position of vice-chair. Not a certain dollar figure allotted for an increase in salary or an increase in positions of people brought on board, but a very clear designation that there will be an additional vice-chair hired. The additional vice-chair is obviously either going to take some of the work the current vice-chairs are doing or that individual is going to have new responsibilities, or a combination of both. A decision quite clearly has been made to create a position within the ministry that is going to cost $90,000 a year plus benefits, etc. The minister knows the decision has been made. There may not be a person hired yet to fill that position, but the minister certainly should be able to tell us -- and tell the public -- what that position is required to do. Why the need for that allotment? Why the need for that $90,000 expenditure?
Hon. M. Sihota: Quite frankly, The hon. member gets kind of caught up in his own rhetoric. I have confirmed that there is a position -- that's how he learned of this -- for an additional vice-chair. That's been confirmed; that's on the record. As I've said to the hon. member, no decision has been made as to who will be doing that job and what responsibilities will be assigned.
If we have made provision this year for an additional vice-chair, we obviously anticipate that there will be demands made on the system. You don't need to be a rocket scientist, a political scientist or a critic for the Liberal Party on labour relations to figure out that there's been a new labour code introduced in this province. You should therefore be able to surmise there'll be additional responsibilities, work and demands on that board. The hon. Labour critic, who sat through this process for the last few days, knows full well there is (a) a labour code and (b) additional demands. He himself has talked about those demands. Because of those changes, we expect there will be a position to fill. In due course, when it's filled, and when those responsibilities are assigned, I would welcome any interventions the hon. member may have -- any questions about the individual, the responsibilities or how it fits in with these discussions. So far this budget makes it clear there is a position budgeted for.
G. Farrell-Collins: I thank the minister for his condescending and irrelevant remarks. Somebody will be hired, a position has been created and it is obvious that a need is seen within the ministry. The question is quite clearly: is this position going to be one that takes up some of the slack from the other vice-chairs? Are the duties of this new vice-chair going to be new duties in which the Labour Relations Board was not previously involved? Or is it going to be a combination of the two? Those are fair questions.
If the minister is making an allocation of $90,000 for a vice-chair, he must have some understanding from his own ministry why that allotment is being made. Why are they planning to appoint or bring in another chair -- aside from the fact that a new labour code has been brought in, which everyone certainly knows? Are the duties of this new chair to be new duties, new responsibilities? Or are they to fill in for what the other chairs are currently doing because of increased demand on that level? Or is it a combination of the two?
Hon. M. Sihota: I've answered the question.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, that's fine; we'll leave it at that. But quite clearly the minister has not answered the question, and it's not untrue to form. In fact, it is very true to form with the minister. Either he doesn't know, or he would rather not disclose that information at this time. It is quite clear that he is not being as open as his government campaigned that it would be.
Perhaps we can move on to an area which I know the minister will be proud to discuss; he will certainly be full of open information and standing up and blowing his own horn on the review and the decisions -- the
[ Page 5778 ]
regulations -- with regard to the agricultural worker provisions that were brought in last Friday. Perhaps we can look at those in some detail. I know the minister would be glad to tell us about that process and the accomplishments of the government, which, I understand, are many. As the minister stated last week, an historical injustice has been rectified to some extent. Perhaps the minister can tell us a little bit about the administration of that for the upcoming year. What increased costs are there going to be? How will that relate to his ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: That is covered in the WCB budget.
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding, at my last check, was that this minister was still responsible for the WCB. Is that correct? I guess the minister is not going to be answering any questions on the WCB. Is that correct? Or are we free to ask the minister questions as they relate to workers' compensation?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think the hon. member does not understand the relationship between this ministry and the WCB. I said that earlier on, in response to another question. I don't think he has a full understanding of the way in which budgets are set, who sets them and under what statutes they are set. I'd be happy to answer any questions in terms of the minister responsible for the WCB, that relate to the WCB. The member obviously does not understand what the process is in terms of the budget. If he wishes to be educated on that, he should ask.
G. Farrell-Collins: As we sit here today, we are engaged in the other House in a debate on a piece of legislation that is indicative of what we are experiencing right here, in that we have a minister who is responsible for a Crown corporation and the minister is not willing to discuss budgets, expenditures or the plans for that Crown corporation. We have right before us an example of the danger of Crown corporations insofar as accountability is concerned. I would hope, given the assurances I have heard from the minister, other ministers, and certainly numerous members of the NDP back bench, that the level of accountability with Crown corporations is as high as it is in the line ministries; that the minister would be willing, able and prepared to answer questions as they relate to the Workers' Compensation Board. If the minister stands by his remarks in the other House, and applies them to the debate going on here right now, he should be willing to answer those types of questions. Perhaps the minister can tell us if he is ready and willing and able and prepared to answer questions on the Workers' Compensation Board and the budget expenditures of the board.
Hon. M. Sihota: I guess maybe ignorance can be bliss sometimes, but the hon. member knows full well, if he looked at Hansard last week, that I'll be happy to answer any questions which relate to policy about workers' compensation. I did that the other day in a lengthy way. He knows that; he alluded to that earlier on. With regard to the budget, he knows -- or certainly by now, after 18 months on the job, he ought to know -- that the budget of Workers' Compensation is not set by this ministry or by this minister.
G. Farrell-Collins: Then perhaps I can ask some specific questions; I'll try to keep them on policy for the minister, if that's the area he wants to look at. I don't know if he's willing to answer this, or to what level he's willing to participate in debate, but clearly the impact of the regulations the minister has brought in on the farming sector in this province will be substantial; some positive, some negative, some somewhere in between. Farmers in British Columbia, because they fall under these regulations, are now going to be required to pay premiums to Workers' Compensation. Can the minister explain to us some of the rationale for that, what the impact is likely to be, from a policy point of view, of these premiums on the already hard-hit farming sector in this province, and what the economic impact on the agricultural farming sector of this province will be as a result of this policy decision?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member, I think, doesn't appreciate the differences, but that's fine. The industry has been paying assessments for some time. I don't think you realize that. If you do, then your question is surprising.
Secondly, with regard to the cost of premiums, I don't know to what extent they may or may not go up. But I know that all of the parties -- which is unprecedented -- have agreed to these changes. Obviously the employers and the employees feel that these are things they can handle, in terms of the additional costs and regulations that will be imposed upon them. I would assume that the Liberal Party of British Columbia would support the development -- both the process and now the conclusion -- of these regulations; and that they themselves recognize, albeit that there may be some cost, that you can't put a price on a life, and the costs have to be considered against the savings in terms of human injury and death and the suffering of families.
[3:45]
G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly the minister seems to take the position that if the opposition asks a question and asks for clarification on the operations of his ministry, somehow that's done in an attacking or offensive manner and therefore he must take a defensive posture; and because a question is asked, that somehow the person asking the question is opposed to everything the minister has to say. That's clearly not the case in many circumstances. But certainly it's my job as his critic to ask questions, to find details, to thrash out some of these issues, to determine to what level the minister consulted, to what level the minister considered all the various factors in making a decision, and what the impact will be. I think that's only expected of the opposition. Whether we agree with the policy decision or not, clearly the questions must be asked as to how that decision was arrived at, so we know with
[ Page 5779 ]
some sense of security what level of support there is for that.
Section 8 brought a little bit of concern to myself. I know the minister says all parties involved have accepted these regulations. That's true; they've accepted them, some more willingly than others. I imagine there's a bit of compromise back and forth. I know the farmers' association were certainly not thrilled with them, but went along with them in the end anyway. There was one specific section I did want to ask the minister about which is of concern to me, having not personally grown up on a farm but having many friends who did, and I spent a great deal of time at their farms. It deals with the distribution of work that takes place on a farm. Members of the family are oftentimes the only workers on a farm; there are no others involved. Everyone in the family is expected to pull their weight, and everyone is expected to have some specific duties they take under their wing. I did have a problem with section 8, which deals with the fact that no workers under the age of 15 shall operate mobile equipment in an agricultural workplace, and that no worker shall operate any mobile equipment unless the worker possesses a valid driver's licence. I am not going to get involved in a big examination of all the regulations, but I did want to ask that question specifically because I know that on family farms the younger people in the family, the teenagers, are often involved in driving a tractor or farm vehicle from point A to point B, or in moving small pieces of equipment. Is that not going to be an onerous regulation? Is that not going to have an effect on family farms? Instead of them doing the work themselves, are they going to have to hire somebody to come in and do the work normally done by a family member?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know what this has to do with the expenditures of the Ministry of Labour. We're now dealing with regulation, and the hon. member is asking me questions on regulation.
A couple of points. First of all, the hon. member doesn't understand the interrelationship between the legislation and the responsibilities of the minister. I know it hurts him when I say that, but quite frankly, I think he should take just a minute to read the legislation to have a better understanding. It's not we as a government who developed these regulations. It's the Workers' Compensation Board, under the act and provisions they have, who draft and develop the regulations.
The second point is that the hon. member, given his opening comments, should let us know which side the Liberal Party stands on, which side he stands on. He represents a Fraser Valley riding, where there are a lot of agricultural workers and employers. He points out during the course of his comments that some agricultural employers aren't happy -- he says -- with these regulations. Which side is he on? Which side is the Liberal Party on? Are they on the side of protecting the health and safety of those workers and supporting these regulations, or are they going to sit in the corner and whine because this government took the leadership to bring in these regulations? It's time for that hon. member to stake his ground, to get off the fence and tell us where he stands.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, the Chair is having a difficult time determining that, under standing order 61, the examination of the policies and practices of the Workers' Compensation Board come directly under the jurisdiction of the minister's office. They are subject to the board, not to the minister directly. I would ask the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove to restrict his questions to those questions in the area that is directly under the administration of the minister's office, as per standing order 61.
G. Farrell-Collins: The level to which ministers are protected in this government is amazing.
The Chair: Hon. member, would you come to order, please. It's never appropriate, hon. member, to challenge a decision or direction from the Chair. It seems apparent that although the Chair has exercised some patience these last few days in the examination of the minister's estimates, the member has difficulty accepting direction from the Chair. I will refer the hon. member to standing orders 19 and 20. If this action persists, hon. member, I will have no alternative but to enforce standing order 19.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I would like nothing better than to be thrown out of a committee hearing because the minister refuses to answer questions.
The Chair: Hon. member, order, please.
Interjections.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members, on vote 49.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we can move over to an area where the minister is willing to answer some questions, where the Chair will allow me to ask the minister questions and where he will....
The Chair: Hon. member, come to order, please. I will state again for your benefit, hon. member, that there are no provisions.... I refer you to standing order 9. There is no provision to challenge the decisions of the Chair. I will refer you again to standing order 19. If you persist, hon. member, you leave the Chair with no alternative.
G. Farrell-Collins: As I stated, hon. Chair, I will be glad at any time to be ejected from this committee hearing because the minister is not allowed to answer questions. If the Chair chooses to do that, I will be more than glad to take that to the public, and let the public know the way this government works as opposed to that upon which they campaigned. If the Chair chooses to do that, I'd be glad....
[ Page 5780 ]
The Chair: Order, hon. member! Come to order.
Does vote 49 pass?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
The Chair: In the interest of ensuring that the minister's estimates are examined and that we make progress on vote 49 in Committee of Supply, I would ask for another questioner at this time, if anybody else is interested in asking questions.
Hon. member for Peace River North, are you yielding to the member for...?
R. Neufeld: Yes, I am. I walked into something, and I didn't know what I was walking into. You sort it out, and when you're done, let me know.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I'd like to move into another area that the minister would like to answer some questions on, and that deals with the credit reporting branch and the debtor assistance branch. Earlier in this session, we somehow managed to come up with some information that indicated there were going to be some rather hefty fee increases to people who sought the assistance of the debtor assistance branch. I know that some increases came in as of Thursday or Friday last week. Perhaps the minister can give us some idea of what the plans are for this division and how those revenues are going to change the income of that branch.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry. Which one did the hon. member suggest came into effect on Thursday or Friday?
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I can certainly check that information and get back to the minister on it if he chooses. Perhaps the minister can explain to us if any increases have taken place or if there are any plans to increase those revenue-generating charges.
[4:00]
Hon. M. Sihota: I just wanted to get some background on it, but I'm not aware of Treasury Board having approved any revenue measures.
G. Farrell-Collins: So the minister is stating that there will be no fee increases as they relate to the consumer credit and debtor assistance branch during this fiscal year. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: No.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister stated that to his knowledge there has been no approval by Treasury Board for any increases to fees in the debtor assistance branch. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should understand that revenue decisions are made by Treasury Board. At this point, no decisions have been made with regard to Treasury Board. That is not to say that Treasury Board won't make any revenue decisions; it is just that they haven't as of this time made any decisions. Do I know what decisions are probable? No, I don't. Why is that? Because I am not on Treasury Board. At this point, I can tell the hon. member that, as far as I know, no decisions have been made.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, it is true that Treasury Board makes those decisions. It would seem to me -- perhaps the minister can correct me if I'm wrong; I'm sure he will -- that the ministry would send recommended increases in fees to Treasury Board. The decisions would initially be made at the ministry level as far as what those fees should be, whether or not those fees are appropriate and how that will impact the determination of demand for the services that are being provided and the cost estimates that go into providing those services. Whether or not Treasury Board has decided, has the minister recommended to Treasury Board that the $85 fee for debt counselling be implemented in this budget year?
Hon. M. Sihota: That fee is set by the federal government.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to shift for a minute, if I may, until the member for Chilliwack is ready to start. I would like to look at the fair wage policy, if we can discuss that for a few moments with the minister. When this policy was brought in, the Minister of Finance stated that while he didn't feel that the total allotment for capital construction by the ministry would be affected, the product they received for those expenditures -- i.e., the number of schools and hospitals that would be built -- would be less. The Minister of Finance stated that in public. Can the minister advise us what impact the fair wage policy has had on the number of schools built and what projection there is for that in the upcoming year? It's certainly a policy that this minister has brought under his own jurisdiction.
Hon. M. Sihota: I understand the question to be whether or not -- and I may not have heard it all -- we have built all the schools that we said we were going to build. In other words, have we not built them because of the fair wage policy? If that's the intent of the question, I can tell the hon. member that we've built all that we said we would build.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess I'm having a little problem, because the Minister of Finance, who does sit on Treasury Board, has stated that because of the fair wage policy that this minister has brought in, there will be a net decrease in the number of schools or hospitals built over the long term, or for that matter in the renovations or the upgrades that take place to the capital projects that already exist. I know that we've received representations from a number of school districts who have shown us in their budgeting systems that the costs of construction, and the costs of renovations to the schools, have in fact risen under the fair wage policy to the point where.... Particularly in
[ Page 5781 ]
my own district, there were some renovations that were planned to one school that had to be downgraded and put off for a certain period of time. We've also had those representations from other school districts.
So, quite clearly, whether the minister's aware of it or not, the impact of the fair wage policy is substantial. It is having an effect on the capital expenditures of school districts for one -- and I imagine hospitals, although we don't have any direct representation by them -- and in fact it is determining, as the Minister of Finance has said, the level of construction and renovations that is taking place in the education field. Clearly the policy that this minister brought in is having an impact, in agreement with the comments of the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell us whether he has studied at all the level of that impact in his monitoring of the fair wage policy that he said would take place?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has totally misconstrued what the Minister of Finance said. In any event, this is not the Ministry of Finance estimates. If he wants to question the Minister of Finance on what he said, he should ask the Minister of Finance in the venue that exists.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm very familiar with what the Minister of Finance said, and I intend to question the Minister of Finance when we do get to his estimates because I think it's important that he also account for the policies of this government. But clearly, this minister, when he brought in his fair wage policy, said that he would be carefully monitoring the impact of the fair wage policy, if any, on the expenditures of government to see if in fact there were any increases. Can the minister tell us what sort of monitoring has been done? And can he confide in us whether or not that impact is taking place?
The Chair: Those bells indicated a quorum call for the House.
Hon. M. Sihota: Since monitoring commenced at the introduction of the fair wage policy in March 1992, 111 projects have fallen under the policy guidelines. Of these, 109 projects that we have details on have pre-tender estimate costs of $502 million. Once the bids were awarded, the actual cost of these projects was determined to be $486 million. In general, construction projects covered by fair wage guidelines come in about 3.2 percent less than pre-tender estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister stated that 109 projects, estimated to cost a total of $502 million, actually came in with the bids at $486 million. What about the other two that were tendered? Perhaps I misunderstood the minister; he spoke relatively quickly as usual when he's giving figures. Can the minister explain what happened with the other two?
Hon. M. Sihota: There was a typo in the material that I just read. It was consistent with 111 all the way throughout.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess the area where the minister and myself, as well as the NDP and the other members of this House, disagree in regard to the fair wage policy is the minister's comments that somehow because something is thrown out to tender and comes in less than you've budgeted for, you've got the best deal. That may be the case. Or it may be that you overestimated in the first place, and you don't necessarily have the best deal possible, but you have a deal. When the cost of a project comes in under the estimated cost, the factors relating to that can be substantial. It's not just the fact that the minister, because of his fair wage policy of paying people more for the same amount of work, is saving money by doing that. I suppose we could argue at length with the minister on that issue, and he would not yield to that fact. He would say that because it came in under what had been estimated, the ministry is doing a better job and is getting more and better bids.
One aspect of the fair wage policy has had some problems in its implementation, and perhaps the minister could comment on it. It is in relation to setting what's considered to be the fair wage and the amount that the workers themselves are actually getting. The minister is aware, as anyone in the construction field is, that a certain amount of job targeting takes place. A certain amount of unsavoury business practices take place by the contractors not paying their employees the going rate. While I may disagree with the policy of the government, I do believe that whatever policy the government involves itself in -- whether I agree with it or not -- should be applied evenly and fairly.
Does the minister have any planned solutions to deal with job targeting and the non-payment of the rates that the minister is setting, which are clearly affecting the competitive base of certain companies as opposed to other companies and, in many cases, are not making this fair wage policy all that fair for the workers?
Hon. M. Sihota: We have a special team of three people that deals with this issue. The person who heads it has had considerable experience in the employment standards branch dealing with the industry. In fact, of the 20,000 complaints we get in the employment standards branch, about a third fall into the context of the construction industry.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's my concern, because I've had representations from employees in the construction field, where they haven't been receiving their fair wages. When they've asked for the fair wage rate, they've been let go. Two gentlemen have come to me with that problem in the last little while. They were told by the employment standards branch: "We just can't deal with it. The only thing you can do is ask that they give you the amount of money. There's really nothing we can do to enforce it." Does the minister have any plans to ensure that the policy he has decided on -- although, in my opinion, it's a very poor policy -- is being applied fairly? Is there any enforcement process in place, or is it just the investigations by those three members? What recourse do they have once they've investigated?
[ Page 5782 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should give me details of those two cases, because I would be happy to look into them. I'm surprised he hasn't forwarded them to me yet. It seems to me that if he's aware of a problem in his capacity as critic, he should correspond with me. If he has corresponded, then we'll take a look at it and reply.
If there are those problems, we don't hold the view that we have the full level of resources we need in order to do the enforcement. That's probably true for this program as much as it is for any other program in government where we have a policy or a law. We can't always enforce them to the extent that we'd like to. We do have these resources dedicated, and when issues come to our attention, we try to investigate as quickly as we can.
[4:15]
G. Farrell-Collins: The problem with the case that I'm referring to the minister, which I would be glad to forward to him if it was okay by the person involved, is that this person has since managed to find work elsewhere and, I guess in retrospect, feels that to avoid being blacklisted in the industry, they would rather not pursue it. That is their prerogative. It is unfortunate that we can't deal with it. There are other cases on which I do correspond directly with the minister, and I know he tries to get back to me and to the concerned parties as soon as he can, although that sometimes takes some months. I'll be glad to pass on the other case to him for his investigation. I assume it will be passed off down to the people whom the original person spoke with.
I don't know to what extent the minister wants to get into this, but there has been some discussion that the fair wage policy that he brought in will be expanded to other areas of government -- perhaps to the construction of the highways and bridges, etc. Can the minister advise us if there is any plan to expand the prerogative of the fair wage system, or are we going to stick pretty much with what we have so far?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't understand these concerns about blacklisting. I would like to take this opportunity to advise the hon. member that people can make complaints on an anonymous basis, which allows us to audit a particular company. He may not have been aware of that. I am glad that this exchange has allowed him to become aware of that, so if he does get complaints, he should be able to assure people that there is no risk of blacklisting. With regards to the question, it is a matter of future policy.
G. Farrell-Collins: The policy that is in place in Ontario with regard to fair wages is a little different, in that they do have a sort of safety check on it: they require a check of the payment process of the construction company involved. It is investigated to see that, in fact, the full payment has been made to the workers before final payment from the government is made to the contractor. I wonder if the minister has allotted any funds in this budget year to bring in somebody who will be able to do that type of an investigation. It seems that in the year, or a little more than a year, that we've had the fair wage policy in process, 111 contracts have been let. A certain number of spot checks by those three people would perhaps go a long way to solving some of the problems if the companies and the trade unions knew that that investigation was taking place and that job targeting, etc., would not be tolerated.
Hon. M. Sihota: Similar provisions exist in the contractual language that we have with regard to procurement of these projects. Should we ever decide to strengthen those, I'm glad to see that I would have the support of the opposition.
R. Chisholm: I would like to change the subject matter somewhat, and go to WCB and the new regulations that the minister brought forward on April 30 covering agriculture safety in the province when it became law. I'd like to again cover FARSHA -- the Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Agency -- and some of the provisions in there.
It says under this law that no person below the age of 15 is allowed to utilize the machinery, the tools and that type of thing. But let's be realistic: farm families generally work as a family on the farm. Some of the dependents are going to be below the age of 15 and they are going to be utilizing some of the tools on the farm. Was this taken into account when this provision was looked into?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know there's a process with regard to the development of regulations, that the Workers' Compensation Board develops those regulations and makes them public. Indeed, if memory serves me right, on January 29, 1993, they made them public. At that point the Board indicated they would go through a process of public consultation, having had private consultations with the industry and employees in the development of the regulations through an appointed board. They would have public hearings; indeed, public hearings were held, both in the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan Valley, for example. These regulations were discussed in the public consultation process. The process sought input from farmers, and I am led to believe this issue was one of the areas on which there was some public input.
In any event, that's not the point. The point is: I would have hoped that the Liberal Party, if it had some concerns, would have taken the initiative to engage in input at that level. I don't know if they did or didn't. I don't know if the member, as the MLA for an agricultural region in the province, took that opportunity. I would hope that he would have availed himself of it.
These regulations are the product of consensus among the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the Workers' Compensation Board and the trade unions involved here. I'm pleased to say that that consensus resulted in these rules. When you have consensus it may be that not everybody's happy with everything. That's not the way the world works; the world works in terms of whether or not we can live with the regulations. The regulation question, therefore, was one that was open and
[ Page 5783 ]
available for public input starting in January; it involved public scrutiny in the area you represent and, I would like to think, given your responsibilities and that of your political party, input from them.
R. Chisholm: You can rest assured, hon. minister, that we did, and so did the BCFA. But I'm just wondering whether the information you gathered from the public was utilized in consideration of these regulations. Maybe you can answer that partly in the next question which I'll give you at the same time, about the WCB premiums for farms. Some farms are rather small operations and, unfortunately, these premiums may be too large for them to handle. Can the minister indicate what levels these premiums will get to, or does he have any knowledge in this area?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the regulations are developed by the WCB; they aren't developed by the ministry or the minister, so the representations go to WCB. If the hon. member wishes to attack the integrity of the Workers' Compensation regulatory advisory process, I think he does so at some risk. They obviously considered what the public had to say, and he knows that as well as I. This is not some kind of NDP plot, where the NDP drafts regulations; they're drafted by the WCB.
Second, with regard to assessments, they're anticipated to be minimal in terms of their impact.
Third, as I said earlier on, I sure would like to know where the Liberal Party stands and which side it's on with regard to these regulations. Do they support the fact that we've brought forward health and safety regulations for farmworkers in British Columbia, or are they against them? I know the hon. member, just like the hon. critic of the Liberal Party for Labour matters, comes from the Fraser Valley. He refused to say, during the course of these estimates, where it is the Liberals stand.
R. Chisholm: Perhaps the minister should realize, after this many years in this building, that it's his estimates and we're asking him the questions; it's not up to him to ask us the questions. At the present time we have a few questions for him, and it would be nice if he answered one or two of them. After all, we ask them for the public, and generally the public has asked the questions of us, so his lack of response is definitely going out to the public.
Has the minister established who will head the FARSHA, the new organization you've invented? If so, what is the background of the person? What is the budget? What is being considered in terms of staffing? Will claimants for compensation go through FARSHA or WCB? Will there be branch officers throughout the province, and in which locations? When will this agency be fully operational? It would be nice if we received a few answers.
Hon. M. Sihota: There's a list of questions; I'd be happy to answer them all. If I miss some the first time around, I'm sure the hon. member will ask.
Let me ask him: does the Liberal Party support the introduction of health and safety regulations for farmers or doesn't it? I mean, the hon. member's right: this is a public office, and the public has a right to know, and the public should know where his party stands on this issue.
This opposition party seems to be trigger-happy with press releases. I haven't seen any press releases with regard to this issue. I think the public has the right to know, and the hon. member should, through these estimates, let the public know where he and his party stand. Are they in favour or are they against the introduction of these health and safety regulations for farmworkers? It's not a skill-testing question, and I'm sure the hon. member would be happy to answer it.
With regard to the agency. the agency will be doing educational work with regard to the regulations that have been developed. Enforcement work will be done by the Workers' Compensation Board. No, a chair or head of the agency has not been identified. The budget, in terms of the Workers' Compensation allotment, is about $200,000. As I understand it, it is an agency that will be jointly established by the industry, the unions and the WCB on a tripartite basis.
R. Chisholm: There are a couple more questions on that one, hon. minister. You've been in government a year and a half, but you don't seem to have realized that you are in the driver's seat. You're supposed to be governing, not in opposition, and it's high time you realized that.
The questions you did miss are where the branch offices will be, and when the agency will be fully operational.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't make the decision in terms of branch offices. Those are made by the board of governors of the Workers' Compensation Board. As to the timing, I don't know when they'll be fully operational, but I will undertake to do this: when it is established, and when those decisions are made, we can advise the member accordingly.
Secondly, it's funny, the Liberals are quite happy to say where they stand on a number of issues, but they are not prepared to face the music...
The Chair: Order, hon. minister. Just address the question as it was stated, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: I am, hon. Chair. I'd be most interested to know the position of that party.
R. Chisholm: The other question he missed in that is: will claimants get compensation through FARSHA or through WCB?
Hon. M. Sihota: WCB.
R. Chisholm: Could the minister indicate how the regulations will be enforced? Will safety checks similar to those done in other job sites be conducted on applicable farm operations?
[ Page 5784 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, and the occupational health and safety division of Workers' Compensation will be doing the work.
[4:30]
R. Chisholm: There's at least one contradiction within the report. It deals with the criteria for application of the regulations and the exemptions pertaining to rollover protective structures, or ROPs. The regulations indicate that tractors are exempt from the requirements for ROPs for tractors used in agricultural situations such as orchards. It would seem, then, that the requirements for ROPs is aimed at vegetable farms. Would you clarify that, please?
Hon. M. Sihota: The regulations speak for themselves.
R. Chisholm: That's an intelligent answer, I must admit. The draft regulations indicate that, for the purpose of regulations, land will be classified as a farm if the primary agricultural production of the land has a gross value production of at least $1,600 in the first four acres, and an amount equal to 5 percent of the assessed value of the land for the farm purposes that exceeds four hectares. This definition would seem to include primarily fruit or vegetable farms. Would the minister indicate what information he has on the number of reported accidents or incidents involving a tractor rolling over and resulting in injury or death?
Hon. M. Sihota: As I said earlier on during estimates to the hon. Labour critic of the Liberal Party, you have to understand what the process is here, and who's responsible. Those are determinations that should be made by the Workers' Compensation Board.
R. Chisholm: I am sure the BCFA. along with the farm industry in this province, will be happy with these answers. Obviously it will be a financial responsibility of the owner to upgrade equipment to the new required standards, such as the rollover protective structures that we talked about. The regulations indicate that tractors purchased after December 31, 1993, must be equipped with ROPs; and all other tractors must be fitted with ROPs no later than December 31, 1996. My question is: why is there a three-year delay in installation of the ROPs for presently owned tractors? Is the government considering any type of agricultural grant to assist with such upgrading?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member talked about the BCFA. They were part of developing these regulations, and they represented the industry. So I'm sure that they have a good understanding of the regulations. Secondly, there is no intention on the part of our ministry to offer capital assistance with regard to the introduction of the regulations.
R. Chisholm: It seems the minister knows the B.C. Federation of Agriculture was part of the negotiations, and he probably knows they weren't entirely happy. Would the minister clarify that ROPs are required for all tractors presently owned by qualifying farmers, apart from the exemptions?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, if there are issues with regard to regulations being unclear, that will be determined by the Workers' Compensation Board. Secondly, I want to ask the hon. member again: does he or does he not support regulations that protect the health and safety of farmworkers?
R. Chisholm: The next question I have for the minister is on the requirement to install ROPs, which will cost approximately $1,500. The requirement is that tractors presently owned by applicable farmers must be fitted prior to the end of 1996. Would the minister not agree that the consideration as to whether or not a tractor is fitted for an ROP should be on the slope degree of the farm, say 20 degrees, rather than on the value of production? It would seem that there should be more concern for the geographical makeup of the property than the yield.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know how many times I have to say it before the penny finally drops, but let me put it this way: it's not cabinet that develops these regulations; and it's not the Ministry of Labour that develops these regulations. These regulations are developed by the Workers' Compensation Board on the basis of a process that I've already outlined. I know that the hon. member has prepared questions that he feels some obligation to ask without any consideration as to the answers that are given to the questions. He sits here and simply tries to read the next question so that he can articulate it in the exchange. I simply want to remind the hon. member that these are regulations that are developed by the Workers' Compensation Board. They are not developed by cabinet, and as such they are regulations that are developed with input from the industry on the process that I've outlined. If there is any uncertainty with regard to the regulations, they will be resolved by the Workers' Compensation Board through the normal channels that are available. If a farmer feels that they don't apply, and the board rules that they do apply, there are processes through which those issues can be resolved. The Federation of Agriculture, farmers and employees understand those processes. I'm sorry to see that the Liberals don't.
R. Chisholm: It is nice that the minister can get up and go into a tirade like that. I wonder if he realizes that he is a member of the government. The government controls WCB, and in so doing, I surmise that they had some input into the regulations that were forced on the unknowing public out there. It's about time he started answering questions so the unknowing public would know who to hold responsible. Would the minister clarify, if he can, whether injured workers, who have migrated to B.C. for work during the summer, would be covered under WCB claims? Has the minister considered the cost of outside coverage, particularly for workers from the United States and elsewhere?
[ Page 5785 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: They have been covered under compensation for the last 11 years.
R. Chisholm: During the hearings last year by the occupational safety and health review committee, concerns were expressed by domestics and home-care workers. Would the minister indicate whether there is consideration for coverage of these workers as well?
Hon. M. Sihota: Has the Liberal Party taken the view that working people ought not to have health and safety protection?
L. Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment and one small, quick question on the WCB. I suspect the minister never had any intention of doing this, but the press release that came out, as far as regulations are concerned, may have led some people to believe that farmworkers were not covered by WCB prior to this. I think the minister recognizes that they have been covered for a long time, and that these are safety regulations that relate to the operation of farms. That wasn't as clear as it should have been in the release.
In any case, the question I have for the minister.... I think I know the answer, but just to confirm it: there's no change in the application of WCB coverage from the situation that was there before. It is simply the application and installation of regulations.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, you have it right. In terms of your opening comments, you're right. There is a subtle but significant difference that seems to get lost in the shuffle.
L. Hanson: Another clarification, then. It is my understanding that for an individual in operation without employees or without the incorporation of a farm, the requirement for WCB coverage is the same as it was before. It is the same as it is for any small business.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's right, and they are not covered unless they opt to be.
R. Neufeld: I walked in late. I want to address some questions on B.C. Hydro to the minister. I received a letter from the minister in February about a new corporate strategic plan, and I just want him to talk a little about a few items in it. One is employment equity. Of course, the strategic plan didn't explain it that much. Maybe the minister could enlighten us a little on the government's policy on employment equity, so we know where we are going.
Hon. M. Sihota: I am glad you read the corporate strategic plan. I don't have it here, and I don't have officials from Hydro, but that didn't handicap us in dealing with these issues the other day. Hopefully it won't today.
The board has indicated that it wants to pursue employment equity issues. Generally within government, we have felt that we should deal with employment equity matters, and that means doing some kind of inventory of our hiring practices -- making sure that employment equity considerations are part of the hiring determinations -- and developing an overall, comprehensive policy for employment equity. It hasn't existed at Hydro. We'll take a look at opportunities for women or visible minorities and aboriginals -- there are very few aboriginals who work at Hydro. It's sort of a broad-based review of employment equity, and it is true that the board has put a premium on dealing with that issue.
R. Neufeld: So there is something there -- and I don't disagree with looking at employment equity in those types of things, so don't get me wrong there -- to hire more women and aboriginal people in different positions within Hydro. Do I understand that? It's in place now as a directive from the government to be done?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a directive from the board.
R. Neufeld: I wrote a letter to the minister and he replied....
Hon. M. Sihota: Promptly.
R. Neufeld: I won't say anything about dates, but he did reply, and I appreciate that. I asked him about the Columbia River basin. There is something in the strategic plan to do something in the Columbia River basin because of something that was promised by W.A.C. Bennett, or that was in place many years ago. I just want to bring to the minister's attention that there were maybe a lot of those thoughts going into the Peace River area, where I come from, and such things as Fort Nelson, for instance, which is 250 miles from the Peace Canyon Dam -- probably 200 miles straight across -- that were supposed to receive power at the going rate, the postage stamp rate for British Columbia, and are receiving it from Alberta right now by natural gas-fired. Although households pay a lesser rate than they do in the lower mainland because of the water tax difference, industry still pays a little bit higher rate, and it's reflected in the price of natural gas.
I would just like to know if there are some things that are going to happen in the north -- in the Peace River area -- that would be about the same as those planned for the Columbia River basin, because they are much the same. Any area that's been flooded to create dams.... Of course they all have their reasons for wanting different things. Some of the prime land in British Columbia is flooded in the Peace. I'm not saying it was wrong. It was a good decision, and it was good for the province of British Columbia as a whole, but some of the people in my constituency feel a little bit left out. Is there something afoot that we can see within the next couple of years?
Hon. M. Sihota: This is interesting, because the previous administration, if I may say so, had strong representation -- cabinet representation -- from the Peace, and there was ample opportunity for them at that point to remedy some of these concerns, and they
[ Page 5786 ]
didn't. We're happy to do that. You're right, we've done a lot of work on the Columbia River side of it, and if you were to say that we have not been as fast off the mark on the Peace, you'd be right. Clearly we have some obligations to that region of the province, and clearly we have some obligations to mitigate -- maybe that's not the best word. Maybe it's better just to say: to attend to the concerns people historically have had in the area. We're not at all averse to doing that; in fact, we're interested in doing that.
The board has representation from the Peace in the person of someone I'm sure you know: Jean Leahy. First of all, she was put on the board in part because of her knowledge of that region. Secondly, she has insisted that we get a process going with the Peace, which we can't ignore. We're doing stuff on the Columbia. We've got an equal obligation to the Peace, and there's legitimacy in that argument. So we've established a board committee to start us looking at Peace issues.
[4:45]
Third, I believe that if we haven't, we're anticipating doing a couple of things. One is having some kind of public input consultation process in that region. In fact, just this morning I was speaking at the energy forum dealing with energy-related issues and the tensions that exist between various regions of the province -- the producing regions being the Peace and the Kootenays, and the consuming regions being the Island and the mainland. In that vein, certainly there were some strong representations made by representatives from Tumbler Ridge. I think the regional economic development officer for that area was there. She was there because we had had, through Hydro, a process of regional economic development forums in the Peace and the northeast region of the province -- and I appreciate that it's vast -- seeking public input on things that they think we should be doing in this regard. That's what triggered the forums that we had this morning. We are actually out there listening. In addition, we anticipate having further meetings, including a board meeting in the northeast corner of the province. If we have it in your riding, we'll ask you to come and host it; and if we don't, we'll ask your colleague to do that.
We will be doing that as well in the next little while as a part of the reaching out. But admittedly we're a little bit slower in that area than we have been in the Columbia River.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister's comments about us having strong representation from the north, and I would hope he still feels that way. And maybe I'll let him know that we're dealing with a Crown corporation and we did have the replacement: the person Jean replaced also represented and knew the north very well. That doesn't mean that you can always get through what you want to get through to the corporation.
Basically what I'm asking the minister is whether they will look at the Peace River region, because they've made an issue out of looking at the Columbia River basin and putting it directly into the corporate strategic plan. If we're going to look at the Columbia River basin, let's look also at the Peace River region fairly, whether by representation or not -- I hope it isn't representation, because I know who represents that area of British Columbia now. Regardless of who's representing it, I would hope that those same thoughts would be directed to the Peace River region, because they're all residents of British Columbia, and they're all people who have given in both those areas to the betterment of all British Columbians.
J. Weisgerber: And a few of them even voted NDP.
R. Neufeld: And a few even voted NDP, yes.
The other thing I wanted to talk to the minister about -- and I know he has done some work in this area with one of my other colleagues -- the pole rate that B.C. Hydro charges. I know that has always been there, and it's there for a reason between B.C. Tel and B.C. Hydro, but I can tell you that it certainly is very difficult. I can't see why we have to apply that kind of charge provincewide, number one. If it works well in the cities and the lower mainland and Vancouver, then charge it in Vancouver, because obviously, if B.C. Hydro wants to get back some costs from B.C. Tel to string their lines in the lower mainland, they're spreading it among thousands of users, and it hardly plays a part in the costs. But when you're talking about maybe 25 or 30 users in an area that takes 30 miles of line or something, it becomes actually so high that those people cannot afford lines for B.C. Tel.
I'm not asking B.C. Hydro to subsidize B.C. Tel, but I'm asking that maybe a special agreement be made in those areas. It's not just the Peace region; it's anyplace in rural B.C. In the Peace region there are some areas that I'm actively working on now, and B.C. Hydro has agreed with me on one area. But there are quite a number of them where people cannot get B.C. Tel because of the high costs. It could cost them up to $10,000 a person just to get a telephone in. People in the lower mainland don't even know about that. They pay their $50 or $100 or whatever it is, and they've got it. In the north, in some of those areas -- and I'm sure you have some members here who are faced with those same things -- they pay an astronomical amount. Either that, or they do without. So would the minister look favourably at working with Hydro to change that direction?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, with respect to your opening comments, as I said earlier on, it is quite legitimate and accepted on my part for you to say: "Look, you're putting some energy and vigour into the Columbia River, it's only fair to ask for equal -- and I underline that word -- attention to the Peace. I want to put on the record that this will indeed be the case with Hydro.
With regard to the pole rate, you're right. We have members from the north, and I can assure you that both the member for Skeena and the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine have been as persistent as you in making representations with regard to the pole rate. Having said that, I have ducked the balance of your question by saying simply that it's duly noted.
[ Page 5787 ]
R. Neufeld: What is the NDP's position on hydro into remote areas, into farming communities that still generate electricity by diesel? We have that. We have some that do without. We have some places along the Alaska Highway, some fairly old farming areas that have been there a long time, where the costs just to get hydro in to those people -- not just the telephone -- is fairly high. Those people participate in British Columbia just the same as a person in Vancouver. Someone who happens to be close to a large centre can get hydro relatively easily because it's running by the doorstep already. What is the minister's feeling on that?
Many of my people tell me that we flooded an awful lot of our land to get hydro to those people down south, and because they live in an area that is populated, they're just lucky. That shouldn't play a part in it. A lot of my people say we should have a postage stamp rate for people in British Columbia, other than for one person whom you might have to run a line two hundred miles to get to. That would be ridiculous.
There should be a little something more in Hydro's plan to give those people hydro. We know that Hydro is not being supported by the government; it's the other way around. We know that there are millions of dollars coming back from Hydro to the government for investment. The minister has said many times: "We want a rate of return." Is there something we can do to get hydro to some of those areas?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, and I will make two additional comments. On the point you made about diesel, recently in the Queen Charlottes, for example, it's still a problem. I used a call for a request for proposals for an independent power producer to make sure that we don't continue to provide power based on diesel generation.
On the issue of remoteness, you're right. I've been struck by the number of letters from various MLAs on the absence of coverage in remote areas. The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke has communities in his constituency that aren't covered -- large ones. The member for Skeena writes to me about very small clusters of residential areas that aren't covered. Those are two examples that come to mind, in addition to what you've had to say in the House.
I have told Hydro it's time we deal with that issue with some dispatch. I don't want to create unnecessarily high expectations on the part of your constituents, but I do want to tell you we are quite involved in developing not just a policy but a practice to make sure people in remote areas have hydroelectric power.
R. Neufeld: My last question has to do with Kootenay Power.
Hon. M. Sihota: Don't you mean West Kootenay?
R. Neufeld: Yes, West Kootenay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think B.C. Hydro supplies their shortfall; they used to do it at a discounted rate and will now do it at a higher rate. Can you tell me what studies were done and what impacts that would have on industry in that area? Is West Kootenay going to have to up the rate to minimize the charge you're going to give them? Is it going to have a large impact on hydro rates for industry and the general public?
Hon. M. Sihota: One percent across the board. As a result of the recent BCUC decision, it is about 1 percent across the board. When you talk about the users, don't assume that the people who are serviced by West Kootenay are in the West Kootenays. Princeton and Kelowna, for example, are covered by West Kootenay.
R. Neufeld: Can you break it down to industry and residential, or do you know that?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know for certain, but I think it was 1 percent right across the board. At least that is my recollection of the ruling. But you can write to me and I'll get you an answer to that. I will reply promptly, as I always do.
J. Weisgerber: I would like to continue with some questions on Hydro. The first series of questions on which I would like to focus some attention concern a constituency issue related to water levels in Williston Lake. The minister may be aware that the projections are that the drawdown at Williston Lake by April or May l994 will fall into the range of 2,115 feet, which is far below the historical low-water level for Williston Lake. The effect of Hydro's decision to drawdown Williston reservoir to that level will be to leave all of the dewatering systems for the five sawmills high and dry; essentially making it impossible to use the traditional barging system on the lake for moving logs from one end to the other. At 2,115 feet, the water intakes and outfalls for at least one of the two pulp mills is high and dry, as is the sewage discharge system for the municipality of Mackenzie.
I am wondering if the minister has had an opportunity to consider whether or not hydro should drawdown Williston Lake that far. He might be aware that while Hydro's water licence allows the drawdown to 2,100 feet, there has been, over the last 25 years, a series of assurances given to various interest groups that the drawdown wouldn't be below 2,145. So maybe before I ask too many questions, does the minister have any plans for government involvement in this decision to drawdown Williston Lake that far? Perhaps he could tell us what his plans are for the various affected agencies.
Hon. M. Sihota: Before I endeavour to answer the question, you said April or May 1994 as opposed to April or May 1993.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. minister, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: As the hon. member knows, of course, there are shortage problems right across the province because of the difficulties we've had this year in precipitation levels. I assume that this is in relation to that in terms of the problems we have had for the last
[ Page 5788 ]
two years, particularly this last year. But I don't have the detailed information here with regard to this problem. If we continue tomorrow, I will try to get you that information -- with Hansard being available, I guess, by tomorrow -- for tomorrow morning's continuation. If we don't, I will talk to you privately about the issue.
[5:00]
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, and I will come back to the issue, because it is very important to the people of Mackenzie, the people who work there -- the industrial base of the community. The minister suggests that the drawdown is a result of lower-than-normal precipitation. It probably goes further than that, to the core of some of the decisions being considered and some of the decisions being made with regard to generation facilities and to the decisions to export power. All of these are part of a decision process. It appears to me, as a member representing a community to be affected seriously by these decisions, that there is a lot more at stake here than simply whether or not we have a large or low snowpack. I believe that this decision, because it is projected well into 1994, is reflective of a number of decisions -- decisions not to proceed with building new generation facilities, for example. I'm hoping to find out from the minister that he is not going to continue to wait on these decisions currently underway before taking some action. I'm looking for some assurance that the minister, as the minister responsible for Hydro, and the corporation are willing to look at this as a crisis for at least one community and start to take some action.
[P. Ramsey in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll get some answers from staff with regard to the consideration. Obviously, the reason I seized on 1994 versus 1993 was to try to get a reading on not just the immediacy of the problem but also on what may have been at play. You're right; other considerations would have to come into play in talking about 1994, I would surmise, as much as you have. I don't know about exports, though, because obviously we have some policy issues to resolve with regard to exports first. But again, I'll have staff here deal with this issue, or get an answer from them.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to pursue a line of questioning that follows this. So in the interests of making this process move along quickly, I'll take my place and come back tomorrow morning, and hope we can continue along that line at that time.
G. Farrell-Collins: As the minister may know, I'm not particularly the critic for Hydro, but I do have some interest. I notice the Leader of the Third Party asking questions on Hydro, where he was given assurances that information would be forthcoming. I would hope that information is forthcoming by tomorrow. In past cases the minister's promises of delivery of information haven't always been as prompt as one would hope. I would hope that in these estimates the minister would come prepared and ready to answer those types of questions. It makes it very difficult for the opposition members to hold the minister accountable when the minister doesn't seem to have prepared for his own estimates, doesn't seem to be prepared to answer the questions, and doesn't seem to have the information available to him.
I'd like to come back to a few other questions which deal with the fair wage policy, which is where we led off before the other members engaged in the debate. Over the last year some wage increases have been negotiated for government and other employees. My understanding of the fair wage policy was that the rate was set as a percentage. Can the minister tell us if there are plans to increase the rate set for fair wage, or does he intend to leave it as its present dollar figures?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, he's wrong in his assumptions. It's not the first time he's been wrong in these estimates. In fact, I've lost count of the times he's been wrong.
Secondly, the question is in relation to future policy.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister's getting testy; I guess at the end of a long day his temper tends to get short. We'll allow for that personal fault; that's fine.
On the implementation of the fair wage policy, the minister included only certain trades. Could he tell us if the policy is going to be expanded in this fiscal year to include other trades? Or is it going to be maintained strictly as it is?
The Chair: Before the minister responds, I think this process will go a lot smoother if we just deal with substantive issues, rather than with people's physical or mental tiredness or alertness.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, that's a matter of future policy at this point. The government has not made any changes for the better part of a year. As to whether or not they're contemplated, I don't know at this stage what the determination of government will be on that issue.
G. Farrell-Collins: Some discussion and concern were represented to me -- I know the minister is well aware of the issue -- with regard to the Iron Workers' Union and their inclusion in the fair wage policy. Can the minister tell us what determination has been made on that, and where their status as tradespeople lies? Are they still going to be included as mere labourers?
Hon. M. Sihota: The ironworkers are part of the policy.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm concerned about that, because.... I'm concerned about the answer, I should say. I'm not concerned that they're included, but I'm concerned by the answer, because representations were made to me and to the member for Surrey-White Rock with regard to the status of the trade itself. This government had removed the trade status of
[ Page 5789 ]
ironworkers, and they will be included as labourers in the future. The rate that they will be paid under the fair wage policy would be substantially different. The minister doesn't seem to know what that's about. Perhaps he can tell us to the best of his ability what has taken place.
Hon. M. Sihota: I assume the hon. member is talking about the TQ certificate issue as it relates to ironworkers. As of April 15, 1993, the certification requirement for all persons performing structural or reinforcing ironwork was resolved.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's always nice to know that the deputies are here to provide that information when the minister doesn't have it. I'm glad to hear that it has been dealt with, because it certainly was of concern to those workers. The minister says it has been resolved. My question is: has any recourse been necessary to take as far as payment of the fair wage scale to those workers in the interim, since their status was removed last December?
Hon. M. Sihota: We're not aware of any issues that are outstanding with regard to payment. If the member is, he should let us know.
With regard to the TQ certificate, a process has been resolved and worked out in ways in which we can ensure that we're getting the most qualified people to do the work.
G. Farrell-Collins: The concern the ironworkers had was that there had been some punitive measures taken against them. I assume the minister is saying that there were none, and that the misunderstanding or whatever you wish to call it has been rectified.
There was a concern with the fair wage policy -- I think I started to ask this question of the minister earlier -- as it relates to B.C. 21, the new project the government has brought in. Can the minister tell us if projects under a Crown corporation are going to be included in the fair wage policy?
Hon. M. Sihota: The current policy with respect to fair wages stands. It would be a matter of future policy if we were to extend that to cover areas that aren't covered, but if areas currently covered by the fair wage policy fall within B.C. 21, they would be covered by the fair wage policy. It just depends on the project.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's fine. I think that's a sufficient answer. The minister is stating that the fair wage policy will apply only as it applies now, and that if B.C. 21 is involved in highway construction, the fair wage policy won't apply. If it's involved in the construction of schools, hospitals, etc., then it will. I'm assuming that's what the minister is stating.
I have a couple of questions. I was hoping that the critic for Hydro would be on his way, but I understand he is currently chairing the Public Accounts Committee. So I will ask some questions on B.C. Hydro which he has prepared.
The issue of profits at B.C. Hydro is an interesting one. The minister -- last fall, I believe -- stated that despite surplus profits for B.C. Hydro, there was going to be a cap on the fee increases for B.C. Hydro. If I look through my numbers here, I can find the actual percentage point. But he had put a cap on the rate increases for B.C. Hydro. I suppose the public is asking this question: Why is it that increases would be considered for B.C. Hydro rates, when they seem to be turning considerable profits on an ongoing basis?
Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to the opening assumption, the hon. member should know that I made a comment with regard to the fair wage policy and its current application.
With regard to the question on B.C. Hydro, I answered that very question the other day in some detail.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we can look into some of the hiring that has taken place at B.C. Hydro. Again, I apologize if I'm canvassing an area that another member has canvassed in my absence. I will be glad to look over the Hansard records and get those answers.
Last year we asked a question of the minister regarding B.C. Hydro, and I think we were told we would get an answer, and we've yet to receive it. Perhaps we can get a little better response this year.
In 1990 Hydro implemented a policy of equal opportunity called Building the Team 2000: Human Resource Strategy for the '90s. One goal of this project was to bring more qualified women into the ranks of management at B.C. Hydro. Can the minister indicate how many women have been promoted or hired to either full-time or contract mid- and upper-level management positions since that policy was brought in? How well is that policy working? Are we achieving the results the minister was looking for?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have the numbers.
G. Farrell-Collins: It does concern me, because this question was asked a year ago in Labour estimates, and I would have thought the minister would have passed that information on to us in the meantime; or if he didn't, that he would certainly be prepared for that question this year. I would imagine that part of his preparation for estimates would be to look back at what was asked last year and to try to anticipate some of the questions this year, and to find that information. That's why I'm a little dismayed at the level of preparedness of the minister in responding to some of these questions.
Can the minister give us an idea of the timeframe it would take him to secure that information so that we know what the status of that program is?
[5:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I can't.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know why the minister would have allowed his estimates to come forward at this point in this session of the legislative sitting if the minister is not prepared to have answers to
[ Page 5790 ]
the questions being asked. It seems quite clear that when a minister comes forward and takes his seat in the estimates debate, the minister should have those facts at his fingertips and be ready to answer questions with regard to the expenditures and policy decisions in his ministry.
Last year this minister's estimates came up towards the very end. He was one of the very last ministers to defend his estimates in the House, and even at that point the minister did not have the information that was requested of him beforehand in writing. During the debate in the House he again gave assurances to the opposition that he would be more than happy to come back with that information. Here, about ten or 11 months later, we have the minister still not prepared to answer those questions, still not ready to defend his estimates in a manner that's responsible, that allows the opposition members to scrutinize those expenditures and come up with meaningful debate and discussion of the policy decisions by this minister.
Hon. Chair, I would suggest that this minister adjourn his estimates and come back at a later date once he has that information, or perhaps he could try and find that information for us quickly. If he can't find it today, then perhaps he can tell us when he will be prepared to defend his estimates in this House, and when he'll be prepared to have answers to the questions that are brought forward by the Leader of the Third Party, members of both opposition parties and the independent members. Clearly that's the job that we're here to do, and if the minister is not ready to answer these questions, I would suggest that he adjourn the debate on these estimates until such time that he's better prepared. So I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at a time when the minister is prepared to answer questions.
Hon. M. Sihota: A point of order. At a time when the minister is prepared to answer questions? We've been answering questions all along. Hon. Speaker, I would be happy to undertake a motion to rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:18 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]