[ Page 793 ]

CONTENTS

Motion

Time of next sitting. Mr. Lauk — 793

Mr. Speaker — 793

Mr. Lauk — 793

Mr. Gibson — 793

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 793

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 794

Point of order

Clarification of Mr. Speaker's ruling. Mr. D'Arcy — 794

Mr. Speaker — 794

Mrs. Wallace — 795

Mr. Speaker — 795

Mr. Gibson — 795

Mr. Speaker — 795

Mr. Nicolson — 795

Mr. Speaker — 795

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 796

Motion

Time of next sitting. Mr. King — 799

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 799

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 799

Division on motion to proceed to orders of the day — 799

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 11), Second reading.

On the amendment to postpone second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 800

Mr. Cocke — 802

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 805

Mr. Macdonald — 805

Hon. Mr. Williams — 806

Mr. D'Arcy — 808

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 810

Mr. Barnes — 810

Mrs. Dailly — 815

Mr. Levi — 817

Mr. Skelly — 819

Mrs. Wallace — 821

Ms. Sanford — 822

FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday next.

In speaking to the motion on....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, you've moved a motion.

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker,

MR. SPEAKER: The motion, if it were in order, would not be debatable, Hon. Member...

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr....

MR. SPEAKER: ...and I'm puzzled to know why you are rising at this particular moment.

MR. LAUK: Well, may I refer the Speaker to standing order 45(1)(k)? I couch this motion as being a "motion, made upon routine proceedings," which is, by virtue of standing order 45(1), debatable. In addition, if the substantive motion itself is not debatable, then I'm sure I am able to debate the time of the motion, being 2 p.m., which paragraph (k) states is debatable. "The fixing of sitting-days, or the times of its meeting or adjournment" is debatable. I submit that that question, at least, is debatable and motions made under routine proceedings are debatable as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, there are two or three things that I would like to point out to you.

First of all, at adjournment this afternoon at 1 o'clock it was ordered by the House that we reconvene at 2 o'clock this afternoon. That was an order of the House and it was passed that we sit today at 2 o'clock. The other point is that we are now in session. We have started to sit. The rule 45(k) that you speak of would have been a debatable motion at 1 o'clock, but it is not debatable now.

The other thing is that there has been no intervening business and it would be an abuse of the House to move a motion of adjournment after the House has decided that we will sit at 2 o'clock.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that's not my motion.

My motion is that the House in its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday next. For the point of argument at this point, that could mean that we could sit for another two or three hours. The intervening business was clearly the adjournment of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: That motion is tantamount to adjourning the House.

MR. LAUK: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker, with great respect.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest to you, in further debate on the matter, that such a motion has clearly been, for many, many years, the prerogative of the House Leader.

MR. LAUK: Oh, Mr. Speaker, that is not a prerogative of any member of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: To set the time of adjournment and the time of reconvening?

MR. LAUK: Yes. It's for the House to decide, Mr. Speaker. It's not the prerogative of the Crown.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, as to the admissibility of this motion, first of all there is no question as to the fact that it is debatable if it is admissible. In that context I refer Your Honour to Votes and Proceedings for March 30, when just such a motion was debated. The question that remains is, I assume, the question of its admissibility at this time.

Standing order 45(1)(k) is, in my opinion, the relevant standing order in this case. I will read it out. It is speaking of motions which are debatable.

"And such other motion, made upon routine proceedings" — I underline those words, "made upon routine proceedings" —

"as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. These are motions that may be made upon routine proceedings."

I would suggest to Your Honour that there are at least two periods in the day, and perhaps more, when the House is engaged in routine proceedings and that that time occurs at least at the commencement of each session and at the termination of each session. So I would submit that we are in routine proceedings now and that therefore this motion is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The question for the Speaker to decide is whether the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is in order at this particular time. I refer the hon. members to standing order 44 first of all.

[ Page 794 ]

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

I would also refer to May, 18th edition, page 370, which reads as follows:

"When a motion for the adjournment of the House or the debate has been negatived, it may not b e proposed again without some intermediate proceeding. Furthermore Mr. Speaker has power under standing order No. 28, if he believes that any dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, to decline to propose the question on it to the House."

I submit to the hon. members that when this House passed a motion when we adjourned at 1 o'clock to reconvene at 2 to conduct the business of the House, that is what we are here to do, and that a motion to adjourn would be an abuse of the rules of this House, I so order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of respect for the Chair and the good order of this House, I wish you would hear my argument.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, I have heard your motion. I have heard debate on the motion.

MR. LAUK: You have not, Sir. Mr. Speaker, I moved a motion that the House at its rising do sit at a particular time. I did not move a motion of adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will you please take your seat?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the manner in which you couch the terms of your motion is such that it is an abuse of the rules of this House...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: ...inasmuch as it is clearly a motion to adjourn, which the House has already decided upon. They decided at 1 o'clock that our business would be conducted again this afternoon at 2. There is no business before the House that has taken place at this time. It is not a proper motion at this time, and I so rule.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There has been a challenge of the Speaker's ruling; there is no debate on the challenge.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you, on a point of order: since you have ruled, and that ruling has been sustained by the House, that the motion by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is out of order at this time — and I was very careful to note that you repeated "at this time" several times — could you perhaps tell the House at this time, or what times, such motions would be in order? Because if they are out of order at this time and we don't know when they would be in order, in theory the House could never adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Speaker can only deal with questions of order and points of order as they arise in the House. At this time it is the duty of the Speaker to deal with the business which is

[ Page 795 ]

before the House.

MR. DARCY: Mr. Speaker, there have been motions to adjourn, of course, in every parliament since it's ever been constituted. You've suggested that motions to adjourn are in order by members of the House, one of the 54 private members of this House, at some times and not at other times. If they're out of order at 2:35, when are they in order?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! You are now reflecting on a vote which has just taken place in the House, which is improper. The Speaker deals with matters that are before the House when they are before the House. I cannot contemplate what action may be taken or what particular matter may be put before us during the remainder of this afternoon.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, you are, I presume, proceeding now to orders of the day — that is the next order of business. On a point of order, I don't have a copy of orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, there is a long-standing tradition in this House....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Speaker is standing. Will you please remain silent for a moment?

There is a long-standing tradition in this House that where an adjournment is of a short duration we proceed into the business on the basis of the order paper we have worked on this morning and through to this afternoon. The orders will be called by the Clerk at the table on the same basis and in the same manner as if you had an order paper newly printed and before you.

I think the hon. member can understand the impossibility of getting a new order paper printed in a matter of a one-hour adjournment. This is not something that is unusual; it has happened many times, in many sessions, on many days before in this Legislature.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think on that point of order, Your Honour has just given an excellent reason why one-hour adjournments shouldn't be contemplated to unusual hours by this House. I would draw Your Honour's attention....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It was not the Speaker's decision of an hour adjournment, it was the House's decision.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate it wasn't your decision, Mr. Speaker; I didn't suggest it was.

I am drawing your attention to standing order 33 which suggests that a motion for reading or proceeding to the orders of the day shall have precedence to any motion before this House. I ask how there can be a reading of the orders of the day if there are no orders of the day printed.

It's an elementary principle of any parliament that orders of the day are printed, and I would ask Your Honour how that standing order can be carried out.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I just explained what happens on a short adjournment, as we have been involved in today, and how the orders of the day are presented by the Clerk from the table of the House. For further clarification I'll now read to you from Beauchesne, 4th edition, 1958: "In the interpretation of the rules or standing orders the House is generally guided not so much by the literal construction of these orders themselves as by the consideration of what has been practice of the House with respect to them."

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, on looking at standing orders it's normal practice for the House, of course, to have question period on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday — there not being a 2 p.m. sitting. On orders for the day for Friday, oral questions by members does appear on orders for the day. It says, in parenthesis: afternoon sitting — Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. It anticipates we would follow the practice of the standing orders, and not have an afternoon sitting on Friday because, of course, an afternoon sitting on Friday is prescribed to be from 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock. So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest oral question period is in order at this time, following introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, dealing with your point of order: question period is not in order on Friday. It was dealt with very thoroughly by the previous Speaker of the House, and in recommendations that were handed down to this House. The question period will occur on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and there is no oral question period on Friday. That was the report, and that was adopted by this House.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to take it a step further, if you would bear with me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

[ Page 796 ]

MR. NICOLSON: The standing orders did not anticipate afternoon sittings separate....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It is not a matter of debate, hon. member. It is a matter of the rules that have been adopted by this House. The rules clearly state that there shall be question periods on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; there shall be no question period on Friday. That was a matter that has been adopted by this House, and it's not now a matter of debate this afternoon.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Take your seat, please. I have just said, hon. member, that that is not a question for debate now; it's a matter of prolonging the issue by trying to bring up points that are not debatable at this particular time. If the matter you wish to talk about on a point of order has anything to do with the question period on Friday, it's out of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you take your seat please. It is not a matter of debate to discuss oral question period on Friday. There is no oral question period on Friday — period! That ends the matter.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I might say that I am quite happy to take my place in the budget debate here today, even if some people in this House don't want to work on behalf of the public.

I am very happy to be, back representing the people from the great riding of Cariboo. I might say that I had less difficulty getting re-elected this time than I did in prior times.

I would, first of all, Mr. Speaker, like to congratulate you on your elevation to Speaker, and the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) to the office of Deputy Speaker. I wish you well during your term in office. I would like to extend to all MLAs who were re-elected, or elected for the first time, my congratulations and wish them well in this new parliament.

I would particularly like to say a few words to the members elected for the first time. I understand there are 19 MLAs elected for the first time, 17 from the Social Credit Party and two from the New Democratic Party. I want to extend to them a special welcome to this Legislature and hope that they enjoy their term of office. As a matter of fact, over a third, of the members of this parliament are new and I think that bodes well for public life in British Columbia.

I'd just like to review with you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House, the results of the election held on December 11. Statements have been made and I've been sitting here observing, but I think it would be well to relate what really happened on December 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, you should know, Mr. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). You certainly should know.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not even being....

HON. MR. FRASER: Your running mate put his running shoes on and where is he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Quick.

HON. MR. FRASER: The Social Credit Party were elected government with 49-odd per cent of the popular vote, one of the largest popular votes given to any government for a long period of time in this province. With 49-odd per cent of the popular vote they elected 35 members to this House.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Not popular now.

HON. MR. FRASER: The NDP got 39 per cent of the popular vote and elected 18 members to this Legislature. The Liberal Party — that great Liberal Party that used to be — got 7 per cent of the popular vote and the Progressive Conservative Party got less than 4 per cent — as a matter of fact, I believe, about 3.8 per cent.

I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House that the Social Credit Party increased their popular vote 50 per cent from the 1972 election to form the Government of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: And what did the NDP do that were a government from 1972 to 1975? They

[ Page 797 ]

stood still. They spun their wheels. That's all they did.

As far as the splinter parties are concerned, their vote pretty well disintegrated.

MR. MACDONALD: They're all over there. You got the splinters.

HON. MR. FRASER: And also what happened to the former party that was government, the NDP, was that they lost their leader. He lost in his own riding and, of course, lost the government as well.

The second member — a running mate for the first member for Vancouver East — he was able to cling on and get elected but he couldn't face the music in the House and he put his running shoes on and resigned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sneakers.

HON. MR. FRASER: So we now have the situation, Mr. Speaker, where we have this disorganized NDP over there, leaderless and they don't know where they're going. I can just assure them that they are as far in this province as they'll ever go right now in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Knock, knock.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, getting on to the budget. This is a face-the-facts budget. 1, first of all, in case I forget, want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) for delivering this balanced budget to the people of British Columbia.

The Minister of Finance, the irresponsible opposition we have over there have tried to zero in on him, but I want to say that he was under very difficult circumstances when he had to come up with this budget. And I think he's done a wonderful job with the financial fiasco that he had to correct.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House that when the NDP were elected in 1972 they took over with the budget and the money of this province building, and we took over when it was all gone. So that made it doubly difficult for the new Minister of Finance.

In this budget, Mr. Speaker, it emphasizes services to people. Three departments of government — Health, Human Resources and Education — account for 64 per cent of this budget of $3,600 million-odd dollars. It certainly does put emphasis on services to people.

I would make an observation, Mr. Speaker. It's the first time since the Depression that money is provided in this budget in the form of interest on debt to run the province of British Columbia, and that is most unfortunate.

You know, the last budget brought out in 1975 predicted revenues of over $3 billion and they missed this projection — the prior administration — by some $400 million-odd dollars.

Mr. Speaker, when that budget debate was taking place, the then opposition, of which I was a member, pointed out to them that they had miscalculated at least $100 million of that $300 million on forest revenues alone. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly where $100 million of their miscalculation took place.

They not only had less revenue than anticipated, Mr. Speaker, but their expenditures exceeded what they had budgeted for by some $200-odd million, which is the situation that we found the province in financially when we took over the government on December 22.

I might say that even while the estimates were being debated during the 1975 session, Mr. Speaker, they were not factually presented, because right at the time they were being discussed — and I'm thinking of the month of June, 1975, when we were discussing estimates of certain departments — orders had already been given out to the departments to cut back a minimum of 10 percent.

We found the medical plan with no funds in it; ICBC bankrupt, with $175 million debt; the B.C. Building under construction in downtown Vancouver, the B.C. Building fund almost expended and another $90-odd million required to complete the structure.

I would just like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I don't know what would have happened if that inept group over there, the NDP, had been re-elected. I would think that we'd be in the same position today as the people in New York find themselves at the present time. They did not have any idea where they were going, Mr. Speaker. They had taken no collective action to set the province back on a proper course, and there certainly was.... That was the situation we found ourselves in when we took over.

The people of this province, though, saw through the charade put on by them when they were government. They lost confidence in them and threw them out of office. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that they gave our party a mandate to come in and clean up the mess, and that's what we intend to do.

We said, Mr. Speaker, and members, that we would get B.C. moving again, and that is also what we intend to do.

First of all we will restore confidence in this province by investors and the like who will create industry and jobs and they will not be afraid of being taken over as they were under the prior administration.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that B.C. is already moving again. There have been a lot of events happen since we formed the government and I'd just like to quote from an item in the Times of just the other day. This wasn't an expert or anything, just an ordinary citizen quoted, and the heading of it

[ Page 798 ]

is: "New Firms Booming in B.C."

"New companies are starting up or expanding in British Columbia in record numbers since the Social Credit government came to power, according to the office of the registrar of companies.

"In the first three months of this year the number of companies formed was up 35 per cent from the same period last year, and the number of companies expanding into British Columbia upped 26 per cent.

"In March, a record of 1,142 new companies were incorporated in British Columbia. Victoria Chamber of Commerce president Jack Hutchings said the number reflects a feeling of confidence among businessmen that they will get better treatment under the new government than they did under the socialist New Democratic Party. Hutchings said there was no economic news that justified the present expansion, and it must be due to the political change in British Columbia."

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that B.C. is already starting to move again.

In the mining field — in which exploration had come to a standstill, and those that were operating mines wished they hadn't been operating them — I am sure there is new confidence in that field, and as government policy is spelled out further confidence will follow, creating more jobs in that sector.

I might say to you, Mr. Speaker and members, that it has already happened in the forest industry. Not only has the price of lumber and that advanced — and we certainly don't take credit for that — but again confidence has been restored to the forest industry and announcements have already been made by existing companies to expand, and we didn't have one expansion in the forest industry from the years 1970 through to 1975. Not one expansion, other than what government themselves have done, such as Plateau Sawmills and that. But in the private sector of the forest industry that had no confidence and now they have and I'm sure we're on the road to recovery in that industry.

Just a few other items, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to mention. What we inherited: we inherited a lot of holes from the NDP. I guess the biggest ones that we are trying to correct are the holes that they left in the treasury of this province. The holes were so large the treasury was empty. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this new government is taking measures to fill the treasury so we can create jobs and get B.C. moving again.

Other holes were left, referring now to the Highways department; all they left there were holes and potholes throughout all the roads in our province. There has been nothing done on them of any major nature in the last three years. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when finances are available we'll correct that and fill those holes as well.

Last but not least of the holes they left in the ground were where now government buildings were to go. I refer to holes in the ground in the city of Victoria and, of course, the famous downtown Vancouver Building. Really, what we inherited there were immense holes in the ground where buildings were supposed to go. Lo and behold, in downtown Vancouver, particularly that on.... The prior Social Credit administration had set up the B.C. Building fund — I believe it was in the session of 1969 — and the NDP had pretty well spent the $25 million set up in that fund. We are now told that we have to find another $90 million to fill that hole. I assure you again, as time goes on we will fill that hole with a building which will be a credit to the great city of Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention one other item that I was amused at. The opposition got hold of orders-in-council and criticized the Minister of Finance regarding certain orders-in-council. I just want to, on that subject, relate to you an order-in-council that.... I don't know whether it had any legality to it or not, but it was passed by the prior administration. I want you to take particular note of the date — December 19, 1975.

This order-in-council number is 3832 for the record of the opposition over there. It is to loan to the Village of Lillooet the sum of $173,500 to purchase a piece of land.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this order-in-council was put forward by the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hartley). He knew then that the Department of Public Works — he must have known — didn't have enough money to carry out their own projects, and here he brings forward to the executive council of that time an order-in-council to loan money to the Village of Lillooet after he had been defeated. Also, there was a fellow around here who was the presiding member of the executive council called Dave Barrett, and he had also been defeated. They were the ones who signed this order-in-council to loan money that they knew they didn't have. This land was being purchased by the Village of Lillooet — I see nothing wrong with that — but they had made application to the Department of Housing and had been turned down by the Department of Housing. This land was for housing.

So they go ahead, these two defeated cabinet ministers, and process order-in-council 3832 to further put this province in debt. I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, the cheque hadn't been issued following this order-in-council, and when we took over this jiggery-pokery was stopped in its tracks.

I'd like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Village of Lillooet...

[ Page 799 ]

MR. KING: Misleading the House.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: ...is in the riding of Yale-Lillooet which was represented by the former Minister of Public Works. Was this a political payoff? I don't know why he had to do anything like that, because they had rejected him.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): What's an order-in-council?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I know there is lots of business to be conducted there, but I want to reiterate that I fully support this budget and hope to see — and it has already started — B.C. moving again back to where it was in 1972.

On behalf of Hon. Mr. Williams Hon. Mr. Davis moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope no hon. member of this House would suggest when the Speaker consults with his Clerks that there is anything peculiar about that situation.

Hon. members, before I discuss whether the motion is in order or not, I think that I should point out for the benefit of the members of the House some of the terms that are used within not only this House but every house of parliament and some of the significance of those terms. When I address the hon. Leader of the Opposition I do that traditionally because that is the role and that is the title assigned to the person who is recognized as the Leader of the Opposition. By the same token, when I address the House Leader it is a tradition and a term that is used to single out that person in government who has the responsibility and has been so designated. They are terms which are in common usage to describe the position, so I refer to the Leader of the Opposition or the House Leader. Now by tradition in this House of long standing, the type of motion that has just been moved by the Leader of the Opposition is out of order in that it is the prerogative of the House Leader to set the time of the next sitting of the House.

It has been established for many, many years and I am prepared for the benefit of the members of this House to bring in a written report on why it is so, not only in this jurisdiction but in others. I am prepared to do that as quickly as possible but I must now say to you that the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition is clearly out of order and I so rule.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 15

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I move we proceed on orders of the day.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 800 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there's a motion that has precedence over all orders of the day and is included therefore: adjourned debate on the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: We have been in and out of Committee of Supply in this session, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: No, we haven't.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we have.

MR. LAUK: Not this afternoon.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Highways adjourned the debate at 1 o'clock. He resumed his place at 2 and spoke in the debate. Then a motion was moved to adjourn the debate until the next sitting by the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). We have, Hon. Member, been in and out of Committee of Supply for this afternoon.

MR. LAUK: Well, my understanding was that the House sat this whole afternoon and that we didn't move into Committee of Supply.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're mixed up.

MR. SPEAKER: You're incorrect, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: We argued the motion that we go into Committee of Supply, but we weren't in Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Is the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) going to speak in this debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the minister has already delivered his address.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I'm sorry. It went unnoticed. (Laughter.)

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask, for those of us on this side of the House who can't anticipate what's coming on, if we might have a list of the nit-picky motions we can expect so that we can be here and....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's out of order.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad we can get on with a little business this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Hon. Minister, before you start I think I should advise the House that we're on the amendment to Bill 11, which is to hoist the bill and read it six months hence, so the debate that takes place now will have to be on the amendment. You adjourned the debate, Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes I did, Mr. Speaker, and I was aware of the motion I'd adjourned and other business in the House this afternoon. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that before we go home for the weekend we'll be able to make some progress.

We would not be making any progress, however, Mr. Speaker, if we were to accept this amendment, which I can only describe as mischievous on the part of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who, in recent months, seems to have lost his sense of responsibility.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that he has become overwhelmed once more with the fiscal ways of that government back there in Ottawa that he was so closely associated with. He doesn't seem to understand that fiscal responsibility is the cornerstone of good government.

Mr. Member, I've sat in opposition to the former Social Credit government and criticized them generously in this House, but never, Mr. Speaker, for fiscal irresponsibility, because that was the cornerstone of the former Social Credit government, just as it's the cornerstone of this government.

MR. GIBSON: If there is a $100 million surplus, will you resign your seat?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well....

[ Page 801 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The Minister of Education has the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER: If there is a surplus, I can tell you this: it will be because this government has done even better than we think we can do, and because, Mr. Speaker, the confidence of British Columbians, which has been indicated by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) earlier this afternoon....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, you weren't listening then. You missed a good speech, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), because in that speech he gave the kind of hard data that means something. Hundreds of new companies are being established here in British Columbia; hundreds of new companies are being established on the basis of confidence.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Member, if this government did not have, as the cornerstone of its philosophy and policies, fiscal responsibility, these lifts in the economy of British Columbia would not be taking place. If we brought before this assembly, as the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) seems to think would be desirable and responsible, a deficit budget or, worse yet, brought in a deficit budget as the NDP did, without declaring it, then we would be guilty of fiscal irresponsibility and the kind of confidence which is growing in British Columbia would never come to pass.

What I find difficult, Mr. Speaker, to accept is this kind of a motion from the opposition coming on top of motions of alleged privilege being brought before you of leaks of budget information, which it turns out were totally false and irresponsible in their substance.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, in terms of intent here comes the opposition protesting that budget measures should be brought down in this House...

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...not passed by legislation to take effect....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Minister,

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the breach of the standing orders of this House is that the hon. minister is anticipating debate on a motion that's on the order paper. That's the first point.

The second point is that the minister, that member, sat in this House as the leader of the Liberal Party and as a member of this House for years, and he should know better, and I suggest to you he does. He's just trying to deliberately fly in the face of the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: I should advise him right now, Mr. Speaker, that his Air West flight is leaving in 10 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got his own plane now!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, you know the rules all right well enough, I would think, to know that you can't reflect on a motion that's on the order paper.

HON. MR. McGEER: Of course not, Mr. Speaker, but....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. NICOLSON: In addition, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Wait until you are recognized, Hon. Member. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: In addition, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you have a matter to which the member has referred under consideration, and I would ask you to admonish him on that respect as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Proceed, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that those two members, particularly the one from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), never knew the rules before he was in government, and he doesn't know the rules now he's in opposition. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that he won't have been the first member sitting in this House who didn't know the rules, but he's certainly the member who is wasting the most time of the House because he doesn't know the rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[ Page 802 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if there's any juggernaut here, it's the juggernaut opposition with the wind that blows across here to the government side.

MR. LAUK: It's a breath of fresh air! (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Would you get back to the amendment now, Hon. Minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think all responsible members would recognize that once tax changes are proposed by a government, it would be totally irresponsible to let those proposed tax changes lie in front of the public while the bill was being debated. It is absolutely essential that when tax changes are brought down they take effect as of the moment that news is broken. This is standard practice, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons in Ottawa for good reason, and it is standard practice in every provincial legislature across the country. Once having brought that budget information down in confidence, Mr. Speaker, as it was by this government and by the present Minister of Finance, the responsible way to act is to have that tax take effect as of the moment the information is available.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), who associates himself with this frivolous amendment, was suggesting otherwise. There are times, Mr. Speaker, when that member makes economic sense but most of the time he makes economic nonsense. By suggesting that this bill be hoisted for six months he is not only advocating nonsense; he is advocating irresponsibility.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: That is sound fiscal management, Mr. Member, which is going to be the cornerstone of the policy of myself as minister as well as the government, to a man.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that when the federal government some years ago brought down its White Paper on taxation, without standing behind that White Paper with definite and immediate legislation to take effect as of the day the intent was declared, it created in this country uncertainty and economic chaos. That went on for years, that kind of habit. If there was anybody who had been in doubt before the federal government brought down that White Paper on taxation, the unfortunate results of that move should have been indelibly impressed upon them — the consequences of irresponsible action of that kind.

I mention it particularly because the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, who was associated with the federal government at the Prime Minister's office during that period, should know better than to come into this House and advocate and support the kind of irresponsible amendment that is before this House this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear I intend to vote against this amendment.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, probably one of the best arguments for the amendment to date has been the fact that the hon. Minister of Education and all things wonderful in this province (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is opposed to it.

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood in his place and said it would be irresponsible to set the bill aside by amendment. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that there are a lot of little people in this province who don't share that opinion — a lot of little people in this province, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), through you, Mr. Speaker, that have already been smitten by this 2 per cent additional sales tax.

Setting the bill aside for six months might give that government, who haven't really gone into anything to date, an opportunity to study the finances and the potential of this province to produce revenues.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): What did you do in three years?

MR. COCKE: A great deal, Mr. Shovels and Tulips.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you get yourself a haircut!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we don't feel it at all irresponsible, because what the Minister of Education was saying was that people might anticipate that the bill would certainly be brought in in six months' time. But the reason that that amendment was put forward was that the member for Capilano and many of the members on this side of the House anticipate just the opposite — that it wouldn't. be required. We suspect very strongly that the government, which has been on a spending spree ever since they were empowered by the Lieutenant-Governor.... Obviously, we went through a debate; I think we pretty well sorted that out. But, Mr. Speaker, that government would like to have an opportunity to have all the scope they want. They wanted to plunge the province into debt to begin with. Now they're asking, Mr. Speaker, to plunge the people of this province into debt.

We are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that it's not the least bit irresponsible to take a second look, to give this government, this new government, this government that requires a great deal of bolstering, an

[ Page 803 ]

opportunity to at least study what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Education talked about.... I believe he was talking about the Carter commission report coming down, and chastised at that time....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, he was talking about the White Paper on taxation. Oh, well, in that case, I agree. I appreciate the fact that there were some problems around that situation.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is not a mischievous amendment, for the following reason: we anticipate that these funds are not required.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, he went on to call it a mischievous amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Frivolous!

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that is rather a serious attack on a person whom even that minister a few short months ago felt had done enough in this House to present himself in such a way as to be acknowledged by all sides of the House as to be anything but mischievous.

So, Mr. Speaker, how did that member suddenly become mischievous in the eyes of the minister? I don't know what his claim to fame might be around being mischievous, but I know there's a lot of 25-year-old-and-under males in this province who suspect him of being a little mischievous. In any event it was not a mischievous amendment brought in by a person who is not mischievous.

MR. LAUK: Was that the minister that raised the rates on insurance?

MR. COCKE: Mr. member, you are so right. That minister who just a few moments ago was pontificating.... Do you know how he pontificates? He said: "We've brought confidence in the province." But that's pontificating for this reason: if this government had truly brought confidence to the province, then they wouldn't be raising a sales tax; they would know that the confidence would have given a regeneration of revenue. He knows. In the back of his mind he's worrying. He's worrying about the 109,000 people who are unemployed in B.C. and they're going to have to pay this sales tax — 109,000 people. You know, they were screaming across there when we had 80-something last year.

MR. LAUK: He said: "Work and wages."

MR. COCKE: Work and wages, that's what they were going to produce, Mr. Speaker. Instead of producing that, they reject an amendment to assist those 109,000 people who are having a difficult time making ends meet on sometimes unemployment insurance, on sometimes welfare and sometimes nothing.

So I wonder at the confidence of British Columbians. I wonder if the confidence of British Columbians is going to be eroded — confidence in a government that refuses to take a second look, a government that even today broke the rules, upset the normal conduct of business in this House, and seems to be creating a continuing pattern in that regard.

I think that when the Minister of Education stands up and says in this House that fiscal responsibility will be the cornerstone of this new government, and then they go on to put forward a bill that doesn't reflect fiscal responsibility in the eyes of by far the majority of the informed economic experts and political scientists in this country and other countries....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker, they should be accepting, particularly the backbenchers. I don't know what kind of discussions you've had with your people back home. You're not getting back home this afternoon; maybe some time when you can make a phone call, ask them whether or not they would like to see this amendment accepted.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, so the north is heard from — Skeena; the voice of Omineca. Mr. Speaker, we heard some great, glowing reports coming out of the north from that member, and those glowing reports will be even more glowing, I'm sure, when the people up in Omineca find out that that member did not support an amendment that would at least give this government an opportunity to take a look at one or two things, including their conscience. Mr. Speaker, I think that's what this debate is all about.

You know, I have to smile. When the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was discussing this question, what did he say? He said that hundreds of new companies are forming in this province. I don't know how relevant that was to the amendment. It strikes me that if it was relevant at all then he would be confident enough and accept this amendment, because if it in fact were true, then he could anticipate those increased revenues. But that minister, Mr. Speaker, knows full well that in the last three or four years there has been a real increase in confidence in the economic climate in B.C., and I'm here to hope

[ Page 804 ]

that this government doesn't ruin it.

Mr. Speaker, he also made a charge when he was standing there that the NDP brought this province into a deficit without declaring it. That was an argument that we had around Bill 3 and I think it was quite unfair of him raising it, but since he raised it, I think we dispatched it from this side of the House. While we can't win the votes, it strikes me that there are a great many people who have a far, far better understanding of that now than they did prior, and the fact that most people, I'm sure, are confident that this government cooked the books in that regard.

I also noted that the Minister of Education, during this same period of his speech, got up and talked about the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Where is he?

MR. COCKE: Probably making a phone call breaking a bunch more appointments, Mr. Minister of Health. Incidentally, did you clue your backbenchers in on this charade this afternoon?

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't even know it was a charade.

MR. COCKE: The charade that's going on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, if that Minister of Health works as hard as this Minister of Health did while in office...we will see and we'll be checking your output. So far you are not doing too good. You're breaking up everything you're touching. But, anyway, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the amendment....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I note that with a great deal of humour....

AN HON. MEMBER: Smile then.

MR. COCKE: I'm smiling as hard as I can smile.

Mr. Speaker, not one of that Mickey Mouse bunch — is that on the list? — has got up and discussed either the amendment or the bill in principle.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, I draw your attention the second time to the fact that the member for New Westminster has the floor. Please don't presume upon my patience.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, naturally there is a great feeling of resentment in this House at the present time around the fact that the government will not even countenance a hard look at an amendment that says, as follows: "Save the people the burden for at least six months...." You've heard the arguments and you know yourselves that there's a tremendous increase, even without increasing sales tax, in the revenue that you can anticipate. There is a suggestion that one of the things you will be doing by increasing this sales tax will be reducing that margin and therefore you have not really accomplished what you wanted to do. We suggest, Mr. Speaker, that theMinister of Finance take another look, a serious look, on behalf of the people in this province.

The Minister of Finance smiles. Let that go on the record. Take it seriously, Mr. Minister of Finance. Take it seriously, There was a serious, reasoned amendment put forward asking that you take a second look. This government suggests that they wouldn't mind doing some work, and the backbenchers say they don't mind working. I suggest to you in that case you bring it back in the fall. Six months from now if the revenues are not as you would hope and will not balance, then you can start putting forward this kind of legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, now is not the time. We suggested to you a few days ago that it wasn't the time to plunge the province into debt, and on top of the debt now you have to bring forward a 2 per cent increase in the sales tax, a most regressive step indeed.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing I'd like to say before I sit down is with respect to a few accusations made by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He suggested that there's been wasting of time in this House.

Mr. Speaker, we recall a different kind of wasting time, and we are not going to go back into those bad old days. I wish he wouldn't make those kinds of charges here. I wish that he would try to understand that where we are talking in terms of the rules of the House, the anticipated work load and all the rest of it, that he wouldn't try to turn this House, or turn the rules of this House, into a dictatorship that is working against the effective use of opposition time. Don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that member must know that 51 per cent of the people in this province voted for the opposition in total.

So it is not a mischievous amendment; it's a reasoned position taken by a very reasonable person. I would hope that the Minister of Finance will really give it some thought. And in order to give him that opportunity, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 805 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 26

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure rising to support the amendment that this bill be hoisted for six months. I think, perhaps, that we can recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill, so far as the people of the province of British Columbia are concerned, when he said that never did so much happen to so many in such a short space of time.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I think I got that right. It is totally true as to the way this government has acted in terms of adding inflationary burdens to the people of the province. This amendment moved by the Liberal leader would have the effect of extending for six months one of those burdens and giving the people of this province a little chance to breathe and get back on their feet and to promote, possibly, for the benefit of the Minister of Labour there (Hon. Mr. Williams) who is listening attentively, a better chance — I am serious about this — a better chance of having industrial peace in this province.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that minister knows better than anyone else the feelings that go once you've signed a collective agreement for one or two years and then you find that government steps in and increases the price of the commodities that you have to buy out of your wages, and people.... That's the way to industrial unrest.

So to give the people a chance to breathe and to re-establish some kind of family budgeting, this bill could very usefully be hoisted for six months. Look what's happened to them: tremendous ICBC rate increases, hospitalization, threatened with ferries, natural gas up at the wholesale level — it will soon be passed on by B.C. Hydro and certainly Inland Natural Gas in the amount of 15 per cent onto their energy bills — electricity costs up 12 per cent, income tax deductions up and on top of that you add a regressive tax with a tax burden increase of 40 per cent, with exceptions, it is true, but minor exceptions covering the necessities of life.

So I do say, never has so much happened to any people as has happened to the people of the province of British Columbia in terms of burdens assessed against them than has happened in the last four months of Social Credit government rule. I think it's time that they did have a breather and a break.

This motion to merely extend this bill would create, perhaps, difficulties for the government because they have been illegally collecting this tax increase already...no legislative authority to impose taxes except through this Legislature.

That tax is being collected from the citizens right now. And if this amendment passes for the six-month hoist, then the right thing will be done. There will be refunds to the store owners as best they can be made for the illegal tax that has been exacted from them in the last few weeks, since March 26, and they will have a period of time to try to get back onto some kind of family budgeting without these continual imposts.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the game plan of Social Credit is to do everything that they can that's unpopular and they think has to be done to improve their treasury at this time, and they expect the people will forget. I want to tell that government that they can cause some of the people to forget some of the things some of the time, but they can't make all of the people forget all of the things they've been doing all of the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right. And they will remember — and I'm not fighting the December 11 election all over again — but they will remember what has been happening to them since December 11, because no government has ever been so unconscionable in levying burdens against the ordinary people of a province in such a short space of time as has this government of the Social Credit Party.

I, therefore, take my seat supporting this amendment, and I add one word, Mr. Speaker, that somehow, with all the mistakes that this government has made, they have found the secret of how to prolong debates in this House. They have. The Whip system has broken down, and the regular hours of sitting, which would create shorter and better debates, have been abandoned. I make that suggestion in a spirit of good will and totally out of order, as Mr.

[ Page 806 ]

Speaker is getting ready to say — that I am totally out of order. But you know, you abandoned the regular hours, the Whip system goes down. So the opposition doesn't know what you're going to do next, and what do you get? You get this kind of debate that is happening this afternoon.

I'd suggest that we should go home, but I think that the government should give serious consideration to this hoist.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I take some pleasure in rising to express my opposition to this amendment, and the pleasure is doubled — double your pleasure when you follow the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald).... Mr. Speaker, is it the first member or the second member who just spoke?

AN HON. MEMBER: The only member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This is the member who did not run away.

The reason it's such a pleasure to speak in debate following the only member for Vancouver East is that he's such an orator. He just gave you a classic example of how you prolong debate in this House, and I want to assure the new members in this House that they have witnessed, a few moments ago, a skill which I have seen repeated year after year after year, ever since 1967 when I came, and that's a skill to expound at length on either side of the problem, whichever happens to be up for debate at the particular moment.

MR. MACDONALD: I couldn't teach you anything!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You can come down on both sides of the same problem with ease, and do it eloquently.

You know, Mr. Speaker, just to indicate to you how irresponsible the opposition is being in supporting the amendment of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), may I recall to you that last night the only member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) spoke in debate on second reading of this bill saying how terrible it was that the legislation was being made retroactive, and he said it again a few moments ago. It was a terrible thing that the legislation was to be retroactive — retrospective.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, retroactive, though retrospective, as the hon. member knows, is perhaps a more appropriate word.

Yet what is he doing? He's standing up today and supporting an amendment which would ensure that the bill isn't read for a second time for six more months, and therefore the retroactivity would be even greater than it is today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Isn't it wonderful! Last night he was arguing how terrible it was. Now he wants to make sure that it's not retroactive a few days; he wants it to be retroactive at least six months.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The same member...and he was just as eloquent last night as he was this afternoon. In fact, perhaps he was even more eloquent last night, because I think he spoke after dinner and his eloquence increases with the lateness of the hour.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there's the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). You know, I've always had great respect for the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). My respect for him is so great I don't know how he could allow that little member to become the first member. We used to have difficulty when the first member for Vancouver Centre was on this side of the House, telling whether he was standing in his place or not, but we've now learned the technique. When he stands up his face gets red, and when he sits down it blanches again. So we now know the secret, Mr. Member, and it's very helpful.

But, you know, for a party which rails against retroactive legislation, retroactive taxes....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask the members when they have a few moments during the course of this debate to take out the statutes of this province and look at a bill that was passed in 1974 in this House, chapter 54, the Mineral Royalties Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You know, that debate raged in this House for many, many days, The debate was finally concluded on June 20, 1974. But do you know what's in that bill in section 27? Let me read what it says: "This Act, excepting this section 1n the title, comes into force on a date to be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor by his proclamation and he may

[ Page 807 ]

fix different dates for coming into force of several provisions and, upon coming into force, the Act or its provisions are retroactive and shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of January 1974."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Now we passed the legislation finally on June 20, 1974, and it received royal assent on that day, the last day before we adjourned that session.

AN HON. MEMBER: You approved that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They brought in legislation which specified that the consequences of that legislation would come into effect on January 1, six months before.

Interjections,

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's the legislation, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, which served to destroy the mining industry in the province of British Columbia and the jobs of countless of our citizens, many of them from your constituency, Mr. Speaker. It made it impossible for them to earn their livelihood, make their contribution to the economy of this province, raise their families and, indeed, contributed to the deficit which we have to make up by bringing in tax legislation such as we are debating today. Retroactivity, I'm sure.

That's the kind of legislation that the NDP government brought in. There were no problems in those days, and, Mr. Speaker, while we're talking about the way this House is being conducted, let me also assure the new members in this House that under the former government they ruled with an iron hand. We sat when they wanted us to sit, as long as they wanted us to sit. We sat in the mornings. Do you think legislation by exhaustion doesn't commence when you sit in the morning or when you sit late at night or when you sit on Friday afternoon? That was a decision made by the Premier (Mr. Barrett) of this province and the Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall) who controlled this House, who told the opposition nothing about what business would be conducted — day after day after day. We have heard all these pious debates about how the opposition is being rolled over by the juggernaut. It's exactly the same thing that went on before.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): We sat on Saturdays.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This government...

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ...is prepared to go ahead with the business of the people and get it done. If that opposition wants to obstruct, then they will have to sit the hours that are required for this work to be done.

MR. LAUK: I didn't think you'd be a party to that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But if they want to deal with the government and deal with the business of the people in a fair and responsible way, then you will find that the processes of government will work smoothly for the benefit of the people of this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks in this regard, may I also make one further reference to the passage of the Mineral Royalties Act on June 20, 1974?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, could you relate that to the amendment that is before us, please?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm speaking directly about the specific amendment which we are today debating. We are debating, as the members well know, a motion, the passage of which would affect, would frustrate, the further debate and the passage of this legislation, this taxing statute, for six months.

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the distinguished member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Smith) on June 20, 1974, had occasion to rise in his place on the third reading of the Mineral Royalties Act, Bill 31 — the infamous Bill 31 — and move this same motion. If you look in Hansard of this House, you will find that during the course of the debate not one government member, not one government minister, stood up in the debate and spoke against that amendment, but they all voted against it — all voted against it. Precisely the same motion was made and the government members and the treasury benches sat silent during the course of that debate. Nothing to say whatsoever — not one word.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In this particular case, members of the government have risen to indicate clearly why it is essential that this legislation be passed, why it is appropriate that we continue with the debate on second reading of this bill. That was

[ Page 808 ]

not the case with that former government. They just sat silent. They used their majority to abolish, if they could, the effects of the opposition.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of correction. As a member of that former government let me remind hon. members that the debate on Bill 31 went over months, and the debate on the Land Commission was filibustered with one speech of 34 hours by one member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and it's totally unfair....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: To say that the government was silent is ridiculous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: Don't let them rewrite history, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, the Minister of Labour, in his remarks, referred to a specific vote on the third reading of a bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I want to get the whole story.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, may I respectfully remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it was that member, as Attorney-General, who tried to prevent the amendment being debated in this House, and the Speaker of the day stood up for the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and saw that it was debated. Hansard clearly shows that you tried to have the amendment to hoist for six months declared out of order so it could not be debated before this House.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, apparently I raised a point of order about an amendment two years ago, and the Minister of Labour gets all red-faced and says what a terrible thing that was to do. Really, come on!

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I hope to deal with the amendment which is to hoist Bill 11 for a period of six months.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed, I would like to note — I hope without provoking the Minister of Labour further — that I was a member of the 30th legislature. At one point in his remarks he said that many, many times the opposition had attempted to get a statement from the government of the day as to what the next order of business would be at the next sitting. I would ask that member to show me — not in the House if he doesn't want to, but at some point — first of all when that former government refused, when requested by anyone from the opposition, including that member when he was a member of the Liberal Party, at what time they refused to indicate what the order of business was going to be — usually it was the member in front of me, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) who gave that information — and further when that information, if it was given, was not followed by the government when the House resumed at next sitting. I'm not saying it didn't happen; I would just like you to show me — in the hall or anywhere, Mr. Member — when that in fact took place. You said it happened many times. Okay — produce it. Put action where your mouth is. Show us.

Returning, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment — and thus far I think I have spent far less time diverging than the majority of speakers who have spoken before me on this particular amendment — I am primarily concerned, as I said in earlier speeches in this House, with the effect of this bill on the cost of living in British Columbia. I am not going to discuss the morals of it or whether or not it mostly affects ordinary people in British Columbia, but I am going to discuss the overall effect on the cost of living in British Columbia.

The sales tax increase is part of a budget — and this is an amendment on the sales tax increase, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker — which manifestly, by the figures produced by that government over there, has arbitrarily increased the cost of living in this province by over 10 per cent in 1976. The sales tax represents fully one-third of. that increase, so it's a major portion.

The amendment is, as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has pointed out, that they reduce that amount of increase in the sales tax by one-half, since it means that we hoist the bill by six months. The opposition, Mr. Speaker, is only requesting that we reduce the amount of the cost-of-living increase by that government over there by one-sixth. It's a token reduction, just a token reduction.

They have not shown this House or the people of British Columbia that any increase is necessary, but even assuming that some increase in the cost of living is necessary by arbitrary and dictatorial actions from the government, then at least could we not reduce it by a small amount? By my calculations all we're talking about, Mr. Speaker, is a reduction in the cost-of-living increase in this province through the rest of 1976 by 1.56 per cent. Do you want it to be on your record in your ridings and in this province

[ Page 809 ]

that you are against reducing the cost of living in this province by even a small amount — by even a tiny amount of 1.56 per cent? Evidently you do, because your speakers have told us that you are against this amendment and that you intend to defeat this amendment and that you intend to proceed willynilly on this Bill 11.

Mr. Speaker, here we are on Friday afternoon. I don't mind being here to debate this or anything else, but I think what this suggests is that the government doesn't even want to take the time over the weekend. There's no urgency for this bill. It was retroactive to midnight on March 26, it's in effect now, there's no urgency on it, and they don't even want to consider it over the weekend — something that is not urgent, which would reduce the cost of living in this province by 1.56 per cent over the 12-month calendar period of 1976.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): A point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the hon. member speaking to withdraw the word "dictatorial" from recent remarks made, as a matter of decorum in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the hon. member for Rossland-Trail may have used the word "dictatorial", but I did not take any unparliamentary significance from the use of that word in the terms that he used it.

I'd like to make a point at this particular time about the list of words that have been ruled unparliamentary by previous Houses and previous sessions of this Legislature. It's not the word itself, but the word in context with the other remarks around it which have sometimes made the word unparliamentary.

So while we have a list of words that have been ruled unparliamentary by a previous Speaker, it should not be concluded. that the use of that one particular word will always be ruled unparliamentary by the Speaker of the House or the Chairman. It's the context in which the word is used, quite often, which will help the Chair decide if it was an unparliamentary statement or otherwise. So while we have that list to help guide us in this House, it does not follow that necessarily every word on there at every time and on every occasion will be declared unparliamentary.

MR. KERSTER: Same point of order. It was not the word itself that I was taking exception to as being unparliamentary; it was the fashion in which it was used in describing this government as a dictatorial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else would you say?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Rossland-Trail, I would just ask the member: was he impugning any motive to government in using the word "dictatorial", or any motive that should not be used in a parliamentary manner?

MR. DARCY: Mr. Speaker, I was suggesting, indeed stating, that it was my opinion that the method and the manner by which the government was attempting to put through and defeat this amendment showed a dictatorial intent in regard to putting through the budget when it was not necessary, because by the law itself, by Bill 11, it is retroactive until midnight on March 26. I was suggesting that the method used to clear this bill from the order paper, in fact, showed heavy-handedness and a dictatorial intent when something was clearly not necessary to happen today or next week, because by the bill itself, it is retroactive.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the member's explanation is adequate. Proceed.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Continuing with my remarks regarding the effect on the cost of living, we have seen significant efforts, misplaced as they may be, by the federal government to control cost-of-living increases in Canada. Both this government and the former government were on record as essentially saying that whether we like the law or not, whether we think it's fair or reasonable, the federal law is the federal law and we will do everything we can to enforce it.

We are now telling the people of British Columbia that "we don't care whether we have asked you to use restraint; we don't care whether we expect you to constrain yourselves in your personal spending; we don't care whether we ask you to use special economy in your daily affairs of running your business, practising your profession or holding your job. We don't care anything about that; we are going to increase your cost of living by 10 per cent." That concerns me.

What an example to the people of this province and to the young people of this province who are coming on the labour market, who are taking post-secondary education, technical training. What an example to them! How are they going to look at this government, look at this Legislature and look at the people who have been sent down to Victoria or to Ottawa to attend there, hopefully, in their best interests?

The second aspect of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, is the effect that these cost-of-living increases, particularly the sales tax increases, will have on the personal and private decisions of investors in British Columbia to not invest in primary industry. I think that kind of investment is going to come based on the

[ Page 810 ]

world demand for B.C. products, since most B.C. raw materials are just shipped out of our borders anyway — either to other provinces or to other parts of the world.

So investment in primary industry is going to come, but what we really need in British Columbia to improve our quality of life is investment in job-intensive secondary and tertiary industries. What are these increases going to mean to people who we depend on to accumulate savings out of their disposable income, and to invest those savings, either themselves, or through investment houses such as banks, trust companies and credit unions? What are we doing to them? We're removing their cushion; we're taking it out, the cushion they have against a rainy day. We're removing their flexibility, their ability to accumulate savings, and we're certainly discouraging them from investing those savings because, after all, where people are to invest there must be a reasonable rate of return presented to them — the possibility of a reasonable rate of return.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just interrupt you for one moment to suggest that you are really entering into a debate on the principle of the bill more than on the principle of the amendment, which is to read the bill six months hence. So all I would suggest is that in your debate you relate your remarks to the reasons for hoisting the bill for six months.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was a good point to interrupt because I was about to give you a reason as to why my remarks, which you interrupted me on, were related to hoisting the bill for six months. It is because I am not satisfied, nor indeed, so I suspect, are a great many members on the other side of the House, as to the necessity of this bill at this time. We don't know that it's going to be needed.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to see you in the chair.

We don't really know that this 40 per cent increase in the sales tax is absolutely necessary at this time. We don't know if it is going to discourage expansion in investment in secondary and service industries. We don't know if it is going to cause an atmosphere of gloom, of suspicion, of no growth, a paralysis of development of any reasonable controlled economic future for British Columbia. We don't know the answers to any of those questions.

We've already disrupted the economy to the extent of increasing it by 10.2 per cent and now we are asked to go even further. It is because of that uncertainty in my mind, and uncertainty in the minds of the taxpayers, investors and consumers of British Columbia, that I wholeheartedly support this motion in order to allow the government to possibly consider its position and to save face — and to think about it over the weekend, think about what they are doing — and certainly to allow them to keep their position of trying to appear to be in control of this House. Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 24

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could address yourself to standing order 34 and advise the House as to what might constitute an intermediate proceeding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Hon. Member. The motion on 34 clearly requires that an intermediate proceeding take place between two motions to adjourn. This motion to adjourn could be either the motion to adjourn the House or a motion to adjourn the debate. The question is: what constitutes an intermediate proceeding? Since an intermediate proceeding is interpreted to be a speech or number of speeches, therefore a motion to adjourn the debate would be in order following each succeeding speech. If it were not so, then a number of speeches could also not constitute intermediate proceedings and at times we would not be able to adjourn the debate or the House at the required and pre-set times.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment that Bill 11 be hoisted, or at least be put off for six months, in order to do what I am sure the government would

[ Page 811 ]

like to do, and that is get some indication from the consumers the citizens of the province of British Columbia as to their feelings about the need for a 40 per cent increase in the social services tax.

I am surprised, really, that the government is taking the position it has taken, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be very anxious to rush through a number of measures that are going to have disastrous effects, I believe, on the purchasing power of most working people. They campaigned on the premise that they would be concerned about the ability of each individual to live successfully within the society and enjoy the amenities of life — that is, food, clothing, shelter, the essentials of life — and have the freedom to participate in those things that effect their livelihood.

Yet a number of things have happened, really. I don't recall having been consulted myself, as an elected member of the Legislature. Just about every act that has taken place, in fact, has happened without any discussion in the Legislature. A number of things have happened that are going to have quite a determined effect upon the future of most people in the lower-income and middle-income brackets.

It started off, of course, with the incredibly high increases in the automobile insurance, which is a tax. There was no debate or discussion over whether those rates should have been increased — at least none to my knowledge. I don't recall having been contacted, Mr. Speaker. The 2 per cent tax is something that is not that much different because it has a retroactive effect, and in fact it is in effect right now, so the debate is rather academic.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you long enough to remind you that the amendment is limited to the reasons for changing the time from now to six months hence. Any debate which should better be made when we return to the main question should be left for that time. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much what you are saying. I am always willing to accept any direction that will make any remarks efficient and to the point. But the point I'm making is that many measures have been taken already that are likely too late to be changed — many of the measures such as hospital insurance increases, medical services, you name it. We are talking about increasing the school taxes as well, indirectly, by putting limits on what the government will do and saying that, perhaps, the local municipalities may have to pick up certain of these responsibilities. These are all taxes and I'm afraid that the 2 per cent is just one more thing that should be assessed very carefully.

I would hope that the government would certainly recognize that opposition parties are attempting to suggest — that if we took the time now, for just'a few months, to get some response from those people who are going to be directly affected, that it would be a good service and a good indication on the part of the government that it doesn't want to go faster than the directly affected people are able to go. It's not a question of whether they want to go, but are able to go.

I think we should be very careful about further pushing the net value of the dollar down. It's incredibly weak right now. We have the Anti-Inflation Board's controls on wages and, to some extent, on prices, but there are no guarantees about anything very much except wage control. I think the government has a responsibility to be careful about imposing this 40 per cent increase. In fact, this represents some $200 million that, perhaps, could be achieved in a number of other ways.

Most of us will recall — I am sure the government will recall, having campaigned on it — that they were going to remove the succession duties and gift tax simply because, I suppose, they felt that there were a number of their supporters and friends who worked hard and earned large estates and large sums of money, and should have the right to pass these on to maintain their empires and their financially stable position in society. Those revenues represented perhaps $25 million or so. We would have just about one-eight of the funds they are trying to get through the increased social services tax simply 1) y retaining that particular Act, not to mention the possibilities in the resources industry.

I think it is, again, a hidden tax when they claim that they have raised by 2 percentage points the corporate income tax. That will really be somehow passed on. I don't think the consumer is going to escape there. They never do in the end.

The government has indicated its real passion, its real sentiments, when it speaks about the need for business and government to work hand in hand, and it sort of throws the individual in there incidentally.

Mr. Speaker, the people's business has to be in the hands of a responsible government that has a conscience. It has a duty to use imagination and prudence in finding alternative ways of giving people an opportunity to continue their enthusiasm and interest and democratic participation in the society of which we feel so proud, and certainly with justification — with considerable justification.

But I think a lot of people are going to be disheartened, discouraged and maybe even a little bit desperate by the immense number of taxation measures that are being imposed upon them in such a short space of time and with very little consultation. I am sure the government itself is not able to measure the effect of some of the programmes it has introduced.

You know, it is incredible that they could expect

[ Page 812 ]

to overcome what they consider a deficit position with the medical insurance and the hospital programme by imposing 300 to 700 per cent increases on essential services, critical services. Granted these services have to be paid for, but surely not overnight.

Just imagine what's going to happen to people who find themselves in a chronic situation, with a large number of children in the family, and these things happen. We have no way of predicting. Maybe the incidence of a long-term stay in a hospital — it's only going to be a short period of time, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps this will only happen once in a lifetime, but when it does happen it's going to wipe out some of those families. You know, from $365 a year for hospitalization to something like $2,500 in the same period of time. It's more than most people can bear. It's just not all that practical, when you think about it, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, this subject matter might better be debated under the train question.

MR. BARNES: Perhaps you're right, Mr. Speaker. I realize that, and I'm going to suggest that the remarks I have made merely illustrate what can happen when there is a lack of careful consultation with constituents in various parts of the province on matters of serious concern and of long effect, into the future, on the people's lives. I don't think that the government is opposed to doing the kind of things we've been suggesting. In fact there is every indication from the comments that have been made by the Premier that he is very concerned about the well-being of the citizens.

But you know, one is cautious about what the Premier said and what he's doing, because we were criticized for not raising taxes during the last campaign and told that we were not putting enough taxation on the people, on the consumers, that perhaps we should have taken off some of the burden on industry and put more burden on the backs of the people. It seems to be a fundamental difference in philosophy, at least in the practical philosophy, Mr. .Speaker, not necessarily in the rhetorical philosophy, because we all, when we're campaigning, say a number of things.

But the government doesn't seem to be that concerned about ordinary people, in my view, and I would strongly urge that rather than move fast on this particular bill, that the government take under advisement, at least for the present time, the recommendations of the opposition and not be too anxious to impose this tax, because it has a big job to do to get people in a position where they can even participate in the common market. There are a number of people that aren't going to have sufficient funds to participate in the market, because they don't have enough to subsist on a daily basis.

You know, we're coming up with very stringent measures in respect to social assistance recipients. We're applying pressure on the "employables" who must demonstrate their ability to be employed, the way they dress, the way they present themselves. They must show to the satisfaction of someone who will be judging them whether or not they qualify. Even in cases where people have participated, Mr. Speaker in the work force, they're going to be.... Those who are waiting for unemployment Insurance are told that they can only have a couple of weeks, and we all know the federal government sometimes takes a month or two months or even three or four before, a person gets benefits. But we're saying, "No, you've got to do better than that; we'll give you two weeks." But we're not looking at the results.

I know we need the revenue, and I'm quite willing to look at all possibilities, but I feel that the government has asked the people to tighten their belts, and it has asked them to demonstrate their good will and support of programmes that we need in order to balance the budget and to be fiscally responsible but it has only given them one side of the story. It's telling them to live with stringent measures without giving them any alternatives themselves. I think that's something that the government doesn't want to happen by an oversight. Perhaps not. It's only through their diligence in trying to illustrate their determination, I'm sure, to set a good example.

They are moving a little fast, Mr. Speaker, and I really feel that the social services tax is going to discourage a lot of people. It's going to discourage perhaps even those small operations that rely on people willing to spend their money. But if it becomes too costly, then people will certainly not be able to spend their money.

There's another thing. I'm wondering if the government has considered, and perhaps the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair), if he were here, would be very interested in the consequences of a philosophy that supports the establishment of money-lending institutions that encourage people to live on credit cards and encourage people to extend themselves beyond their means, on the one hand....

And the government says that it wants to pay as it goes. It says that we're going to pay only for what we can afford, and we're going to start tightening up no matter who it happens to hurt, because all of us have to pay. All of us have to pay. That's what the government says, and I think that's valid. But at the same time is it prepared to go out and indicate to these money-lending institutions that they too should tighten up their belts and stop encouraging people to buy television sets and automobiles and other goods and services on credit which is putting them in a very tenuous position? Is the government prepared to do

[ Page 813 ]

that? I think that it has a duty to do that too.

I agree that we should tighten up our belts but it works both ways because these are the kind of things that should be running subsequent and parallel with the legislation, Mr. Speaker. You tell people that here is the measure that is going to benefit the economy in the long run. You have a duty to educate that public and this is why I'm suggesting that if we can hold this bill back long enough we'll have an opportunity to give the public a chance to have some input, to educate them how to live under these measures, because they're going to be difficult.

If we could teach them something about money management, teach them something about the economics of living under certain limitations being imposed on us, then I think that your leadership would be believable. There would be no reason why we wouldn't believe a government that doesn't just come down with measures and throw them out, but comes down with measures and gives direction to the people so that they have a chance to participate. But there are many people out there, Mr. Speaker, who do not have this ability, who cannot profess to have had the experience of learning their own business, as many of you hon. members have had. There are many people who do not have this opportunity. In fact, they have been programmed to be good consumers. They've learned very well how to over-extend themselves, and I think that we have abused it the same way. That's the way it's been in the past. We're now asking you to rethink your role as a responsible citizen and to restrain yourself in all ways, and we're going to do the same thing.

We guarantee you that you will have a job, which I'm sure the government must intend to do. We guarantee that everyone will have a means of subsistence. There will be no one who will not have a minimum income of some sort through our social services programme, through our jobs programme that we're going to create or whatever, but you have a duty to do that, because certainly you can't do it under some of the fixed-income programmes that you have, Mr. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and you know that as well as I do.

Some of the people under social-assistance programmes who are in the single category are getting less than $2,000 a year. It's unbelievable, and you know that they can't live on those incomes. But why don't you be responsible and take a look at the whole population? Take a look at your responsibilities to tMark Sobolewskihese people and their ability to participate in this society, and when you can do that, there's no way that I'm going to stand in the way of a government that's trying to balance the budget responsibly. That's fiscal responsibility too.

Fiscal responsibility is not just sound management on actuarial charts and sitting and looking at it on paper. Fiscal responsibility is very closely related to that of a social agency as well as a business agency. I think the member for Prince George pointed out today....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Fiscal?

MR. BARNES: Fiscal, that's right, Mr. Minister. That's what I said. Fiscal. If I said physical, perhaps they're related. You never know.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: But the member for Prince George has pointed out today — and I think he was misunderstood when he said — that businesses had no consciences and that they had no duty or responsibilities when he was really saying that that is the fundamental principle on which business people operate, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the problems with our people today. They feel vulnerable. They need protection. That's the idea of the Consumer Services Department that we have — to protect the people. It's a shame. We shouldn't have to protect them in a society such as ours where everybody is compassionate and everybody cares about each other. But unfortunately there are a few who will break these traditions, and these are the ones we've got to be cautious of. We don't want to be a cause of people becoming victimized, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to feel that if we hoist this particular bill.... It's only one; it's just a demonstration. We haven't actually to back up on all the other programmes that you've imposed. We're not asking you to back down to $1 a day from $7, back to $1 a day on the hospitalization, or on the medical insurance — we're not asking you to do all those things. We're saying okay, just one. Just back up on one.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Premier, I'm sure you would like as a token of respect to your father who at one time was a Conservative in the House, who said in this House in 1948 — and you heard this canvassed many times this afternoon. He spoke very heavily against the social services tax. He explained why he felt that it was a retrograde step, and I'm just suggesting that you've lived with him all these years and I'm sure you know exactly what he's talking about. You probably better than anyone in this House understand exactly what you're doing, but you are a man of integrity, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: Please do not....

MR. BARNES: ...and I feel that if you think carefully about what the opposition has been

[ Page 814 ]

attempting to say to you this afternoon, there's no way that you aren't going to reconsider it.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: I'm sure that many of the members of the back bench have come here well intentioned and believing that the government meant exactly what it said when it campaigned for the people. I'm sure that they would like to feel proud of themselves and they do not want to have any illusions. I am sure that the Premier doesn't want them to become disillusioned about anything, because I know some of them myself, Mr. Speaker. Over the years I have met them and I know them to be honourable people. Why don't you demonstrate your good will? You're not demonstrating it, Mr. Premier, with these measures. Mr. Speaker, he's not demonstrating good will. This is without consultation. Let me ask you: am I not a member of this House, Mr. Premier?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I am asking, through you, the Premier to answer my question. Does he not feel that I should have an opportunity to participate on some of these measures? He didn't contact me when the Autoplan rates were increased; he didn't contact me about insurance increases for hospitalization or for medical services. Another member is talking about raising the cost of the ferries. It just goes on and on. I feel like I am being alienated. I hope the back bench is getting more information than I am. If we can't get any communication in the Legislature from the Premier, who is a people-oriented Premier, how are we going to expect the people out there to know what's going on? We don't know what's going on. All they're telling us is: "You go ahead and debate it. We have already decided." It's a fait accompli before we ever debate it. It's already passed, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member, The amendment clearly limits the debate to the reasons for changing the word from "now" to six months hence". Please keep the context of your argument within that framework.

MR. BARNES: Right on, Sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate your bringing my attention to that. I would hope that by now it is fairly clear to all of the members of the Legislature that there is every reason — every urgent reason, Mr. Speaker — for the government to take a second look at the intent of this bill which would impose, at a most inopportune time, an additional 40 per cent on the ordinary purchases of essential goods.

Let's take a look now. You say: "Oh, wait a minute, they're not essential. Guys are going to be buying a number of things that they don't need," But let me tell you, this economy is a very delicate network of activity that happens between buyers, sellers and so forth. For instance, they came down with a measure...we'll get to that, too; I think it's Bill 12. I'm talking about the tobacco...the bill on the 4 cent increase on cigarettes. We'll get to that.

Now that is a deplorable way to make money off of people — ill health and all. It is the same as the alcohol tax, but at the same time it is part of the economy — a negative part. None of us like it, but we are making very, very large revenue from it. Right now the minister wants to make something like half of the total budget off the backs of the people — off the ordinary working people.

It's going up more and more. In the campaign he says: "We shouldn't be taxing those poor people. We're going to go out and lead the way and get the province back on its feet." So what's the first thing he does? He takes the easy way out, slaps it on the backs of the ordinary people, and says: "Well, what do you know? We're going to balance the budget, but we'll cut out all of the social programmes...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: ...cut them all out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! On the amendment, please.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, anyway, I'm going to suggest, in closing, that the amendment that this bill be delayed for six months is really being very generous because I feel that the kind of things that have to happen in the way of consultation with the community — with the people who are affected at various institutions that are going to be concerned — will take a lot longer. I think we're being reasonable. It's obvious we're trying to cooperate. Obviously we're trying to expedite this thing by saying: "We don't want to take too long. Six months is all we want. We'll work real hard and we'll cooperate. We'll try and come up with something that is truly fiscally responsible because there is a social side as well as a management side."

I'm sure it looks good on your books. I'm sure it looks good on your books — everything is balanced — but believe me, there are a lot of repercussions out there, a lot of inequities, a lot of difficulties that you are concerned about. I have listened to your other ministers stand up in this House and I know that they are concerned, Mr. Speaker. The problem is that you are moving so fast you haven't had a chance to study the potential effects of some of the measures you have brought in. I therefore cannot support the bill. I

[ Page 815 ]

support this amendment that the bill be hoisted for six months.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll support the bill if the amendment passes?

MR. BARNES: Well, I might after we've had a chance.... If the amendment were passed, sure, I might even support the bill because then we could improve it a bit and make it a little more palatable.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, the retroactivity of the amendment is not the focus of this amendment, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) unleashed a bitter attack entirely centered on that area of the amendment. The focus of this whole amendment is the timing. I find it rather interesting that the very few government members who've spoken on this have to date given the opposition no justification to explain to us why this bill has to be brought in at this time. They have given us no justification for not accepting this amendment. That is why the opposition is here debating this very point today.

It's been shown over and over again that, in our opinion, there is no justification for this increase at all. That is the stand the official opposition takes. However, in listening to the reasonable amendment placed by the Liberal member (Mr. Gibson), we agree that with this government perhaps one has to compromise to some degree, as one does, perhaps, at all times with government. That's why we are willing to support his amendment which is to give the government time to study if this is actually necessary. As far as we're concerned, Mr. Speaker, the timing of this is unnecessary.

The Liberal leader and other members on this side of the House have pointed out the financial picture of this province. They've pointed out how much money will be brought in by this increase. It seems quite obvious to us, because we've had no reasonable explanation from the government, that there can only be two reasons: either this government, which came in, as I said yesterday when speaking, on a promise to improve the economy of the province, is looking forward to a very, very bleak economic year in this province, so bleak that they find it necessary to bring in this sum of money into the coffers.

Yet on the other hand, that's not consistent with what they promised the people of this province during their campaign, because they do have other revenues coming in. And, as has been pointed out, this is, in our opinion, completely unnecessary at this time.

Now if it is not that the government is heading for a very, very bleak year economically, then, unfortunately, we can only conclude that they are intending to build a surplus, to build a surplus on the backs of the people who are in the low-income bracket of this province. That we consider unpardonable.

It has been explained over and over again — and I want to keep on the amendment, Mr. Speaker, so I won't go into the details — why we consider this tax very inequitable. I know that the MLA for Okanagan has been quoted extensively — I'm referring to the MLA who sat in this House in 1948 — so I don't want to be repetitious. But it's been made quite clear that the MLA for Okanagan, Mr. Bennett, in 1948 put on a very impassioned plea in this very House against the imposition of the sales tax, so I won't repeat that.

But there is one part of his speech that I would like to repeat because I do think that it is very pertinent to the amendment. When Mr. Bennett, the member for Okanagan, was speaking on this, he pointed out to the government of which, of course, I believe at that time he was a member: "Why is it necessary to impose a sales tax at this time?" He was speaking on the very same issue which we are speaking on right now. He asked the government of that day if they had not considered other means, had they not considered an unearned increment tax which would not touch the poor and would add to the restraint on inflation.

So in 1948 we had a very responsible, conscientious member who was speaking against his own government at that time out of his deep concern for an inequitable tax, and also his concern that the government of the day had obviously not taken time to consider other means of raising revenue, if, indeed, it were necessary.

That, of course, is the main point that we are asking this government to explain to us. To date we have only had speeches such as we had from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who when he was in the opposition I always used to feel made very constructive speeches; very seldom was he negative. But unfortunately he broke that record today. It was one of the most negative speeches we've heard in this House. It was just a bitter attack on the New Democratic Party. It talked about retroactivity, which I pointed out before you came in — to the hon. minister through you, Mr. Speaker — is not the focus of this amendment. We are talking about the timing and the justification. But at no time did I hear the Minister of Labour defend on behalf of his government why this sales tax has to be imposed at this time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He was speaking to the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, and the point of the amendment is the timing. Yet at no time did the hon. Minister of Labour adhere to what was really the basic part of the amendment. We have yet to hear

[ Page 816 ]

from the Minister of Finance or from the Premier as to the real justification for this amendment. And if they can justify it, why now?

Therefore, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: No. When we are on our feet asking and making legitimate points about our concern about timing and justification, how can we possibly be expected not to continue speaking on this amendment if we get no reasons against the amendment from the other side of the House?

That's why, Mr. Speaker, as we have not had any answer, any reason for not hoisting this from the government side, I would now like to move adjournment until the next sitting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, since taking a serious study of the rules of this House, I've had a keen appreciation for the rules in that they protect the rights of the minorities in this House, and provide enabling clauses so that those rights will be guaranteed. However, at the same time, the rules provide against the abuse of those rights. Let me give you an example. Standing order 44:

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

I would suggest to the House that since we have afforded and declared in order two other motions to adjourn this debate, this is a frivolous motion at this time, particularly since the time for regular adjournment is at hand. Therefore I would rule that in this instance this motion is out of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, your predecessor in the chair, just a few moments ago....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a point of order?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the ruling?

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker. I'm speaking on a point of order. You were kind enough not to rule; you were kind enough to indicate that that was your particular point. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier forgets his place in the House at this point, because there is a point or order being discussed.

Your predecessor indicated that if he were to give that type of ruling, that would mean, Mr. Speaker, that it could very well be that you could never adjourn the House,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was the position of the Deputy Speaker just a few moments ago.

MR. COCKE: So, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly ignore the insulting remarks. I've never been an expert on parliamentary procedure, but I've been around the House for seven years, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) at least condescends to blush when he makes those kinds of remarks, so at least that shows he has some kind of....

Mr. Speaker, if in fact you don't accept a motion to adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House, it could be that you're setting a precedent. It might mean that the House will not be able to conform to any kind of procedure in the future. So I suggest to you that a good deal of thought be given to this ruling before it's made.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to suggest to the member for New Westminster that there is a remedy, and the remedy would be that a motion to adjourn the House would perhaps allow for a subsequent motion. If a motion to adjourn the House were made and were defeated, subsequent to that a motion could be made to adjourn the debate, and that would get us out of the dilemma we find ourselves in now.

However, I would like to point out to the member that standing order 44 provides very, very clearly that the privileges of the House will not be abused. I think that all hon. members on both sides would agree that what appears to be a frivolous attempt — being the third motion of adjournment of this debate with the normal hour of adjournment at hand — could be ruled under 44 to be an abuse of the rules. I so rule.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly not going to challenge you or your ruling, because I do have respect for the kind of rulings that you've been giving.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, I'm extending courtesy to you, now, because there can be no debate.

[ Page 817 ]

MR. COCKE: Yes, I realize that. The one thing I want to draw to your attention is that there have been two or three speakers since the last attempt at reason in this House, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on the amendment, the advisability of hoisting the bill for six months, I, unfortunately, was in my office when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was speaking. But I did get a chance to listen to him and I was really quite amazed about his describing a juggernaut government, and he sounded like a juggernaut over the speaker, so much so that I could hear him vilifying — I think that's acceptable, isn't it? — my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald).

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, it was terrible, so I immediately went to the books because I thought.... Here we are; he was talking about a hoisting motion on Bill 31 in 1974 and somehow the whole democratic process of this House feel down because of what my colleague, then the Attorney-General, said in that debate. I was amazed. Well, I went to the books and I went to Hansard and I looked it up.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What did I do?

MR. LEVI: That is true that, on third reading, the now Speaker of the House, who was the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Smith), moved a motion.

He said: "I wish to move an amendment to the motion to read Bill 31 now by striking out the word, 'now' and substituting therefore 'six months hence'."

AN HON. MEMBER: What did I do?

MR. LEVI: That was what he wanted. Then I thought that what followed next was a torrent, a literal torrent of abuse, for my colleague, the former Attorney-General. And what did the Attorney-General say? He said: "Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, this matter in substance has been decided by the House. The vote in committee has been reported to you as Speaker rejecting the motion that this bill should be hoisted for six months."

I turned over the page but he never said anything else. He simply didn't say anything else. Then the Speaker spoke and he said: "May I point out"...that your attack, instead of insinuating that, somehow he completely demolished you. "May I point out," said the Speaker to the hon. Attorney-General, who was my colleague, "that he's faced with a situation that if the bill had not in any sense been changed, between the time that motion was made in second reading to this time, then perhaps his point would be valid?" He was talking to the then Attorney-General and he said: "But there have been amendments to the bill in the committee stage. Consequently I would have to say, with respect, that I think the amendment is in order."

And the debate continued. But what you didn't say, Mr. Member, what you didn't say, was that there was a similar amendment on second reading — on second reading. Yes, there was an amendment to hoist on second reading and somebody...yes, here we are; the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) participated in that debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEVI: He participated in that debate. He spoke on the desirability of the hoist. You were in the opposition. Today, Mr. Speaker, we've had Liberal day or ex-Liberal day. We've had the Minister of Labour speak and we've had his colleague, the Minister of Education, speak. He also spoke in that debate — on the hoisting of it.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: And you know who else spoke in the debate? Not a frivolous debate, then. It wasn't a frivolous motion to hoist. After all, we were dealing with Bill 31, the mining company bill. That wasn't frivolous. You know, nobody said in that debate that it was frivolous.

But in this debate we have even heard from the Premier that this is a frivolous amendment. He spoke in the debate, Mr. Speaker, on the advisability of hoisting the bill for six months — Bill 31. He made a tremendous speech. It would like to quote you some of it, if I can find it. It's so small.

But the important thing is that they all started to talk about the advisability of taking a second look and that it's important because the legislation appeared to be somewhat hurried — and, mark you, this debate went on for days. It didn't go on for half a day like we are here. Nobody said then that it was frivolous. Everybody had an opportunity to speak. But from the treasury benches over there, it's "Let's get it out of the way and get on with the business of the people." Well, this happens to be the business of the people, Mr. Speaker, the imposition of a 40 per cent increase in the sales tax, and we do have to ask you to consider that this bill be hoisted.

After all, back in that debate the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said: "There is real wisdom in deferring consideration of this legislation for the limited period of six months." That's good. That's a good description of how you do a hoist. Deferring

[ Page 818 ]

consideration, it's real wisdom. It is real wisdom and I agree with him.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Hoisting a bill is always real wisdom.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hoist by his own petard.

MR. LEVI: We also had a speech at that time from the now Speaker of the House who also gave us the same advice, that it is important in the interests, as he was talking about then, of the industry — the mining industry and the economy of British Columbia — that we hoist the bill for six months. Well, those same kinds of rules and ideas apply in this, Mr. Speaker. It is in the interests of the economy of British Columbia, and it happens to be in the interests of the people, not the mining companies, but the interests of the people.

But they are not getting up and they are not saying anything. It's very unfortunate. The Premier spoke in that debate. He got up and he said that we should consider it for six months. The Minister of Education also said: "Let's consider it for six months." But all we have from across that side is a lot of twittering about how frivolous it is. That's really insulting to the people of this province, Mr. Speaker. After all, you, as Speaker, know that in the rules the reason for the hoist is in the interests of the people. It is in the interests of the public and it is in the interests of the members of this House in order that we can take a better look at it.

So it might be interesting if one of the people from the treasury benches or one of the back benchers — perhaps the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) might want to get up and speak on behalf of the people of Kootenay, or perhaps the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) might want to get up and speak on behalf of the....

MR. MACDONALD: He's not a liberal!

MR. LEVI: Oh, I'm sorry. I've got to move down the line a little bit. Let's see now...we've run out of Liberals but we've got a few conservatives over there. Yes, we've got....

Interjection,

MR. LEVI: No, there's one more Liberal at the back. He's sitting where old Phil Gaglardi used to sit, and I notice he has the same trouble. When the former Minister of Highways used to sit in that chair, he used to fall asleep. He constantly fell asleep, and my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) used to go like this to wake him up.

But the important thing is, Mr. Speaker, that we do have a right to expect, or at least I have a right — I can't speak on behalf of all the members — that somebody from over there will talk about the advisability of hoisting this bill. Perhaps the person who really should get up is the minister from the treasury bench. He should get up and do this — the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair).

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Right on!

MR. LEVI: You know, he hasn't said anything yet about consumer services.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a Liberal.

MR. LEVI: Oh, he was a Liberal? Well, then, this is the debate, Mr. Member, that you simply have to get in on.

MS. SANFORD: He qualifies.

MR. LEVI: You know, perhaps the member for Richmond (Hon, Mr. Nielsen) should think back to the days when he was a communicator. I remember hearing him communicate on Bill 31. By God, I used to hear him communicate! He used to communicate — never for the people, just for the mining companies,

Well, I think what you should do is to listen, and on Monday read the Blues, get an idea about what your colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) said, because he's the one who started all this. He's the one who suddenly told us how terribly undemocratic the former government was, how we used to push things through.

Here it is, Mr. Member. Here is Hansard from that time, and brought in by a democratic government. Look at the thickness between those papers. That was the debate on the hoist....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the amendment, please, Mr. Member.

Mr. LEVI: That was the debate on the hoist, Mr. Speaker. All of that. It went on for hour after hour after hour. And all that comes from those people over there is that it's frivolous — let's get on with the business of the people. This is the business of the people!

You should get up and you should vote for the hoist of this bill.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Is the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) not willing to speak, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the member for Alberni.

[ Page 819 ]

MR. SKELLY: Has the Premier told him to sit down? I'll defer to the Minister of Environment.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry I was not as familiar with the seating arrangement of the previous House, and it took me a moment to discover that the member was referring to me. In my case, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have a ruling on whether calling me an ex-Liberal is unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure have a way with words, Jim.

MR. MACDONALD: We're not allowed to insult each other in this House, but we have a list of epithets.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It was no point of order and therefore there can be no debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that if any remarks made by me in this House brought about the contribution to the debate from the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi), I apologize. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister,

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to support this motion to defer consideration of the Social Services Tax Act amendment until six months from the present time. The main reason, I think, is that we don't require the funds right now. The government admitted over the past several days that the moneys they will be levying from this change in the Social Services Tax Act will not be required. Mr. Speaker, they've admitted this over the past several days.

They've admitted there's $181.5 million that they've transferred unnecessarily to ICBC, $181 million that ICBC hasn't cashed and which they don't require. Perhaps that money could be returned to the consolidated revenue fund, and we won't be required to raise this! money that's provided for in this bill until that $181.5 million is exhausted. By that time maybe we'll know the financial position of ICBC, because it really hasn't been clarified by this government. Maybe that money will not be necessary.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In fact when the Premier was answering questions to the Victoria Times some time ago, he admitted the money wouldn't be necessary right away, that they could invest it and make millions. Possibly we should have an opportunity six months hence to examine the interest and the revenue on that $181 million.

Maybe this levy — that increase of 40 per cent on the social services tax Act — will not be required. So I think it's a very good amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I am certainly willing to support it.

All we are asking for in this amendment, basically, is for the government to fulfill the terms of the promises it made to the people. One of those promises was that they would put an anti-information freeze on taxation. We're asking the government to fulfill the terms of that promise — to put an anti-inflation freeze on taxation for the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: A roll-back.

MR. SKELLY: Possibly financial circumstances have changed since that government came to office. We know that they have been spending money like water in order to create a deficit for the previous fiscal year. Perhaps financial circumstances have changed and they are not going to be able to keep that promise to the people. But, Mr. Speaker, we haven't even had an opportunity to see what the terms and conditions of the agreement are that this government is making with the federal government in agreeing to the anti-inflation programme. I understand that the Premier will be presenting a bill binding this province in some way to the federal anti-inflation programme. We haven't seen the terms and conditions of that bill. Maybe we should put off this increase in the social services tax levy six months hence until we've had an opportunity to see what the terms and conditions of that bill are, Mr. Speaker. Maybe that bill will provide....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: We haven't had an opportunity to discuss it, Mr. Member. Also, Mr. Speaker, we haven't even had an opportunity to discuss the general fiscal programme of this government. They presented a budget speech....

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing now?

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: They presented a budget speech which they continually adjourn. In fact, they presented several versions of the budget speech: one for domestic consumption, one for foreign consumption, possibly some for internal consumption. Mr. Speaker, we haven't had an opportunity to completely debate the fiscal

[ Page 820 ]

programme of the government....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. You know the rules of debate in the House. We are debating an amendment which is before the House which is to hoist a bill for six months and read it "six months hence".

MR. SKELLY: Right. What I am trying....

MR. SPEAKER: If I may proceed, canvassing the whole matter of the budget is something that will be done by the hon. members when they participate in the budget debate, so please confine your remarks to the amendment which is before the House.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I am relating this to the opportunity to discuss the general fiscal programme of the government, Perhaps out of the discussion of the budget we will resolve ourselves as a House — or determine as a House — that this levy is not necessary, that there are some errors in the budget, that perhaps the government will have to come down with a new budget that doesn't understate revenues.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: There are no errors in that budget? After all, the budget has been changed several times and we haven't had a full opportunity to discuss it. So I think it is advisable that we hold off debate on this bill, Mr. Speaker, till we have had a full opportunity to discuss that budget. The way that government is going on the debate, it could take a full six months. So those are part of my reasons why I feel that we should hold off discussion on this Social Services Tax Amendment Act and this 40 per cent increase for another six months.

But, Mr. Speaker, there were some remarks made by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in justifying an increase in the Social Services Tax Act. He said that one of those reasons was that we had killed the mining industry and deprived the province of revenues, and therefore alternate sources of revenue were necessary and this Social Services Tax Amendment Act increase was one of them. But I understand from the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) that there seems to be some conflict between members over there. I understand that there will be some encouragement to the mining industry that will bring that industry back to a new state of health.

Now the papers don't bear this out, Mr. Speaker, and the mining industry reports themselves don't bear this out. I think it's really a phony argument that the Mineral Royalties Act killed the mining industry. When you look at some of the headlines, Mr. Speaker, for the year 1971...1971 — not when the NDP was in office but before the NDP took office. Here's one: "Mining Future Seen As Cloudy" — August 21, 1971.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please get back to the principle of the six month hoist of Bill 11.

MS. SANFORD: But that's what the minister spoke on.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, let me clarify this.

MR. SPEAKER: As long as the remarks are related to the amendment that is before the House.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, they definitely are, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that one of the reasons why the revenues from this horrendous increase in social, services tax was necessary was because we had killed the mining industry in the province. What I am saying is that possibly we should hold off discussion of this horrendous increase in social services taxes until we see what the condition of the mining industry will be six months hence. After all, the Minister of Mines has promised to introduce some measures in the Legislature and to change the economic and political climate of the province in such a way as to attract mining investment back.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, I think he's going to find it very difficult when the papers don't substantiate the fact that the Mineral Royalties Act killed the mining industry in British Columbia, because it was in pretty tough shape in 1971, as the headlines indicate. I was in the process of reading to you some of those headlines.

August, 1971, one year before we came to office: "Mining Future Seen As Cloudy."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There will be little relevance, Hon. Member, in referring to the mining industry in 1971 in relation to the amendment that's before us. I think you can argue properly that if the mining revenue increases, there is reason to believe that we do not require an increase in sales tax. But we're dealing now with 1976 and beyond, and this amendment is to hoist the bill for six months, so please direct your remarks to that area.

MR. SKELLY: Thanks for that instruction, Mr. Speaker, but that's precisely what I'm attempting to do. I'm sure that you will allow me the latitude to demonstrate the broad picture of what has happened in the mining industry. After all, under the New Democratic Party, more revenue has accrued to the people of this province from the mining industry than

[ Page 821 ]

in any previous time in its history, Mr. Speaker.

What I'm saying is that possibly six months hence, if the Mineral Royalties Act and the other beneficial measures that we brought into effect are still in operation, we won't need this terrible increase in social services tax.

I can't understand, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of Labour can say that the Mineral Royalties Act has destroyed the mining industry in the province when the figures show the contrary, I can't see that any proposed changes in the economic and political climate which the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is forecasting can possibly assist the mining industry in the next short time. For example, I understand from the Price, Waterhouse report that the return on capital for mines in the year 1975 was 0.4 per cent, and that if the Mineral Royalties Act were removed, the return on capital would be only 2.7 per cent. I understand from the mining companies themselves that just a very few years ago, in 1974, the return on capital at that time was 18 per cent, and that they felt that that was the level of return on capital that was necessary to justify more investment in mining in the province. So just simply removing the Mineral Royalties Act, Mr. Speaker, isn't really going to change the situation for the mining industry in the province.

Nevertheless, the situation seems to be improving, not as quickly as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources would like us to believe, but let's give this province and this Legislature an opportunity to put off discussion of this bill until six months hence and see just what condition the mining industry is in at that time, Mr. Speaker. Maybe under the Mineral Royalties Act and the Mineral Land Tax Act and other beneficial statutes that we passed, possibly at that time the mines will be returning more direct revenues to the province than ever before. In fact they are right now, Mr. Speaker.

I think that at the same time, it's a valid argument to put this bill off for another six months, to defer discussion on this bill for another six months to give the government an opportunity to look at alternative ways of raising the $200 million they say they require.

Again, we should look at the cheque that was written to ICBC that wasn't necessary. Possibly the government could reconsider the issuing of that cheque; maybe the Minister of Finance could talk to the Minister of Education and ask for the cheque back. It's $181.5 million. This levy is intended to raise $200 million, so if we had that money back in general revenue from ICBC that the government admits is unnecessary, then certainly we won't need this additional increase in the sales tax which will be an onerous burden and a regressive tax on the people, affecting especially the poor people in this province.

So let's give the government an opportunity over the next six-month period. I understand that they won't need that $181.5 million until October, if you can believe the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

Let's give the government an opportunity to look at other sources of revenue, such as additional sources of revenue — as the former Premier said back in 1948 when he was a member of the government party — from natural resources. Possibly the worldwide economic slump that we find ourselves in, Mr. Speaker, that has bottomed out in the last quarter of 1975, and possibly the increase in the health of the world economy will show that we can get more revenues from natural resources. I think that we should hold off consideration of this bill which provides an onerous and regressive tax that especially hits the poor people of this province. We should put off consideration of this bill for six months until we find out what type of improvement we can expect in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I support this amendment and I think we should put off consideration of the bill itself six months hence.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I am unalterably opposed to the sales tax. I was opposed to the 3 per cent tax in 1949, I was opposed to the 5 per cent sales tax in 1953, I am opposed to a 7 per cent sales tax in April of 1976, and I expect that I would also be opposed to one in October, 1976.

But particularly now, at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to introducing an increase to the sales tax. Over the last several weeks here on the floor of this House, we've heard from the hon. members across the way some very strong arguments on the expected improvement to the economy. Perhaps they've convinced me a little bit that the economy is going to improve. If it is going to make such a tremendous improvement I think that we should probably take a little time in introducing this increase to the sales tax, because maybe they're right — maybe it's going to improve. They say they're going to get the economy moving again; they're going to make more jobs; they're going to encourage investment. I think we maybe should give them the benefit of the doubt, because if all those things happen perhaps we don't need this sales tax increase.

I think I can quote a couple of things in the budget. They say that they expect that the economic outlook for 1976 provides cause for cautious optimism. They say that the gross provincial product in 1976 is expected to equal or slightly exceed the rate of 4.5 per cent which is forecast for all of Canada. They talk about the economic development; they're hoping that things are going to improve.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

[ Page 822 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Because of these things, Mr. Speaker, we could have some unforeseen income that we are not really expecting, and as a result of this we might not need this 2 per cent increase.

MR. SPEAKER: Please relate your remarks to the amendment that's before us.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I am attempting to do just that, Mr. Speaker. I'm attempting to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, that there has been a great deal of speculation over the past several weeks of debate as to just what the fiscal position of this province is and as to what the possible revenue of this province may be. For the past fiscal year and undoubtedly for this present fiscal year which we are in, I don't think we are sufficiently aware of just how much income we may have.

In the press it has been intimated that the sales tax may bring in more revenue than we need, It has been indicated that if the economy, in fact, does take an upward turn we will not need a sales tax at all. Mr. Speaker, I would hate to put this government in the position of introducing a sales tax and then finding themselves in the position of removing or reducing it just before an election, because that might be considered a political expediency, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: We wouldn't want that to happen.

MRS. WALLACE: No, and I would hate to put the government in that position.

So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I just really am very much in support of putting this thing off for another six months.

The point has been raised, I think by the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), that because we are already collecting it we have to bring this bill in now. Mr. Speaker, two wrongs don't make a right. I would suggest that the legality of moving to collect this tax before the bill is even passed might be questionable, but just to bring this bill in now to make that legal is not really a justification for bringing the bill in now.

I would much rather see the complete cancellation of this extra 2 per cent tax, 40 per cent increase. I would rather see that cancelled now and move the thing forward, because I don't think to bring it in now just to justify the fact that it has been actually in effect since the budget was brought down is any reason for moving now. It would be much better to move it ahead and wait and see whether or not we really need this tax.

The only other question that I have to raise — and I think this has been raised by the last speaker — is in relation to the Anti-Inflation Board and the procedures this province is going to take in relation to the federal programme. I would suggest it is much better to wait until we have a full policy worked out in connection with the anti-inflation policies before we move to bring in any further sales tax which will put a burden on the people of this province, the people least able to afford it.

MS. SANFORD: Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) suggested that the bill should not be hoisted for six months and that it was somewhat irresponsible to even suggest that this should be considered by the government. In my view....

MRS. WALLACE: He's probably flown away by now.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, he's probably flown off somewhere, as he usually does on a Friday afternoon. At least that's what I recollect in the last three years that I've been in this House.

MR. KING: And before.

MS. SANFORD: And before, I assume.

I would suggest to the government, Mr. Speaker, that it is irresponsible to apply the tax at this time, because it is such a regressive tax, and it's going to have such an adverse effect on so many people in this province.

We've talked about the low-income people and the fixed-income people; they cannot afford this 40 per cent increase at this time. They don't have the flexibility of the car dealers and the other millionaires in this province. They are going to be seriously hurt by this tax increase.

You know, this government has really been socking it to the people. They've already had enough to face at this time in terms of increased ICBC rates, Medicare hikes and income tax increases. Let's give them a break and give the opportunity to the government to see what's going to happen in the economy in this next six-month period. Then perhaps at that time they can reintroduce the bill, and again have discussion on it at that time.

The other day, speaking during the budget debate itself, we heard from the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I would like to quote very briefly from some comments he made at that time, because I think it bears directly on whether or not we hoist this bill for a period of six months. I'm quoting from the minister's speech:

I would like to point out to any member of this House, but most particularly those in opposition, that no one member of this assembly has a monopoly on the desire to help those in genuine need.

Interjections.

[ Page 823 ]

MS. SANFORD: But, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: All right. I'll just finish this point, Provincial Secretary, and move adjournment.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Just move it now? All right. I will move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.