[ Page 919 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Possible offensive language. Mr. Gibson — 919

Mr. Speaker — 919

Mr. Gibson — 920

Mr. Speaker rules — 920

Mr. Gibson — 921

Mr. Speaker — 921

Mr. King — 921

Mr. Speaker— 921

Ms. Brown — 922

Mr. Speaker — 922

Mr. Nicolson — 922

Mr. Speaker — 922

Ministerial answers outside of question period. Mr. Wallace — 922

Mr. Speaker — 922

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Sale of Princess Marguerite. Mr. Barber — 923

ICBC loan to government. Mr. Gibson — 923

Employment of B.C.-trained teachers. Mr. Wallace — 924

Fuel on Prince George. Mr. Lauk — 924

Conflict of interest in B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Hon. Mr. Curtis answers — 924

Administering of secrecy oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 925

Duties of executive council programme manager. Mr. Lockstead — 925

Future of the Beanery. Mr. Wallace — 925

Employment of Ron Worley. Ms. Brown — 926

Funding of Land magazine. Mr. Stupich — 926

Gas price increase. Mr. Macdonald — 926

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Davidson — 926

Statement

Progress of talks on patriation of the constitution. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 930

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued) — 930

Ms. Sanford — 935

Division on motion to adjourn debate — 935

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

Ms. Brown — 936

Mr. Calder — 939

Mrs. Dailly — 942

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 940

Division on second reading — 942

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 12). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 943

Mr. Stupich — 943

Mr. D'Arcy — 944

Mr. Wallace — 944

Mr. Barber — 946

Mr. Lockstead — 947

Mr. Nicolson — 948

Mr. Cocke — 949

Ms. Brown — 949

Mr. Barnes — 950

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 951

Division on second reading — 952

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 6). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 952

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): In the gallery today is a group of students from the beautiful town of Barriere in my constituency of, Kamloops. They are from the Barriere Secondary School, and with them is their teacher, Mr. Stieda. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today are two of my constituents, Mr. Brian Wallace and Mr. Gerry Boulton from Kamloops, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, this morning sitting in the galleries were students from two secondary schools in Cowichan-Malahat riding. They were the students from the George Bonner Secondary School in Duncan and students from Lake Cowichan Secondary School. They are now visiting the remainder of the parliament buildings and I would ask the House to welcome those students together with their chaperons.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the gallery this afternoon a group of citizens from the village of Ladysmith, and also a resident from the Crofton area, who are visiting in the gallery this afternoon.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, situated in the gallery this afternoon are: Mr. Art Doig, president of the Burnaby-Willingdon constituency association; his father, Mr. Henry Doig; his daughter, Miss Karen Doig; and I also have a very good friend of mine from Sudbury, Ontario, Mr. Les Adams. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon from my constituency is a very good and personal friend of mine, Mr. Mike Stadnyk, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming him here this afternoon.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, either in the gallery now or soon to be in the gallery is a group of students from the Rutherford Elementary School in Nanaimo along with their teachers. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. George Smith, who is in the gallery, and the members of the executive of the Comox-Courtenay Social Credit constituency association.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Do they want a grant?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that there are no introductions of bills at this moment, I would like to raise a point of privilege with Your Honour.

I regret that the potentially offending member of the House is not in his place, but it is my understanding that a question of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, this arises out of remarks made across the floor of this House this morning which, in my opinion, were very inimical to the orderly conduct of this House. This is not an easy time in this chamber; it is a time that calls for some restraint and conciliation. In that context I wish to cite some of the laws of the House here. I would quote to hon. members standing order 40(2): "No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House; nor shall he speak beside the question in debate."

Your Honour, I feel this particular breach is what is referred to in May as a....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if you're raising a question of privilege, would it not be best to state the question of privilege before you start quoting the references?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to do so. This morning — and here is the incident which I allege — during the taking of a division hon. members from the official opposition were engaging the Premier in banter of one kind or another. Opposition inquiries were in tone and spirit directed to the question of how long this is — that is, the sessions, morning, noon and night — going on, perhaps asked pursuant to the Premier's press statement outside the House and reported on radio this morning that such sittings would be continued for three weeks. The Premier replied, Mr. Speaker, according to numerous witnesses, including hon. members who might wish to stand up later and confirm this in person, in the following words, substantially: "It took me two weeks to train my dog." Those were the words which were given in answer to the question as to how long these unusual sittings of the House will be continued.

Mr. Speaker, I find this offensive to this House in a number of ways. It suggests that the House is being trained. It compares the House or the opposition to a dog. It shows an enormous contempt for this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, first of all, on a

[ Page 920 ]

matter of privilege, as you know, I must deal with the incident that you allege is a matter of privilege. Once you progress beyond that point in speaking to the matter of privilege, then you're argumentative in the remarks you are making and they are not admissible at this time.

MR. GIBSON: Would it be proper now, Your Honour, for me to cite the law which I believe to be applicable?

MR. SPEAKER: No. You've raised your question of privilege. I think now it is a matter for the Speaker to determine, first of all, whether you have a question of privilege or not, and then if you feel that you disagree with the decision, or the ruling, or whatever, of the Speaker, you can quote your sources of information in your matters that you wish to refer to.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not seeking to quote sources of information at this time, though Your Honour may wish'to inquire into that. What I'm seeking to cite, hopefully to be of assistance to Your Honour in reaching the question as to whether there has been a contempt of this House, is some brief citations from May which would outline the general principles of contempt, which I believe apply to this incident.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment.

Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat for a moment?

Hon. Member, the matter of privilege has been canvassed in previous sessions and, specifically, on a number of occasions in this session in which we are now engaged. It's now a matter for the Speaker to decide if he feels that he has heard enough of your matter of privilege to make a decision or, in turn, to invite comment if that is what is desirable and that is what is needed.

As I understand your matter of privilege, you have suggested that certain comments took place across the floor at the time of the taking of a division in this House. If, in fact, the comments did happen, or took place, I'm not aware of them and apparently other members of the House may feel that they heard those comments. I did not.

Now in the course of debate in this House — and I think this is something that all members should take into consideration — if you desire the House to refrain absolutely from any comments across the floor, back and forth, either in debate or when a division is being taken, then we can adopt that measure in the operation of the House.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

But it has been a matter of flexibility within this House to allow the odd comment to be exchanged back and forth across the floor. If the comment was considered to be offensive by the member who was on his feet, or by some other hon. member, it's not unusual — as a matter of fact, it's very common — for another member or that member to rise and suggest, as a point of order, that they considered the remark offensive and ask for it to be withdrawn. That's one of the points.

The fact is that the comments which take place when a division is called are not comments made by any member upon either side of the House standing in their place in debate. It's what you might call casual banter, which has been allowed. Now if the hon. member who suggests that a question of privilege is involved heard that comment, it would seem to me that the time to bring that to the attention of the Speaker was immediately at that time, while the division was being taken. No one seems to have brought that to the attention of the Speaker at that time if, in fact, the comment actually took place in this House.

It would, therefore, seem to me that it is not a question of privilege since it did not occur in the usual proceedings and routine of the House. It occurred at a time when we were temporarily suspended while a division was taking place and waiting for the clock to run out, which would allow all members who were available to return to their place.

I cannot understand why, if this remark did issue from a member of this House, it was not brought to the attention of the House immediately. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that it is not a matter of privilege.

May I say to all members of the House at this time that you have the type of House you make it. You're all responsible, as hon. members, for the remarks you make on the floor of the House, when a division is being called or when someone is on a point of order. There's much banter goes back and forth which I would not, as your Speaker, wish to unnecessarily inhibit, but I think all members would be well advised to temper their remarks and make them in the form of casual banter.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, would you be seated, please? The Speaker is not going to allow a debate on the matter. The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) rose on what he considered to be a matter of privilege. I have given you the view of the Chair that it did not occur — if in fact it occurred at all — while the House was in session, except during a lull in the proceedings of the

[ Page 921 ]

House, and then in casual banter back and forth across the floor.

I think, because I cannot see that it is a matter of privilege, that I cannot entertain debate on the matter, or have other members entering into a discussion about this particular situation at this particular time. You've asked for a decision of the Chair; I've given you the decision of the Chair, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make a further remark because I suggest to you, sir, that were it the case that this was simply a matter of banter on the floor....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Confine your remarks, Hon. Member.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I will. I'm confining my remarks to the question as to whether banter of this kind during a time waiting for a division is a proper question of this kind. I'm saying, sir, that first of all, previous Speakers have interfered in that kind of banter, so it's certainly a proper question for the Chair.

Secondly it is no longer a question to be confined to this House; it has been reported widely.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! You are now trying to canvass and debate the matter you have raised as a matter of privilege on the floor of the House. If at any time an aside that happens in this chamber is brought to the attention of the Speaker, the Speaker will deal with it at that time. But it is not to follow that the Speaker hears every exchange that takes place in this chamber between hon. members, particularly those that are not issued in the form of debate when an hon. member is on his feet on the floor of this House. I now say to you, hon. member, that it is not a question of privilege, and that ends the matter.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wanted to make your office aware that two members of the official opposition heard the comments to which the Liberal leader has drawn attention, namely the member for....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's out of order at this particular time.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I don't understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat. There are ways and means for hon. members to bring the attention of the House to remarks that they consider offensive. It was not done at that time. It is not now a question of privilege. If other hon. members of this House wish to pursue the matter on a substantive motion, that is their business. But at this time the business of the House is to return to the orders of the House for this afternoon.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege that I raised yesterday at the earliest possible moment....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR, SPEAKER: I have just said to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that that was not a point of order you were on. Are you on a different point of order?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you take your seat? Will the hon. member take his seat?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: Two members here are willing to testify.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I've said to the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, that if he has a point and he wishes to make it by substantive motion, that's the privilege of any hon. member in this House.

MR. KING: Who gives the evidence if we do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member and the hon. Speaker cannot perceive or conclude what is going to

[ Page 922 ]

happen in the future. All I can deal with is the problem that's before me at the moment, hon. member. I've decided on the matter and that ends it.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there's no point of order on the same issue, hon. member.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): How do you know if you won't hear it?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like a clarification of your ruling. Are we to understand that any member of this House can make derogatory comments about any other member of this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! You're not on a point of order at the present time, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We do need a clarification of it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: It's your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that as long as it's done in a bantering manner, it's permissible to....

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: That is a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you take your seat?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Oh, come off it!

Interjections.

MR. KING: As long as it's done by the Premier....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Remarks made across the floor of the House in a bantering manner, or otherwise, if they are drawn to the attention of the Speaker at that particular time, could be a matter of withdrawal. It was not done. It was not brought to the attention of the Speaker, as I tried to point out. I'm not suggesting any remarks, and remarks particularly which I am unaware of, are bantering or otherwise, hon. member. But they were not made during debate on the floor of the House; they were not brought to the attention of the house. I've settled the matter. I've told you the ruling of the Chair on the hon. member's question of privilege, and I can't say that I'll entertain — and I do not intend to entertain — further debate on the matter at this time.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! A point of order under what ruling?

MR. NICOLSON: It's under rule 17(1): "When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall walk out of or cross the House, or make any noise or disturbance." How can one raise such banter when a question is being put, Mr. Speaker? You cannot raise it during a division.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! There was ample time, I would say, hon. member, immediately following the division. I recognize the hon. Member for Oak Bay who had a question of privilege.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the earliest possible moment, I raised a point of privilege after the Attorney-General — with leave of the House — had answered a question outside of question period. Again I feel that things are degenerating in this House, and the sooner we establish some kind of understanding as to what is a point of privilege and what isn't, and to how we handle question period, the sooner we may prevent the situation going from bad to worse. I wonder if Your Honour has had an opportunity to make a decision in the light of the point I raised yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Yes, I considered the matter and this is for the general consideration of all the hon. members of the House.

First of all, I think it's incumbent upon a minister who takes a question as notice to determine in his own mind whether the question can best be handled in reply during question period, or whether the answer is of such length that it would be an abuse of the question period to give it in its entirety. At that point the hon. minister should consider asking leave of the House to make a statement rather than answering it as a question.

I can't do anything but advise the House on my consideration of the matter. I cannot see that we could allow, after a minister makes his statement following a question period, other hon. members to rise and ask questions, or what is really a

[ Page 923 ]

supplemental question on the same matter. I would suggest in all earnestness to the hon. members of the House, and particularly the cabinet benches who seem to be involved mostly in the question period as far as the asking of questions is concerned and have the responsibility forgiving answers, that if you wish to answer a question in the form of a return or if you wish to ask leave of the House, you do it prior to question period so that the hon. members who originally placed the question will be able to ask their supplementals within the time period allotted for questions.

Oral questions.

SALE OF PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications: could the Minister confirm that he met in his office on Monday last with private business representatives to discuss the sale of the Princess Marguerite?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker: could the minister confirm that negotiations for the sale of the Princess Marguerite are now underway?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there has been some preliminary discussion, but no serious submissions have been made by any parties.

MR, BARBER: A final supplemental, Mr. Speaker: could the minister advise whether or not the interests making this proposal are Canadian or American or both in origin?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Canadian, Mr. Speaker, but no firm offer has been made.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the sale of the Prince George in relation to the Princess Marguerite....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! This is not a supplemental on the same matter.

MR. LAUK: It's dealing with both the George and Marguerite.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the original question was on the proposed sale of the specific boat. I don't see why, in fairness to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano, he should yield the floor if you're going to deal with another subject.

The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

ICBC LOAN TO GOVERNMENT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

In view of the revelation last night by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that ICBC has lent $181 million back to the government, could I ask the minister what borrowing was undertaken pursuant, presumably, to the authority of Bill 3, to raise that $181 million to give to ICBC in the first place, and what have been the financial charges involved in washing this money back and forth over the last few days?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): In reply to the hon. member's question: as he would realize, the government has first call on the investment of moneys of the insurance corporation.

MR. WALLACE: We gathered that!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Does this come as a great surprise to you? (Laughter.)

The government has first call on the investment money, and it is their desire that the insurance corporation receive a good return for their investment. We have received a cheque from the insurance corporation....

MR. LAUK: How much was the cheque for?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister....

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's in Treasury notes.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I'm not sure the minister understood the initial question. How did he get the $181 million to give to ICBC in the first place, and what were the financial charges involved in raising that money?

MR. LEA: A rubber cheque.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: out of consolidated revenue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay.

Interjections.

[ Page 924 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. Does the hon. member for Oak Bay yield the floor?

MR. GIBSON: Just on a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, because I'm puzzled by that answer. I thought that was why we passed Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's not a question.

EMPLOYMENT OF B.C.-TRAINED TEACHERS

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Education with regard to the employment picture for British Columbia teachers and the minister's speech in the House last evening indicating that all B.C. school teachers now in a classroom, and all new teachers graduating this year in B.C., will be employed in the public school system.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Allow the member to ask his question.

MR. WALLACE: I'm quoting the substance as reported in the Blues today, Mr. Speaker. My question to the minister: could he elaborate on the steps which the government is taking to ensure that our own graduates will have first preference in getting jobs? Is the government counting on normal 10 per cent attrition and the issuing of letters to all school boards encouraging them to hire education graduates, or is there some other measure that the minister has in mind?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): To the hon. member, Mr. Speaker: no, we anticipate that no other measures will be necessary. Probably, as in past years, there will be recruiting of teachers from outside the province of British Columbia. But I suppose another way of putting it is to say that we're discouraging this year, as far as possible, the aggressive recruiting of teachers from outside of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker: has the minister, in his statement or in his calculations, taken into account the backlog of education graduates from previous years who have been unable to find teaching jobs and who will be on the job market this year?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made that very clear last evening that the problem we have had is a surfeit of teachers in the metropolitan areas — those who have been unwilling to take jobs in the north and the interior. But there are jobs there. I just repeat my appeal once more to the excess supply of teachers in the metropolitan areas: please go north and please go to the interior. There are jobs waiting.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in light of the fact that, as the minister has pointed out, there is an excess of teachers, has the minister taken any steps to control or limit the number of education students and graduates in the three education faculties in the province?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, because the graduates of our faculties of education have not been able to fulfil the total supply needed for British Columbia. This is why there has been such aggressive recruiting outside the province. Now it is a fact that only about 60 per cent of the graduates of our Departments of Education in the universities ever go into the field of teaching. It's an amazing statistic to me, and we will investigate that, Mr. Speaker. I simply don't know the reason for it.

FUEL ON PRINCE GEORGE

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). With respect to the sale of the Prince George, why was several thousand dollars worth of fuel left aboard the Prince George and not transferred to the Princess Marguerite at the time of the transfer of the Prince George, and can the fuel now be retrieved?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is some waste oil in the Prince George. It was there for ballast purposes and it's not recoverable.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN B.C.
HOUSING MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on March 24 and a couple of days following that, the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) raised, in question period, the question of alleged conflict of interest regarding employees of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I have a brief answer which I trust will be accepted in question period.

The commission has now met and dealt with this matter. The member will recall that as soon as I was informed of this situation I suspended the two employees and then, I think quite properly, referred the matter to the commission, inasmuch as these individuals are employees of the commission.

The commission, at a meeting yesterday, decided that five days' pay would be deducted from the employees' next monthly salary. In addition, the commission instructed that the annual performance review dates for both employees be deferred three months and this, the member will understand, will

[ Page 925 ]

have the effect of reducing the potential annual salary increment for these employees in 1976. The employees have been notified of this action and I think, Mr. Speaker, most helpfully arising out of this, again, rather foolish incident on the part of the two employees, is that on a broader scale the commission has undertaken to consider and implement a comprehensive conflict-of-interest policy — this will start at its next meeting — in order to provide staff with suitable guidelines and, indeed, that may be of assistance in other agencies of government as well.

ADMINISTERING OF SECRECY
OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Provincial Secretary. On January 13, order-in-council 103 was passed requiring every person appointed by order-in-council to take the civil service oath of secrecy, regardless of the duration of the person's appointment. Why was Mr. David Brown, who was acting in a confidential capacity to the government, not required to comply with the terms of order-in-council 103 after his appointment by order-in-council?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I've already answered that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the question about the employment of David Brown was passed on the floor of the House yesterday. I think the hon. minister replied.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out that order-in-council 103 requires by law that every person employed by the government, whether in an advisory capacity or not, take the oath of secrecy. The Provincial Secretary has answered that Mr. Dave Brown has mysteriously escaped that requirement and I want to know why.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Those are your words, I believe.

MR. KING: Well, this is the law, Mr. Speaker, that the government passed. Won't you answer?

MR. SPEAKER: There was an answer yesterday. I think it's in the Blues.

Interjections.

DUTIES OF EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL PROGRAMME MANAGER

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Deputy Premier.

Order-in-council 1175, 1976, increases the establishment for the executive council administration vote by one position, programme manager 2. My question is: has anyone been appointed to the position and, if so, what are their duties and salary?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to take that question as notice, as I'm not aware of the 1175 to which the member refers, but I'll be very pleased to take it as notice.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplemental, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, Hon. Member. On a supplemental, it would be best to pose that question when the original answer comes to the floor of the House.

FUTURE OF THE BEANERY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser).... He hasn't been answering written questions; I hope he'll try to answer oral ones.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. WALLACE: Yes, they've been on the paper for a month.

With regard to the fast food service establishment on the causeway, popularly known as the Beanery....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Barrett's Beanery.

MR. WALLACE: In light of the minister's statement that the establishment will continue to be used for its present purpose, has the minister held, or is he planning to hold, meetings with the mayor and council of the city of Victoria, since that location on the causeway was planned to have a much higher use than a fast-food outlet and a ferry terminal?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Public Works): To the member for Oak Bay, first of all, you will get the written answers shortly. We haven't been here a month quite yet.

On the second question, I have had discussions already with the mayor of Victoria.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the minister's statement that last year's operator lost $6,000 on that operation, could he tell the House if there's a government subsidy involved in

[ Page 926 ]

the operation of the Beanery?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that, but discussions are taking place on these subjects now.

EMPLOYMENT OF RON WORLEY

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Can she tell me, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether Mr. Ronald Worley has been employed in any capacity by this government since December 23, 1975?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of Mr. Worley being employed in any capacity with the government.

MS. BROWN: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for the hon. Provincial Secretary to take this question as notice? We are very anxious to get a very complete answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would be pleased to do so.

FUNDING OF LAND MAGAZINE

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Provincial Secretary: was a special warrant issued by order-in-council in 1975 to cover the costs related to the printing and mailing of Land magazine in the amount of $134,126.19?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think I answered that the other night in answer to a point of privilege raised following that day's deliberations, At that time I said that I was sorry that I was misinterpreted. I meant to say that an order-in-council was requested by the then Minister of Lands and Forests, and I was going to file the letter in which the Hon. Mr. Williams at that time requested a special warrant for that purpose. I shall do so. I am sorry I don't have it with me today but I shall be glad to do that.

GAS PRICE INCREASE

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): To the Minister of Transport and Communications. Imperial Oil has increased the price of gasoline by 1 cent according to the federal government. Does the hon. minister intend that the Energy Commission investigate that price increase with a view to not relinquishing provincial jurisdiction and itself protecting by guidelines under the Energy Act the price of gasoline for consumers in British Columbia?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Energy Commission has that particular matter under review. The fact that the federal body has permitted an increase doesn't necessarily require that the provincial body authorize a similar increase.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to continue the debate that we left off this morning.

The riding of Delta represents almost every conceivable cross-section of our society — from farmer to fisherman, from homeowner to tenant, from businessman to labourer, from long-established families to newcomers from every part of this province in this dominion. Included in the riding of Delta are three separate and distinct municipalities — Delta, White Rock and North Surrey — each with its own separate and distinct problems and needs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there has always existed a healthy spirit of competition between the different areas within my riding, but that competition has benefited our communities and we trust that that same spirit shall continue.

Another characteristic we share in common, Mr. Speaker, is our desire to work to better ourselves, our families and our futures. We represent communities where individual initiative is rewarded and where a something-for-nothing philosophy has never been and never will be a factor of major consideration. The riding of Delta has always offered abundant opportunity: opportunity to reap products from some of the finest agricultural land to be found anywhere in our province; opportunity for our fishermen who have for generations lived in this area; opportunity for housing, particularly for new families looking for their first home; opportunity for business and industry seeking new industrial sites such as the Tilbury Island industrial park site, which under this development-oriented government promises to be one of the most outstanding projects of its type anywhere in the lower mainland.

Mr. Speaker, the last few years have witnessed dramatic changes throughout our riding with a tremendous influx of people into all three municipalities. As a result, we have not been without our growing pains. In fact, Mr. Speaker, at present Delta has the largest number of voters of any provincial riding in British Columbia and is a close second only in total population to that of Coquitlam.

Mr. Speaker, the need for redistribution which existed prior to the last election has not changed; it has merely been compounded. The people of my riding were promised redistribution by the now-defeated former Premier. I cannot stress in

[ Page 927 ]

sufficiently strong enough terms the very real and genuine need for realignment of electoral boundaries as far as the riding of Delta is concerned. I would impress upon those in this House that proportionate representation is the very foundation of our democratic system. I look forward, therefore, to significant electoral reform prior to our next election in 1979.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Right on!

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, if this assembly is to honour the commitment that we have collectively made to the people of British Columbia, much legislation must be dealt with in this and forthcoming sessions. We find, however, that effective legislation dealing with the very real problems that face this province has been needlessly delayed by an opposition whose sole objective appears to be to confuse the realities of the economics of this province as those realities presently exist.

It appears incumbent, therefore, that the facts once again be reviewed. On September 12, 1972, the province of British Columbia had over $85 million in perpetual capital funds, $126 million in special capital funds, $200 million in cash or term deposits in the bank, $97.5 million in British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority temporary deposits and $66 million in the British Columbia Railway, a total at the end of 1972 of $574.6 million as far as the liquid position is concerned. Mr. Speaker, it took 20 years of sound fiscal planning to reach that position. It took the NDP slightly over three years to place us in the present position of being $541 million in debt; and for the first time since the great Depression, the province of British Columbia is going to have to borrow money to cover its day-to-day expenses.

It is inconceivable that the NDP after having plunged this province into the greatest debt position since the Depression could stand here and could have filibustered the passage of a bill that now authorizes this province to borrow up to $400 million, money that will have to be raised at some point some time this fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, all the filibustering in the world by the NDP will not change the fact that when this government took office last December the treasury was bare, and with a real increase in our gross provincial product of less than 1 per cent, it was obvious that the economic growth of this province had ground to a virtual halt.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, despite all the declining revenues and despite the decline in the demand for our export products, government spending increased at an unparalleled rate. Mr. Speaker, it wasn't the Social Credit government that exhausted the $65 million balance in the B.C. Medical Plan. It wasn't the Social Credit government that overspent the welfare budget by more than $100 million, claiming it to be a clerical error. It wasn't the Social Credit government that mismanaged the current $181 million loss in ICBC. It wasn't the Social Credit government that deliberately over-estimated revenues. It wasn't the Social Credit government that deliberately underestimated expenses. It was, Mr. Speaker, the NDP government that today sits condemned for their total lack of fiscal responsibility during their term in office.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, even the most simple-minded individual can add $323 million, which was the NDP shortfall in projected revenues, and $218 million, which was the overrun in expenditures, to come up with a total deficit of $541 million. It would be even better, Mr. Speaker, if we had a chequing account that we could simply write a cheque against and start all over again. Unfortunately, the chequing account has been exhausted — exhausted by a socialist government which had a total disregard for the taxpayer of this province and a total disregard for any serious approach to financial and fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, it is solely and totally a result of the spending spree taken by the previous NDP government that the people of British Columbia today have to face an increase of 2 percentage points in corporation tax, an increase of 2 percentage points in their personal income tax and a 40 per cent increase from 5 to 7 per cent in sales tax.

The budget presented to the people of British Columbia for this fiscal year has been described by the Finance minister as a recovery budget. It can further be described as a recovery from three years of total financial mismanagement, a recovery from three years of economic discouragement, from three years of financial irresponsibility and from three years of attempted financial cover-up unparalleled in Canadian political history.

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for ICBC indicated in this House that as late as 1974 there were projected deficits for ICBC and that the NDP directors knew there were going to be deficits for ICBC, and the public were never told. They didn't tell the public then, they didn't tell them in 1975 and they didn't tell them in the election last December.

Mr. Speaker, where was the press when the former directors of that corporation should have been interviewed outside this House and answered those very serious and grave charges? Where were the denials? Where was the public outcry? That same outcry, by the way, Mr. Speaker, was quite easily generated when organizations, fronting as concerned citizens, petitioned and demonstrated and pressured against proposed increases in ICBC — increases that were justified and entirely in keeping with the original concept of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, a concept which, simply stated, was that

[ Page 928 ]

money which came into the plan would equal money going out of the plan and not a penny — not a penny — of taxpayers' dollars would be spent on ICBC. The premiums would look after the entire amount and that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what has now been done with the plan.

While we are on the subject of ICBC and while we're talking about a direct loss of $181 million in this socialist experiment, I would like to say to the minister responsible for ICBC that the majority of the people in this province are not opposed to the way he has handled the situation. In fact, they support the hon. member for his decisive steps in returning our taxation priorities to people where tax dollars belong and to pledging an end to political interference in both rate-setting and administration of our insurance corporation.

His measure of success to date, Mr. Speaker, can be clearly observed in the dramatic decrease in claims and the dramatic decrease in auto-body billings being received in the corporation's offices. Hopefully, we are on a course to end the greatest taxpayer ripoff of all times.

Mr. Speaker, on March 26 it would have been a popular course for the Social Credit government and the Finance minister to substantially increase government spending. It would have been popular to leave the sales tax at 5 per cent, to reduce personal taxation, to ignore the increase of hospital care, to allow the province to go even further into debt — popular, Mr. Speaker, today but totally irresponsible when viewed in a year, or two years, or whenever the bills are finally presented.

This government was elected on the principle that you cannot borrow yourself into prosperity. Work, sacrifice and savings are necessary ingredients for individual financial success, and no less holds true for a government. This province was built on these principles, it was almost destroyed without these principles, and it shall be rebuilt now that these principles have again been returned to government philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to convey my support and the support of the close to 26,000 people who elected me for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who has initiated a new thrust in his department to ensure the people of British Columbia that social service dollars reach the people those dollars were intended for, and do not fall into the greedy hands of professional welfare recipients who would do anything to avoid becoming meaningful contributors to the economy of this province. That is not redneck philosophy, Mr. Speaker; that is simply common sense.

Mr. Speaker, while each of us in this House represents a different area of this province, and in many cases a different philosophy, we all share one thing in common, and that is to serve the people of our respective constituencies regardless of political affiliation. We share, I believe, a common goal: the betterment of British Columbia and all British Columbians. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to some problems in my riding and outline some of the basic areas of concern as they have been expressed to me.

A new crossing of the Fraser River between the Deas Tunnel and the Pattullo Bridge must be a priority item for this government. Both existing crossings are presently being well used in excess of their intended capacity, and with projected growth patterns for the area over the next several years, the situation can only worsen. With each passing year, costs of construction increase and costs of acquiring necessary land continue their dramatic upward spiral. On behalf, therefore, of the thousands upon thousands of motorists who currently spend hours in long lineups, I would urge this government to begin positive plans in that direction at the earliest possible moment.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I was extremely pleased on Tuesday, April 6, to have had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), his departmental staff and the mayor of Surrey to discuss possible methods of alleviating the existing congestion by commencing an immediate study into the feasibility of increasing park-and-ride systems at key problem areas. I look forward to working closely with all parties concerned in bringing some planning in this area to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, within my constituency there exists a very large agricultural industry — an industry which is on the verge of extinction throughout this province. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that on the one hand the previous administration has said to the farming community, "You shall not dispose of your land; you shall retain this land for agriculture," but on the other hand has done little if anything to ensure a viable agricultural industry for those designated farmers. While the basic concept of Bill 42 was a sound one in its philosophy of preservation of farmlands, its blanket coverage and total lack of detailed professional input has turned our farming community into a shambles. Land which lacks viability in virtually every respect has been placed in the agricultural land reserve, and areas which would be ideal for municipally determined housing programmes, light industrial sites or even parks have been excluded for that very use.

Land which government has seen fit to expropriate for power lines, highways, rights-of-way, sewage programmes, drainage plans and railways has in many cases been so cut up that a farmer is simply not able to farm his land in any profit-oriented method. To have such land included in agricultural land reserves is neither economically sound nor fair to those who in many cases have been farming there for generations.

[ Page 929 ]

To this end, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), the minister responsible for the Land Commission, will be taking into account economic viability as one of the factors in determining whether or not exemptions to the ALR shall be included. I can assure you that the farming community in my area looks forward to such a refreshing and positive move.

The farming community also, Mr. Speaker, looks forward to the Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') commitment to an aggressive marketing programme for British Columbia for produce — produce which at the present time cannot compete in the marketplace with cheap imports. I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will continue to pressure the federal government for a much more realistic appraisal of import and export duties in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the forthcoming rounds of discussion.

The agricultural industry is an important one to this province and will be even more so in the years to come. I express to you the united desire of the agricultural industry that the agriculture portfolio soon becomes a separate one with the full attention it so richly deserves.

As mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, fishing is also an important aspect within my riding. I would now like to say a few words about the feasibility report to develop a small-craft harbour for commercial fishing vessels and pleasure craft in Ladner — an area, by the way, which has suffered some considerable neglect from all levels of government over the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, for a capital cost of approximately $1.25 million, which would include storage lockers, net racks, net wharves and other services for the commercial fishing vessels, as well as providing buildings for lease to marine sales and service, marine equipment suppliers and other marine-oriented businesses, it is technically feasible and is financially responsible to develop a small-craft harbour in Ladner.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed small-craft harbour would have a considerable economic impact on the Ladner area, potentially generating over $400,000 a year in community revenues within a few years after construction. Hopefully, capital financing assistance in the form of either a capital grant or long-term low-interest rate can be arranged with the cooperation of the federal and provincial governments, and the Ladner harbour project could become a reality.

A feasibility report to this end has already been prepared by Swan Wooster Engineering for the Corporation of Delta. Hopefully a favourable response will be generated by their request.

We look forward also, Mr. Speaker, to the development of the Tilbury Island project, not only for its industrial tax base but for its ability to provide local employment and remove the necessity of travelling into the greater Vancouver area for jobs.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the Delta Chamber of Commerce in their endeavours to attract industry to our riding, and for their sponsorship of the many tri-level meetings which have been held in an effort to iron out problems holding up the often-lengthy decision-making process.

Hopefully too, Mr. Speaker, the problems revolving around the White Rock railway will be tackled head on during the term of this government's office. No one issue has been more of a political football than this one. The people of White Rock deserve a straightforward answer as to the eventual outcome of the Great Northern Railway which runs along the waterfront of White Rock. If, in fact, the federal government does not have the funds or, as appears the case, does not wish to provide the funding to assist in the relocation of this railway, then steps must be taken now to offer alternate plans to the municipality of White Rock so that their planning may be realistic and based on new government cost-sharing formulas.

The people in North Delta and Surrey have for years expressed concern over the Scott Road widening project which has been much talked about but seldom acted on. It is to the credit of this Social Credit government that the first stage of that widening project has been approved and that construction is now underway. It is forever to the credit of the Highways department that bus bays are going to be provided offstreet to allow the smooth flow of traffic between 80th and 96th Avenues. It is further encouraging to note, Mr. Speaker, that this is only the first stage of the widening project and that further development will be commenced upon completion of this first stage.

There are, of course, Mr. Speaker, many other areas of concern to the people throughout my riding. Recreational grants, new municipal cost-sharing formulas, natural gas revenue-sharing and a review of per capita grants are all of vital concern and are commitments of this government.

Mr. Speaker, every citizen of this province knows that the programmes, projects and undertakings by government cost money. They also know that money governments spend is their money and that the more demands are placed upon a government, the more money has to be raised. The NDP have left this province with a legacy of debt: irresponsible wage settlements for the civil service; resource policies that have stagnated resource growth; bureaucratic growth out of all proportion to the growth of the national product and spending programmes that have been both ill-timed and ill-considered.

In the budget presented to this House on March 26, the people of British Columbia were asked to swallow some bitter medicine. Mr. Speaker, even a

[ Page 930 ]

sick patient must often take some bitter medicine, but when that medicine takes effect and when the patient has recovered, he soon forgets the bitter taste and thanks the doctor for his knowledge of what to prescribe and thanks himself for his own good sense in taking the time to visit that doctor. The people of British Columbia called in a doctor on December 11. Medication has been prescribed. The patient will recover with renewed vigour and be enabled to continue on to even greater prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments put forward by the NDP opposition and others that this budget reflects a bottom-line attitude towards financing, that it is cold, calculating and heartless and that it does not reflect services to people are utter and total nonsense. What is even worse is that they know it is nonsense. The total increase in this budget was only 5.4 per cent. But what about the main areas — the people areas, the service areas? What happened in those areas, Mr. Speaker? Health is up by 20.5 per cent; Human Resources increased by 22.3 per cent; Education increased by 10.9 percent.

Mr. Speaker, every argument the opposition has put forward on this budget has been proved totally groundless, without foundation and is an insult to the intelligence of every voter in this province. For any opposition member to claim that this government is not financially responsible when, in fact, they miscalculated their last budget by 1,080 per cent, has to rank as one of the seven wonders of the world.

Isn't it surprising, Mr. Speaker, that today the opposition members seem to have 20-20 hindsight, when for the three and some years they were in power they were totally blind to the practical realities in virtually every segment of their administration? I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the people in my riding can look forward to a government committed to serving the people of British Columbia in all the traditions that have marked the former 20 years of Social Credit government — a government committed to people, a government committed to services to people, a government committed to building a strong economy, a government committed to full employment, and a government committed to fiscal responsibility. These are the policies that made British Columbia the great province that it is, and these are the policies, Mr. Speaker, that will keep British Columbia a great province.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement and an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I tabled a letter from the Prime Minister of Canada (Rt. Hon. Mr. Trudeau) in the House last Friday and announced that I would be meeting with representatives of the federal government today. I'm pleased to welcome to British Columbia today, and to this House, Mr. Gordon Robertson, secretary of the federal cabinet for federal-provincial relations, and Mr. Frank Carter, deputy secretary to the federal cabinet for federal-provincial relations.

Today we have had useful private talks and I look forward to further discussions with the first ministers on questions related to the patriation of the constitution and many other issues which involve federal-provincial relationships at this time.

Would the House please welcome Mr. Robertson and Mr. Carter?

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take my position in this budget debate even though the budget address was such a very unhappy speech. I'm going to differ from the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) who has just spoken in glowing terms about this particular speech. But it's an unhappy one, and it's unhappy because it reflects the bitterness of this government; it's unhappy because it comes from a hateful mentality — I regret having to say that; it's unhappy because its purpose is to discipline the people of British Columbia for having elected a socialist government in 1972; it's unhappy because it has brought shame upon British Columbia in its presumption to assess the politics of other nations; it's unhappy because it imposes cruel and unnecessary taxes upon the working people of our province. All told, Mr. Speaker, that makes for an unhappy speech.

I'd like to quote. This is a quote from a newspaper editorial describing the budget address after it was brought down: "It was a vindictive performance unworthy of any legislature; a vitriolic frame for a harsh budget." Those are the words that most aptly describe the budget that was read by the Minister of Finance on March 26.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're not even sure.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not sure of the date. I can't quite recall. It's been a long debate, Madam Member, a long debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the speaker.

MS. BROWN: We're sure of the content.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do all of you understand it?

MS. SANFORD: So the debate, too, has been an unhappy one. But if anything is to be gained from this unhappy exercise, Mr. Speaker, it is possibly the

[ Page 931 ]

opportunity to put before this House, and before the people of British Columbia, some important information about the financing of government.

The debate on Bill 11 has focused particular attention on the sales tax as part of that subject. I hope that the points that have been raised by the opposition with respect to the unfairness of that particular tax have had some effect on the members of the government side of the House, because it's so inequitable and unfair. They are raising it simply because it is an easy way to raise money, in spite of the fact that it causes extreme hardship on a large section of the people of the province.

As the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has pointed out at the beginning of this debate, the sales tax is a regressive one. It denies the principle that citizens' responsibility to contribute to the revenue of the state should be based on the ability to pay. This, of course, is the principle behind the graduated income tax, a fair method of gaining revenue for government, a step toward the more equal distribution of wealth.

The fight for income tax was a long and hard struggle by parties who fought for such equality. I believe this government accepts the principle of income tax and is committed to the income tax as a fair way of taxing. Of course, I would not be surprised to find that there are individual members on the government side of this House who do not share this view. When I hear some of the sentiments coming from the other side of the House, admittedly from those who are new and less coy than their colleagues in the front bench, I sometimes wonder how far we have come in the history of civilization.

We hear their paranoia about the enemy. We hear them toy with dangerously extreme rightist theories. When I hear these sentiments, Mr. Speaker, I would not be surprised to find someone over there who doesn't believe that the income tax is the best way of raising funds for operating government.

lnterjections.

MS. SANFORD: Pardon?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): What about dangerous weapons? Do you have one over there?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Comox has the floor. Please proceed.

MS. SANFORD: As a matter of fact, based on what I have heard from some of the people on those back benches, I would not be surprised to hear one of the members in the next few days, while speaking on the budget debate, advocate a poll tax as a method of raising tax for the government.

The government wants to borrow up to $400 million; we passed that legislation. It has been pointed out that this is a desperate move to gain some credibility in the eyes of the public. Their desperation to try to make good all of the election propaganda over the last three years has resulted in some very interesting developments.

We have the situation where on several occasions the Premier is contradicting the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). We also had the scene of the Minister of Finance being hauled down the corridors by the coat sleeves, tugged along by the Premier, so he won't tell the press anything that doesn't fit in with the very carefully developed game plan which was, as I say, used throughout the campaign during the last three years.

It resulted in issuing a rubber cheque to a Crown corporation swimming in money. Now we find that that money comes from general revenue and that the government has borrowed the money back. As one article in the paper pointed out this morning, they are robbing Peter to pay Paul to give back to Peter to give back.... Well, it gets very confusing, Mr. Speaker.

It has resulted in the issuing of special warrants of very questionable urgency — and that has been debated in the House. Advance payments to beef growers — they weren't expecting to receive those moneys in the last fiscal year, not until this fiscal year. It has resulted in payment in full to the newly amalgamated municipalities of Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George and Nanaimo. They weren't expecting that money either, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, yes, they were — two years ago.

MS. SANFORD: All of this is to build up that deficit that the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) was talking about. What a distressing performance!

The backbenchers over and over again have given that line in their speeches. I think that the opposition has pointed out over and over again the fancy financial footwork that is going on in order to try to convince the public of this province that there was a $441 million deficit. They've made it; they've created it. It's the result of their political decisions that the bill to borrow up to $400 million had to be introduced in this House, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that the public is becoming aware of the shenanigans that have been going on on the other side of the House.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): We had three years of shenanigans in this House.

[ Page 932 ]

MS. SANFORD: He's talking about three years of shenanigans. You know, that's interesting, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Human Resources is talking about three years of shenanigans. I would like to make short reference to some of the financial....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You don't have to. We've seen the consequences.

MS. SANFORD: All right. Look, what I would like to point out to you, and you obviously don't want to know, Mr. Minister.... You obviously don't want to know anything about the finances of this province except what you're being told at this time by the Premier and the Minister of Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Take your seat or make some sense.

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to tell you regardless.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member who's speaking, would you please remember to address the Chair? It will help me in maintaining order in the House.

Would the hon. members opposite please not interrupt the speaker who has the floor, the member for Comox?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, if you can get them to behave, I can assure you I will address the Chair on every occasion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you will do your part, I will try to get them to do theirs.

MR. LAUK: And we'll all do our part if they'll do their part. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: The cash reserves in December of this year stood at $143.7 million, which is up more than 40 per cent in the year 1972, Mr. Minister. The provincial debt in the form of parity bonds is down by more than $110 million since 1972.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I don't think the minister wants to listen to my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

The assets, I think, are an important factor in the overall financial picture of the province, and between the years 1972 to 1975 the assets of the previously existing Crown corporations increased from $3.8 billion to $5.2 billion, an increase of $1.4 billion or 35.6 per cent, Mr. Speaker. The overall increase in assets in the Crown corporation sector during the same period is $1.9 billion to a total of $5.7 billion, an overall increase of 49.4 per cent.

But they don't want to hear those figures, Mr. Speaker. They have their minds made up. The Minister of Human Resources has indicated to us just this afternoon that he doesn't want to hear any of those figures. That's unfortunate, because it will help them understand in the next few years that the finances of the period between 1972 and 1975 were not at all what they are trying to convince the people of the province today that they are.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: The other thing that the members on the other side neglect to mention, and I don't know whether the Minister of Human Resources.... I didn't hear him mention this in his particular speech. But I was noticing in the paper this morning, in response to a question on the order paper, that the Columbia River deal, which was, as you know, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Human Resources, initiated, drawn up and put into effect by the previous Social Credit government, lost $1 billion.

The member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), who spoke just before I spoke, did not mention that figure at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's not true. That's why he didn't mention it.

MS. SANFORD: It's not true? Are you saying that the answer which is filed on the order paper by the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), is not true?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're twisting the thing.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Is he saying it's not true, Mr. Speaker? I didn't quite hear that.

MS. BROWN: That's what he said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MS. SANFORD: It's not true?

[ Page 933 ]

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: That's a sizable overrun — a sizable overrun.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's $1,000 million.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Rubbish!

MS. SANFORD: Rubbish? I heard a member on the other side say "rubbish." Is he saying that the Minister of Transport is not answering the question correctly — the one that was placed on the order paper?

Now that they have raised the taxes, Mr. Speaker, and they want to borrow up to $400 million as well, I'm just wondering what the government will do with all the money it will have.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Help people!

MS. SANFORD: Help people? Are you going to re-establish an office for the co-ordinator of women for the Status of Women? Are you going to hire back the ambulance attendants? Are they going to give a little money to the school boards so that they can hire those teachers?

In spite of what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was saying here last night, I expect that there will be teachers in September of this year who are looking for work. Perhaps they'll use some of that money to hire back those teachers. I'm just wondering what else they might do with the money.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Help people!

MS. SANFORD: Perhaps they will do a world-wide advertising campaign to sell B.C. land.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Their policy on foreign ownership of land suggests to me that they might well advertise outside the country.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Magazines advertise all over the place: "Land in British Columbia is for sale to absentee foreigners."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if that's what they will use the money for.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Perhaps they are planning to use the money to prepare brochures that they can send out to the mining companies around the world inviting them to come to B.C. where ore will once again be available just for the asking. There will be no need to pay for the raw material in B.C., even though the raw material — that is the ore — belongs to all the people. Is that what they are going to do with the money?

MR. VANDER ZALM: Where did you borrow your moneys?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Maybe the brochure....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Madam, may I just interrupt you long enough.... I have an assignment to make. The hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), will you kindly read in standing orders, standing order no. 17 through 21?

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that will help.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should take about two weeks.

MS. SANFORD: Perhaps the minister is going to leave. Is he? That's unfortunate. Oh, you're going to move. That's good because I have some more remarks that apply to the minister of that department.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): He needs a haircut.

MS. SANFORD: So maybe they'll prepare brochures that they can send out to the mining companies of the world, inviting them to come and help themselves to the ore in B.C. Perhaps those brochures will make some comment about the fact that they are considering opening up the parks in the province to mining again.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've already announced that.

MS. SANFORD: Or maybe they are going to put the extra money they are going to collect this year in a sack so it can be given out just before the next election. That's what I think they are going to do, Mr. Speaker. That's what I think.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, that's an idea, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they could buy back the Prince George.

[ Page 934 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: You know, I'm serious, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If hon. members wish to speak they are to rise in their place. I ask the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to return to his seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Return to Columbia River.

MS. SANFORD: Would you like me to wait for him to return, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was disheartened to hear that the provincial government had decided to sell the Prince George; and I think all those people who glory in the history of the steamship service along this coast felt the same way. The Prince George was built for the CNR way back in 1928 and, unlike the Princess Marguerite, it was intended for longer trips. It had stateroom accommodation for 318 people.

After this ship had suffered some fire damage following a lengthy career on the coast, the CNR decided to sell it. In August, 1975, the B.C. government purchased the Prince George for $230,000 with the expectation of repairing the damage and putting the vessel into service in the spring of this year. Plans called for one-week round-trip service. At that time, the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) stated: "This is an important move in aiding the economy along the B.C. coast, as well as assuring new employment opportunities for people with maritime training." That's all gone now, Mr. Speaker. It's all gone.

In addition, the vessel would have provided an important transportation link between the isolated communities along the coast. Two of the ports of call suggested were Alert Bay and Campbell River, the latter contingent on the construction of a new ferry dock there. Those are two places in my riding, both of which have indicated either by mail or a phone call that they are most dissatisfied with the decision to sell the Prince George.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) gives as his reasons for selling the vessel a projected deficit resulting from renovations and rising operating costs. We're back to the black ink at the bottom of the balance sheet.

He also claims that there would be tough competition. However, the minister is ignoring a staff report which gives the opinion that the Prince George would be a profitable venture, that the U.S. business and the creation of the 100 jobs lends justification to a marginally profitable operation. Those are words out of the report. That would have been a popular sailing, Mr. Speaker, and that's evidenced by the fact that when the Minister of Transport and Communications announced the sale of the vessel, already 30 per cent of the stateroom capacity had been booked for the summer.

But aside from the contradictory claims about profit and loss, I feel strongly that our people need a sense of their own history. I also feel that the quality of life is too important to be measured solely by that bottom line on the balance sheet for which they are so noted across over there. The restoration of legends like the Royal Hudson, the Princess Marguerite and the Prince George add significantly to the quality of life. I'm very much disturbed to hear, in answer to a question raised by the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to the Minister of Transport and Communications, that they are now considering the sale of the Princess Marguerite as well. I think it's shameful. I wonder if they're going to sell the Royal Hudson as well.

MS. BROWN: And the Parliament buildings. It's shocking!

AN HON. MEMBER: Say, there's an idea.

MS. SANFORD: A matter, which is related to the budget, that disturbs me greatly is the approach taken to the unemployed and the low-income earners — particularly that taken by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in various public statements. The approach taken, as exemplified by various public statements and directives concerning welfare recipients and other victims of unemployment, appears to be three-pronged.

First: cater to and feed the widespread public feeling that to be unemployed, and in particular to be a welfare recipient, is somehow a sin. Ancillary to this, ministerial pronouncements encourage the attitude that these unfortunate members of society are significantly to blame for economic tightening, and that humane measures to deal with their distress are financially irresponsible.

The constant barrage levelled by government benches against the former government, with reference to the 1974 $100 million overrun, shows more than anything else a gross insensitivity to human needs.

The merits of programmes like Mincome, Pharmacare, home care and day care are ignored by them. Instead, incipient public resentment against the unemployed and the disadvantaged generally is parlayed into an attack on these people and on the

[ Page 935 ]

government which reacted to their needs.

The second prong to the minister's strategy is to use the cynically fabricated so-called deficit situation to cut back programmes which in themselves account for a minimal part of total government expenditure. The reality is that these programmes, like community resource boards, day care, transition houses, women's centres, et cetera, are not in tune with the Socred thinking and their general philosophy. That's the reality, Mr. Speaker.

Underlying all of the manoeuvring and blustering is a deep-seated 19th century view that unemployment is per se a sin, that women belong in the kitchen and that requesting help from the community at large somehow shows a weakness of character.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: The third facet of this minister's approach to his portfolio is loud announcements that he's getting tough with potential welfare recipients and other presumed spongers. The fact that there already were controls regarding proximity of habitation to employment and proof of attempts to find work is ignored.

In my own riding, Mr. Speaker, I know of many cases in the past three years where people who have moved to areas like Cortes or like Hornby Island, which is now on the no-no list, have been told by the department that they must move into an area where they are more likely to find employment if they are going to receive benefits through the Department of Human Resources in the form of welfare payments. There's nothing new about this, but the pronouncements that are coming out are an attempt to show the public that the new minister is adopting a get-tough policy.

The strategy is to convince the public that this government is really tough with those people, and it's a classic case of form without substance. What are the facts? Canada...tells us that there are 800,000 jobless, but less than 45,000 jobs available in Canada. Is it any wonder that the objects of the minister's "get a shovel" statement are deeply injured by such a shoddy and demagogic tactic? They are being used for this government's political advantage and they know it.

Logically, I would assume that the minister has at his fingertips the jobs to which these shovels are to be applied, but somehow I don't think logic is what we can expect. The fact is that the government strategy is highly unlikely to solve unemployment or to meet clear human needs. How in the name of common sense can a policy of making day care more difficult to obtain for lower-income working mothers do anything other than swell the unemployment and the welfare rolls? How can a campaign of deliberately discrediting welfare seekers do anything but discourage would-be employers from using their services? This policy of turning one part of society against another is a two-edged sword.

Perhaps even more damaging to long-range plans of reducing unemployment is the long-time Socred strategy of prostrating this province on the altar of foreign investment dollars. This investment has traditionally been directed to capital-intensive extractive industries with the result that thousands of jobs were exported. The Columbia River treaty fiasco is a variation on that very theme. Blaming unemployment on its victims, slashing necessary programmes and trying to turn many of our people against the unemployed are not worthy tactics for any government.

This is not a recovery budget, but rather a revenge budget, and it's those who are least able to pay who will pay the greatest price for the revenge contained in that budget. The only thing that this budget will recover is money from the pockets of the people of the province.

We are back, Mr. Speaker, to a government of big business, and the priorities of this government are clearly stated on the first page of their first budget speech, and I quote: "To restore confidence in British Columbia as a good place to invest, to work, and to live." Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this budget.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 18

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 936 ]

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
(continued)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is my duty to inform you that you have 20 minutes left in debate.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to continue discussing the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, and somehow, in the 20 minutes allowed to me, to discuss the lack of principle of this bill.

I would certainly like to add my voice to that of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) in saying how surprised and sad I was to learn that the government is planning on selling the Princess Marguerite, and also add my voice to hers in saying that I hope this is not the beginning of the end of the Royal Hudson, the parliament buildings, the provincial museum, various other things and everything else which that government can get its hand on.

In discussing the principle of this bill, too, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping I will get an opportunity, not to reflect on a decision which was made earlier but certainly to say that I viewed the decision handed down with alarm, as a dangerous precedent being set, allowing people to shout derogatory comments across the floor as long as they are made in a tone of banter. All of this is being said within the context of the bill, of course; I'm not reflecting on a previous ruling by any means.

What I tried to do in speaking earlier about the bill, Mr. Speaker, was to say that it serves to hurt the poor. I also want now, in my second phase and after going over that very briefly, to show ways in which this legislation aids people with above-average income, that like everything else that government has done to date, it has put the burden for paying things on the backs of the people who can least afford it and somehow allows the people who can afford it to get out of it one way or another.

MR. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): You should be happy.

MS. BROWN: I am not here just to represent myself, Mr. Member. Unlike you, I am here to represent a constituency.

Mr. Speaker, going over it very briefly, what I said earlier was that Bill 11 is regressive legislation that works a hardship on the poor. I also took the opportunity this morning to point out that there were gaps in the exemptions. The minister, in introducing the legislation, said that it wasn't going to work a hardship on the poor because it has such very generous exemptions.

I tried to point out that there were some gaps in these exemptions, including vitamins, which everyone uses if we are to follow the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. McClelland's) recommendation and take good care of our health.

The fact that people who use osteopaths and their services...these vital services are also exempt because they are not covered by Pharmacare either. Also the decision of the government that a child ceases to be a child at the age of 15, at precisely the point where they are more expensive in terms of buying clothing, footwear and everything else.... If anything, if we are going to have exemptions it should start at that age.

But I want to talk about the statement about the exemptions also helping the poor, and try to point out that in fact they do the very opposite. Because people with higher incomes spend a lot more of their money on food, and spend a lot more of their money on clothing, footwear and reading materials, these people do get the benefits, really, of these exemptions. In fact, it is not the poor who get the benefit of these exemptions but people of above-average income.

We have been told by Michael Bradfield, assistant professor of economics at Dalhousie, in an article he had in Canadian Welfare of July of last year, that in fact of the poorest people 12.5 per cent of their income goes into paying taxes. As you get over that the percentage decreases until we have only 10 per cent of the top brackets paying much less than that in terms of their own income.

Since this particular piece of legislation is geared directly at consumers and at the purchasing power, those people who spend most of their money on food, on clothing and on footwear are the ones who benefit from the fact that these are the very items which are exempt from this particular kind of tax.

I want to also point out, Mr. Speaker, another way in which this tax also affects the poor, and that is by another piece of legislation introduced earlier by this government. I am not reflecting on a previous vote at all; I am still dealing with this particular bill. We saw that the provincial personal income tax did not raise the base. In fact, the very people who were covered by the tax, and paid the most of it because they were poor, are also the very people who spend most of their money on consumer purchases and, again, are used and abused by this 40 per cent increase in this very regressive tax.

I want to quote from the Santa Cruz poverty report where he was talking about the tax system when he spoke about the sales tax, which is the principle of this bill, and where he said that it hits everyone for exactly the same amount, regardless of ability to pay.

This is what makes it such a regressive tax — that, in fact, it doesn't matter whether you are rich or you are poor; there are certain basic items that you must have and, in fact, if you are wealthy you can exercise options, which poor people cannot exercise. That is

[ Page 937 ]

what makes this tax so regressive.

Now if you include with this sales tax the fact that these people...because the previous bill did not raise the base of exemption for poor people, you find that they are hit by the sales tax at the same time that they are being hit by the increases in personal income tax, which this government also brought in. In fact, I think it was one of the Victoria newspapers that pointed out to us that within a short term of office this government has introduced seven different ways of hitting the taxpayer, and, as I pointed out earlier this morning, the people who pay the brunt of it are people making incomes between $5,000 and $7,000 a year.

As I pointed out at that time, again, this will include your people making the minimum wage as well as people on fixed income, and certainly the recipients of Mincome and other services of that nature. So we see that this Bill 11 does a double thing. It penalizes the poor for being poor and, because of the exemptions introduced in it, it is of benefit to those people of above-average income who spend a lot more of their money on food, clothing, books et cetera and so benefit from the various exemptions built into this legislation.

I want to quote another instance. It says: "The truth of the matter is, of course" — and again I'm using Canadian statistics — "because of inflation the poor have not increased their purchasing power." In fact, it is the rich who have increased their purchasing power and, as a result, are in a much better position to benefit from the exemptions which have been included in this bill and which the Minister of Finance tells us were included in the bill to ensure that it did not bear heavily on the low-income and medium-income families.

Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) this morning, when he was asked about ways in which revenue could be raised, rather than through the sales tax, outlined, of course, the fact that the royalties on coal and other minerals as well as natural gas have been overlooked by that government, and I certainly hope that this was an oversight on their part. When the Minister of Finance was here this morning when I was speaking, I tried to appeal to him to look at these alternative sources of raising revenue rather than going through the sales tax, which, again I'll repeat, everyone agrees — most people agree; certainly economists do — that it is a regressive form of taxation.

I don't want to again go into the recommendations made by the first member for Vancouver Centre, except to say that certainly the coal royalties and royalties on other mineral resources as well as on natural gas would be a much more equitable way in which to raise revenue, since the Minister of Finance has said that the only thing that he is interested in is raising revenue.

I want to quote from a newspaper article, again a Victoria paper, the Times, which said: "It takes $550 more in income just to stand still in this province in terms of one's earning power as a result of the seven different ways in which the government, in a short period of time, has managed to increase taxation." Now if we look at the average income, for example, of a sole-support parent in this province, we find that the average income tends to run around $5,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, $5,000 a year runs about $400 a month, give or take a dollar here or there.

If we find that an increase in taxes means a deduction of $550 from this, then I think we begin to understand the kind of hardship that the combination of things, the combination of taxation introduced by this government is certainly having on people on fixed income. Again I draw your attention to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, I draw your attention to the poverty report of Senator Croll. You will see that most of the people in this province, as in this country, living perilously close to, or below, the poverty line are single-parent families, are your women who are heads of families, as well as people over the age of 60, or over the age of 65.

The Minister of Finance has returned to his seat, and again I want to use this opportunity to appeal to him to take a second look, the famous second look that that government used to take when the father of the son was the Premier of this province, to take a second look at this piece of legislation to see whether, in fact, rather than raising the sales tax by 40 per cent, it would not be indeed wiser and more compassionate to lower the sales tax by the same amount, if not by more, recognizing, as I've said, that people in the higher income, people in the top income bracket, do not need the benefits of the exemption.

If we are going to be concerned at all about being equitable and about being fair we have to take a total look at all the forms of taxation which that government has introduced. Certainly a good place to start would be with this regressive piece of taxation. Again if we take a family, Mr. Speaker, making $5,000 a year and we take into account that the increase for residential rents has been allowed to go to 10.6 per cent instead of the 8 per cent which we had recommended, if we take a look at the fact that there has been an increase in costs of home heating oil, if we look at the increase in costs of electricity and natural gas, if we look at the increase in ICBC costs, if we look at the increase in medical premiums, if we look at the increase in costs of hospital beds, if we look at the increase in personal income tax and add to that the sales tax, then it really is a tremendous burden that is being inflicted on the people of this province by the present government.

It has been proven by the minister's own statement in this House today that in fact he is raising

[ Page 938 ]

money which he does not need. During the question period when he was asked about that cheque for $181 million which was paid to ICBC, he informed us that it came from consolidated revenue, the very thing we were told was empty. We were told there was no money in general revenue. We were told that a bill had to be passed by midnight on March 31, and in fact that empty barrel was the one that produced the cheque for $181 million.

This is not just my opinion, Mr. Minister of Finance. I want to tell you what the Province said in one of its editorials. I don't think anyone in their right mind could accuse the Province, certainly, of being supportive of the New Democratic Party. The editorial said about all these taxes you have been raising, on March 27:

"These are difficult times for economic forecasting, but there is at least a suspicion that the need for these tax increases is temporary and that the government will be able to cut taxes again as the economy rises. If that turns out to be the case, the government announcing vast budget surpluses in a year or two and cutting taxes back just before an election is called, then we will know that it started playing games with this first budget."

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that one must speak against the introduction of all of these pieces of tax legislation, which includes Bill 11 to which I am addressing myself, must be this suspicion on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that, in fact, this is unnecessary taxation and that the government is trying to build up a kind of surplus which will make it possible suddenly to discover these surpluses in a year or two and start cutting taxes back just before the next election is called.

I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this is an inhumane way of dealing with people. Certainly it is an inhumane way of dealing with people who are on fixed incomes. Certainly it is an inhumane way of dealing with people making the minimum wage, the working poor — the very people whom we are continually being told over and over again, Mr. Speaker, bear the burden of the tax system. And they bear it even more when it is a regressive tax which hits every one alike regardless of their ability to pay.

Again I want to quote from Senator Croll's report, which referred to the sales tax as the most regressive of all taxes because it was a tax on consumption and a tax on need rather than a tax on one's ability to pay. Whether we look at the report done for the federal government on taxation, which says that certainly the income tax, if it is used constructively, is the way to go about raising taxes, or at some other form of taxation, we'll see that to blanket without thinking an increase of 40 per cent on the sales tax is not just regressive but really is a very destructive kind of taxation and hits those people who can least afford it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What would you have done?

MS. BROWN: You were not in the House, Mr. Minister, when I spoke to this so maybe I should repeat it. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in great detail outlined for your benefit, Mr. Minister through the Speaker, the kinds of royalties on coal and other minerals and a more constructive use of natural gas as a means of raising your revenue rather than raising it through the sales tax by increasing it on those people who can least afford to pay...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ...and allowing people who can afford to pay....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must inform you that you have less than two minutes.

MS. BROWN: Oh, my goodness, and I have about.... Oh, Mr. Speaker, this is terrible! Maybe I should ask for leave of the House to go on.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try it!

MS. BROWN: Is that encouragement or a threat, Madam Member?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: In the two minutes that I have left for me....

HON. MR. WOLFE: One now!

MS. BROWN: I want to use it if you would get some order in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's one minute now.

MR. COCKE: People keep interrupting.

MS. BROWN: It's not fair, and I know why they do it. It's because I'm telling the truth and I'm giving out words of wisdom to the Minister of Finance. That's the reason why you keep heckling me.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: However, Mr. Speaker, specifically to the Minister of Finance, I am using my last minute

[ Page 939 ]

to ask him to reconsider his position on this particular piece of legislation. As a new member who is in this House with an open mind, who has not yet been corrupted by some of the old horses — oops! — in the backbench and other places, I would ask him to seriously reconsider, on the basis of the evidence which I have submitted of how destructive this piece of legislation is going to be on the poor and on people on fixed incomes in this province, withdrawing this piece of legislation or at least accepting an amendment to hoist it for a year or two.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) last evening who made reference to the former Premier of the province W.A.C. Bennett's strong opposition to the introduction of the 3 per cent sales tax in 1948. He is correct, but as the years progressed we did not take long to find that that hon. gentleman, W.A.C. Bennett, became famous for his second look. So all during the early '50s when there were discussions on what should be done about premiums — should they have individuals pay for them or should the government participate in some way.... Of course, in 1954 the then Premier of the province increased the sales tax to 5 per cent from 3 per cent.

I am glad to see the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in his seat because he may recall — I'm not going to be critical of his position at that time; I don't think that he was a member, but I remember him in Vancouver — and I'm more or less going to put a feather on his hat, because he was a rising young leader in the CCF.... From what I can understand, this debate did not really come out on the floor of the convention of the CCF Party, but he was the one who advocated a 5 per cent sales tax even before we heard it from W.A.C. Bennett.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Oh, that's interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MRS. JORDAN: Who was that again?

MR. CALDER: Well, my good friend. I hope he doesn't deny this because I mentioned to him once when I used to tell my other friends....

AN HON. MEMBER: A member of the opposition.

MR. CALDER: Yes, but like I say, the debate didn't come right out on the floor of the House — the debates in Vancouver — but, from what I can understand, if it had come out I think my friend would have been reprimanded in no uncertain terms, so it never really came out in the open. I respect the member for advocating such a thing. He would have been a hero, but he did not become a hero because of the shortsightedness of the CCF Party at that time.

A few months later, our friend, W.A.C. Bennett, introduced a 5 per cent sales tax. I just thought I'd enlighten the members on this situation. That member later became a member of the House, and last year became the Minister of Finance of the Crown. I'm just wondering what he would have done if after December 11 the NDP had remained in power. What would that finance minister have done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.

MRS. JORDAN: What would Rosemary have done?

Interjections.

MR. CALDER: Because it would have been in this session that the public would have known about the pile-up of debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly!

MR. CALDER: The former government would then have taken some action, and that action would have been an increase of taxes everywhere. Being an advocate of the sales tax, I suggest that he would have entertained an increase to the sales tax at this time.

I also listened to a man who has become a real professional economist — the first member for Vancouver. You know, he's now got a habit of lecturing to this side of the House about companies he said we should be taxing, the industries that we should be taxing. They went overboard when they were in power by scaring off those very people whom he's talking about taxing.

A member from the other side used the word "hateful" today and I thought he was going to be asked to retract the word, but apparently it's in Webster's. I'll go as far as to say that one of the big factors — the reason why the goose was killed — was because of that party's hatred of free enterprise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CALDER: I don't hesitate in saying that, and despite industries, every which way, and believe it. So in the meantime, the welfare professionals in the former cabinet were busy doling out that money, and of course, the whole thing would have come out at this session had they won the government on December 11.

So, I say, Mr. Speaker, in my little brief contribution at this time that this bill is not destructive like the previous speaker said. I think this

[ Page 940 ]

is an absolutely necessary thing. We'll know what it's all about in the next budget, whether we've done right or not, because this is going to be an open book. This is part of the many bills that are coming in that are going to lead towards recovery in the province and I think it's clearly understood.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentioned about the markets of foreign people. He even pinpointed Japan. I spent a little time with my wife in Japan last Christmas and New Year and her father is a businessman and I hear from other friends in our little fireside chats that Japan heard about the former government here and that they didn't have any confidence in that government, no faith in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. CALDER: No faith in it, but I think their cutbacks were just beginning when there was a change of government and I hope that we'll go back to British Columbia being recognized by other countries, and I say this comparatively speaking to how they looked upon B.C. in the last three years.

So I say I'm quite amazed that they're now going to oppose the very thing that's going to pay out the Barrett debt. We always hear about the Barrett debt. We get the papers and everybody else says.... Well, that's enough. I think the public now understands, but when I got there things are still cropping up we couldn't help, especially now when they're denying this. The gall of them, denying it!

So we have to continue. If they want to contribute this scrap, we're here ready, and so my contribution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this debate.... I'll be very happy to stand up and be counted in support of this.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Well, I was going to start off by stating that up to now we really hadn't heard from any of the government backbenchers, but, of course, I cannot say that now, having just heard from one.

Listening very carefully to the hon. member's speech and putting aside all references to political — shall we say — statements which had nothing to do with the bill under discussion and just relating myself to the one part which he did mention relative to the bill, I found it rather incredible that he made the point.... The only point of defence for this bill was that, "Well, if we're wrong we'll find out in a few months." Mr. Speaker, that was the whole essence, as you know, of the opposition supporting the move to hoist the bill, and I don't want to get back on that amendment.

I want to move into my own opinions on the whole matter of the bill presently in front of us, but to have the suggestion "we'll know in a few months" certainly doesn't give too much consolation to the citizens of British Columbia out there who are all going to be overburdened with an extra 2 per cent until this government decides whether they really needed it or not. The whole point of the opposition's speeches up to now has been trying to point out to the government that you don't seem to be sure. You haven't proved to us. You've been noticeably silent, including the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) on the need — the economic need for this bill....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: That's been made quite clear to us, that there is doubt in the minds of the government by the speech we just heard from the hon. member who took his seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ahahaha!

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I know that you do not wish me to be repetitious and we have had almost — to this point now — every member of the opposition take their place in this debate and they have gone through in great detail, and I consider the most articulate manner, the reasons of basic concern for the passage of this bill and why we are against it.

All members have discussed the regressive and the inequitable features of the bill, which have not been refuted by one member of the government, and I really don't know what the backbenchers are going to do.

Again, as I said earlier in one of my other speeches, when you do return home and you have to talk to the folks back home, how are you going to explain to them the need for this when your own minister has not pointed to the opposition, or to you, why this is needed?

We hear the old story: it's needed to pay back the Barrett debt. Well, already you have been fooling around with quite a bit of money. We heard today that the ICBC cheque has been bounced around. If you're concerned about having extra revenue, what about that money you are just getting from ICBC? You've been playing around with it; put it to use and take off this awesome burden of an extra 2 per cent tax on the citizens of British Columbia.

Now we've had a number of points made very cogently about the sales tax. But the point that really concerns us — and should concern all backbenchers and all members of government — about the sales tax is the effect it has on the low-income earner. This cannot be refuted. I'm sure that the government backbenchers must themselves be concerned about this. But as they have not found it possible to get up and defend or refute that this does have an effect on the low-income earner far more than it does on those of higher income, I just want to read to you a few figures which may assist

[ Page 941 ]

you in coming to a decision on whether you are going to support this bill or not, after having listened to all the very fine speeches which have pointed out, I'm sure, quite clearly to you that it would be most unfair to your constituents to support this bill.

If we look at a 1972 research table on the effect of the sales tax on annual incomes, I just want to quote briefly to you that starting with people who earn under $4,000, they pay 1.282 per cent of their income as sales tax. When they get to the $5,000-$6,000 bracket, it moves to 1.640. The interesting thing is that when they get to an income of $6,000 to $7,000, it goes to 1.617. It's starting to drop. When you get to an income of $8,000, it's dropping further — 1.416. Then the interesting thing is that when you hit the area of the $12,000 to $15,000 income bracket, you find that the incidence is 1.382. When you get to the $20,000 bracket, it drops further — 1.224 per cent. When you hit $25,000 income bracket, it drops even further — 1.098 per cent.

Therefore the incidence of sales tax as percentage of income is 50 per cent higher at the $6,000 to the $7,000 income bracket than at the $20,000 to the $25,000 income bracket. Those figures were taken, I realize, from 1972, but the same incidence could be related to what is going to happen to the citizens of British Columbia when this 2 per cent inequitable tax is imposed.

We have also pointed out that you have not, as a government, or as any spokesperson from the government, pointed out to the opposition that you need this money. Because you can't point out that it's really needed, it has become quite clear to us that you are going to end up, or are hoping to end up, with a surplus.

Now the people of British Columbia have already been hit by a number of tax increases by this government. I can assure you that this final imposition of an extra 2 per cent, which cannot be backed up with any reasonable argument, is straight overkill, and the people of British Columbia will not accept it. I think, when you return to your home ridings, you're going to have extreme difficulty — if you do support this bill — in explaining to them why this extra 2 per cent has been imposed by your government.

If we look at food prices in British Columbia alone, they are at present 4 per cent higher than the rest of the country, with the exception of the Maritime provinces. The people of British Columbia are already paying some of the highest prices in the country for essential goods and services. Yet here we have the Social Credit government further taxing an already overburdened taxpayer.

This is a move that will take away from the people, the average person, and will even shrink their dollar further and decrease their purchasing power.

We have had pointed out from this side of the House, quite clearly and well, that there are other sources of revenue. The hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) went through them in her budget speech and in her speech on sales tax, and other members have, how there are other sources of revenue which we believe this government has not even looked at. But of course there is a philosophical difference; we are talking about getting a return from the natural resources of this province. If you wish to do that....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You mean like the mining industry?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, we do. If you wish to get that return so as to return it to the people of this province, you would have an opportunity for increased revenue, fairly raised, and without imposing it on those who can least afford to pay for it.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, another reprehensible feature of this whole bill is the regressive nature, as I said, of the tax. The problem is....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why is it reprehensible?

MRS. DAILLY: Well, why it's reprehensible is that once it's imposed — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance — it is very difficult, as you will find most governments have always found, to abolish it. Once it has been increased, how many governments have ever decreased it? — although we do have a sign from Britain today that they are moving to a decrease. But very seldom do you find this tax being dropped.

As the Minister of Finance said, the only argument that we've had for it is that it's easy to impose and it raises a lot of money. That to date is the only argument we've had in favour of the imposition of this tax, so I know that the hon. Minister of Finance is prepared to rise to his feet very soon and give us an answer to some of these questions which we have raised during debate. I hope the hon. Minister of Finance will explain to us his reasons for imposing an inequitable tax, will give us his reasons to point out why in his opinion it is not a regressive tax, and will perhaps lay out to us once and for all and clearly the actual revenue/expenditure situation of this province that requires this increase on the total citizenry of our province at this time.

Perhaps he will also point out to us what the policies of his government are for raising revenues besides just imposing taxes upon the ordinary citizens

[ Page 942 ]

of this province.

These are the questions, Mr. Speaker, which we have not had answered, and these are the reasons why each member in the opposition stood up to make their points. That is why no reasonable opposition, representing the constituents which they all do, who are going to suffer from a very unnecessary tax burden, can possibly support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): I don't want to abbreviate this debate particularly, because we've only been talking about this bill since Thursday evening, I believe.

MR. WALLACE: Take your time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Okay, I'll take lots of time. I think it's highly significant that in the gallery today to witness the passage of this second reading is the ex-mayor of the district of Langley, Mr. George Preston, who's here to support the passage of this bill. He's my brother-in-law, incidentally. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but reflect on the fact that it's a queer twist of fate. Here we have the same party that increased the budget for last year by 50 per cent and created our present financial predicament — no question about it — by establishing expenditure programmes far beyond our ability to pay. Now they stand here and decry the tax increase we have been forced to introduce. I guess that's the penalty of victory at the polls.

I've taken a special note of what they've called this tax. The official opposition have called this tax unfair, regressive, oppressive, idiotic, unnecessary, cruel, reprehensible...

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): And a partridge in a pear tree.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...inhumane and fraudulent, Mr. Speaker. Together with this, we've also had two lectures on taxes in Texas, which we really have appreciated.

At least you could say, Mr. Speaker, that the sales tax in British Columbia does have many exemptions — I don't want you to forget this — where they are important, on family consumables. There is no tax on food, no tax on children's clothing or footwear, no tax on drugs, no tax on rent or mortgage payments, no tax on school supplies and reading materials, and no tax on any service such as repairs, insurance or labour charges. I'm just taking things at random. There is no tax on holiday travel or airline tickets, no tax on cablevision....

AN HON. MEMBER: What about toilet paper?

HON. MR. WOLFE: So it's not really an all-embracing tax, and does vary with the level of income or a person's ability to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The opposition is saying that we chose this tax because it is simple. Surely this argument doesn't even deserve comment. What could be simpler than increasing other taxes such as income tax, or corporation tax with just a wave of the hand? Certainly we don't buy the fact that the choice was made to increase sales tax just because it is simple.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has stressed the point that we have underestimated revenues by $100 million. Mr. Speaker, our revenue estimates are based on a 14 per cent growth in the economy for the coming year. This member says that we should anticipate a growth of 16.9 per cent. You know, he can make that prediction completely free of any responsibility to account for this prediction. Our estimates were based on cold, hard facts provided by the best expert opinion at our disposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dave Brown.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Our Treasury Board gave lots of encouragement to our research staff to raise their sights, and after exhaustive analysis were persuaded, Mr. Speaker, that the estimated revenues were not understated for the coming year. We are not about to make the same error the government made a year ago when the NDP government received the same estimates of their expert staff, found they were $300 million below expenditures and solved their dilemma by inflating the revenues to provide a balanced budget, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment in sales tax was introduced as a last resort because it was the only alternative available, as other members have mentioned, to the government to fill the gap in the budget. This amendment is needed to allow us to carry on the many services and programmes that are so necessary. The tax is necessary, in other words, not for the government but for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

[ Page 943 ]

NAYS — 18

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

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to standing order 8, which reads: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given him by the House."

MR. SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order on this rule?

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, I thought I heard someone call "order."

Mr. Speaker, the point of order is this: I'm instructed that the hon. Premier is within the precincts of this building. According to May and the precedents which bind the rules of this House, by that standing order he has not been given leave from divisions. I think that by the tradition of the rules of this House he should be given leave, and I ask Your Honour for a ruling on standing order 8, with respect to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, speaking to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, many times, during the course of any given day that the House is in session, members come and go from this chamber. They may be here for a division and they may not be, according to the business that occupies them at that particular moment. It would seem to me that if the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is serious in his pursuit of this matter, I'll certainly meet with him in my chamber and give him the advantage of a private ruling on his suggestion.

MR. LAUK: I request that Your Honour rule on the standing order. I raised it. It's clear to me that the Premier has breached the standing order and that the Speaker should rule on that.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not consider, Hon. Member, that to be a point of order.

Bill 11, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 12.

CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 12 is an amendment to the Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1976. Hon. members will recall that tax increases were announced in the budget in order to raise the revenue required to carry out the necessary services of government. This bill covers the proposed increase in the cigarette and tobacco tax. The effect of the increase is to raise the tax on a package of 25 cigarettes from 8 cents to 12 cents; on cigars from 1 cent to 5 cents, depending on their selling price, and on tobacco by 1 cent for each one-half ounce of tobacco purchased. The increase was effective at midnight on March 25 and is expected to yield an additional $10 million in revenue in the coming year.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that I should be saying this, but I am disappointed in the remarks of the Minister of Finance on second reading of this bill — to introduce it simply as a measure of increasing government revenue, when we're talking about something that is $10 million out of a budget that is $3.6 billion. At that rate it is less than one-third of 1 per cent of the total budget, and to introduce it seriously as a way of raising more revenue, it would seem to me that that government is certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Well, the bottle is to come yet, Mr. Speaker. They don't even have to do that by legislation; they can do that without legislation.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: The bottle will be next, I guess.

But in all seriousness, I had hoped that the Minister of Finance, or perhaps the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), will get into the discussion on this one and will present some statistics to show that there are other sound reasons for introducing the

[ Page 944 ]

kind of legislation that is before us right now. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I have seen statistics published that would indicate that people who smoke do call more on our health services, including our hospitals, on the average, than do people who don't.

There are two general principles that can be used in raising taxes quite apart.... I don't consider it a principle at all to simply say that it's easy to get money this way, as was the main argument for raising the sales tax, but of the two general principles, one of them is that it should be based on the ability to pay. Certainly raising the cigarette and tobacco tax is not in any way at all based on the ability to pay. If anything it's as regressive as the previous one, although it doesn't apply to everyone in the same way that sales tax does.

There's another reason for raising the taxes — raising a tax in general — and that is that there should be some relationship between that sort of revenue and costs, and if it can be shown...and the figures that I have seen, I believe figures put out by your own Department of Health some time ago, the figures that I do recall seeing would indicate that there is a sound reason for making those who have this extra demand on health services pay a higher proportion of the total cost of health services.

I had hoped that someone on the government side would have access to more up-to-date figures. I had hoped that the Minister of Finance would present that kind of an argument, rather than simply a matter of raising $10 million out of $3.6 billion, which is not really a serious argument. I don't think the government is that desperate that it has to look for this measure of raising $10 million. I would hope that there are other reasons for raising this particular tax. I would hope that the reasons I mentioned are some of the reasons in the minds of government for raising this particular tax.

Though that kind of information has not been forthcoming, it's possible that someone in the opposition side of the House will have better statistics to support this argument — possibly other reasons as well. But, Mr. Speaker, I for one intend to vote for this bill — certainly not for the reasons announced by the Minister of Finance, but rather for the reasons that I have suggested.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, just a few words on this bill. I'd like the House to know that I'll be voting in favour of it. I consider that the cost to the taxpayer and to the economy by tobacco is far greater not only than what is produced in this bill, but in the existing taxes. I note that the increase — it's hard to tell exactly — is around 7 or 8 per cent, which is certainly well within the federal guidelines. I have no idea, as the member for Nanaimo has said, exactly what the costs are, but we do know that there are significant costs to the public treasury in individuals who smoke having a higher frequency of lung cancer, having a higher frequency of heart disease, having a higher frequency of respiratory ailments of all sorts, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, a higher frequency of days lost from the job — hence, a higher demand on our sick-leave benefits.

I'd also like to note, Mr. Speaker, that there is still today a significant proportion of fires involving property damage and loss of life, both to buildings and certainly to our forests, which is directly attributable to the irresponsible use of tobacco, matches and lighters that would not be carried if it were not for the fact that some individuals smoke. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to endorse this bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, one of the principles we have all talked about is the question that if revenue needs to be increased by any form of taxation, we should relate the form of taxation in a way which creates least difficulties to the consumer and the taxpayer, and try and relate it to the ability to pay.

Also, as we've touched on earlier on another bill, we should try to avoid a tax on essentials. We've heard many comments about just what the most essential elements are in anybody's budget. This is why the former bill was so strongly opposed by myself, because of the tax being applied to some very basic materials that everybody uses. But there is certainly no sensible reason at all for anyone to use cigarettes.

It is just impossible, Mr. Speaker, to calculate the social cost of smoking. The most valid one, which has already been referred to, is cancer of the lung, which is consistently on the increase. A very interesting fact is that cancer of the lung is on the increase among women. The apparent relationship between smoking and cancer of the lung in the first place is a very lengthy one over a period of years and statistically is clearly related to the number of cigarettes a person smokes. In other words, you increase your numerical chances of lung cancer as you smoke more and more per day. The person who smokes 30 cigarettes a day has a statistically demonstrable increase chance of lung cancer over the person who smokes 20 a day or 10 a day. So the medical and statistical evidence in relation to lung cancer and smoking is just about as clear as it could possibly be.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) mentioned quite correctly this morning that we pour millions of dollars into the back end of health services instead of tackling the problem at the front end. The front end is spelled out in one word: prevention. Whether it is prevention of road accidents by wearing

[ Page 945 ]

seat belts, or prevention of pulmonary disease by trying to minimize irritants in the bronchial tree really is immaterial. All these approaches by government must be developed as soon as possible in the hope that by preventing some of these diseases and illnesses we can cut down on the enormous cost to society, and not only in the hospital itself.

We have heard in this session of the rising costs of Medicare. One of the reasons is that with increasing technology the medical profession can do a great deal more for a person once he or she develops a disease. For example, it isn't too many years ago that thoracic surgery was an early branch of surgical services. With improved anaesthesia thoracic surgery can be carried out on many cases which previously were beyond the realm of surgical treatment.

So this is a spiralling or escalating situation where not only are more and more people developing lung cancer, but the cost of providing the treatment is increasing simply because research and technology make it possible to do more and more for the person who develops a disease.

We all know of the wide variety of treatments which in some patients may encompass the whole spectrum of medication, radiation, surgery and all the latest forms of treatment. So I think we would be wise to place on record in this debate — no doubt we'll touch on other aspects of it during the debate on the Health estimates — that this has to be one area where the government should take initiatives and try as far as it possibly can by whatever means — education of the public, the deterrent effect of increased costs or whatever — to launch a major offensive against smoking in society.

I don't say this in any sense of preaching because I happen to be a non-smoker. I just think that the facts and the figures speak for themselves. I feel that in this particular bill the increased revenue is certainly not a large amount of money in the context of a budget of $3.6 billion. But I hope we are trying to pass a message along to the public — particularly to the smoking public.

That message is that if you want to go on increasing your chances of disease or cancer, or the use of medical services and hospitals, et cetera, then we feel that you should be making, in some way or other, a greater financial contribution to the increased amount of service that you are likely to receive compared to the non-smoker.

I happen also to like the rationale outlined by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who, in referring to the fact that statistics clearly demonstrate that the person who smokes is much more likely to need medical services from the physician, and hospital care, and expensive care at that, suggests that maybe the time has come for incentives to the non-smoker and disincentives to the smoker. By that, I would suggest that maybe if we set the basic medicare premiums at a certain level, then the smoker should pay 20 per cent more, or 25 per cent, or whatever statistical ratio there appears to be in regard to the increased risk to the smoker.

Another point — and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) touched very lightly on it — I think deserves further mention. It is this whole question of apartment buildings burning down, or partly burning in many cases. Time and time again the initial cause of the fire is a smoker who falls asleep with cigarette still burning. Again, I have to say that I think it's time society looked at the question of incentives and disincentives, and perhaps tenants in an apartment building who smoke should pay a higher rent, and, conversely, in a building perhaps where all the tenants are non-smokers, then I would think the owner of the building is entitled to have a reduced fire insurance premium.

There is morbidity involved in the disabling of many people from burns, perhaps the worst kind of serious injury that anybody can sustain is a burn. It's very often minimized in reports of accidents — somebody sustained burns to X per cent of their body — but the average individual who has not been associated with burns really has no idea, Mr. Speaker, not only of the very long suffering which the patient undergoes but, and I am sure the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) knows this, that the patient is often in hospital for many, many weeks. It involves expensive grafting by surgical procedures that can go on literally for years at intervals.

Therefore anyone who minimizes the impact of smoking in our society on hospitals and Medicare, or minimizes the impact of residential buildings burning down because of unburned cigarettes, really just doesn't know how large a part of expenditure of government revenues this involves, particularly in providing hospital services and Medicare.

I suppose the argument could be put forward, Mr. Speaker, that an increase of this amount in the cost of cigarettes isn't going to stop anybody from smoking. I don't know that that is a valid argument because the research that has been done in regard to alcohol abuse shows quite clearly that if there is any one factor which does limit the amount of alcohol consumption, it is the cost of the alcohol.

Perhaps we should look at the possibility in this case that the cost of cigarettes should be made just about on a par, proportionately, with the cost of alcohol. I'm now paying eight bucks for a bottle of Scotch, and I am not complaining at all. That's my choice, and if I don't want to pay the eight bucks I shouldn't buy it. I have never complained about the cost of alcohol.

MR. LAUK: Bill makes his own out of tulip bulbs.

MR. WALLACE: I really think that cigarettes are

[ Page 946 ]

still very cheap when you think of the damage they do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. WALLACE: I think, and we've really said enough about this to get the message across, but I hope that in later debates when we talk about health, and particularly the prevention of disease, we will see on the part of the government not only this disincentive approach where you make the cigarettes more expensive, but also some incentive approach whereby the person who does take greater care of his health, who does take exercise, who stays within certain reasonable limitations in regard to, let us say, the use of alcohol and tobacco, has some incentive other than the one interjected by my friend across the way that he gets to live longer. That doesn't always follow, unfortunately, because cancer of the lung isn't the only cause of death in these parts.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government could take some initiatives, perhaps in relation to relative premium rates for Medicare and hospital costs. If this sounds like a very difficult problem, I don't really think it is administratively, because perhaps it could even be based on a person's hospital record and Medicare record. I don't mean to build a whole bureaucracy to come to that conclusion, but we do have the statistics on smoking and they become more blatant and frightening every year that goes by.

I don't have the most recent statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society but I had those last year and there's just a steady climb in the incidence of lung cancer.

In passing, I would say that I've talked in this House also about preventable disease and the asbestos industry, and there were statistics provided the other day that the chance of lung cancer in people who work in the asbestos industry is 96 times what it is for the non-smoker.

In other words, the combined irritation of cigarette smoke plus asbestos fibres and particles just produces some frightening statistics, and I mean to talk a little bit about that also, Mr. Speaker, in a later debate. But with these thoughts in mind I feel that the proposed increase in cigarette tax still leaves cigarettes at a price that, compared to many other articles, is not at all unreasonable.

I hope that the increase will have some deterrent effect, although I'm not convinced about it, but I hope that the government will perhaps listen to these comments from the opposition and during the session might take a look at some of these incentive and disincentive programmes not with the goal of penalizing people because they choose to smoke, but with the goal of putting the financing of some of our medical services and hospitals on a more rational basis wherein the person who is much more likely to use them to a greater degree will pay more of the cost.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): This is an excellent bill. I am happy to support it.

In supporting it today — briefly, as I will — I should confess, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time since the election I've felt like a member of the government back bench.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: One has no choice, absolutely no choice but to support the bill, and indeed as the debate proceeds one finds one's arguments have been used by every other member in advance.

I do agree with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I must regret that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) advanced, in my opinion, relatively trivial reasons for support of this bill.

The financial reasons have nothing like the consequence of the health reasons, on behalf of which every member of this House will, I expect, vote in favour of Bill 12.

I'd like though, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to make a very serious suggestion to the Minister of Finance and as well to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that, indeed, in a master budget of $3.6 billion, $10 million is not a very large sum.

I would propose, if I might, that the Minister of Finance be willing to commit simply 10 per cent of the receipts from this bill when passed, the sum of $1 million to education throughout the province of British Columbia on the dangers — the considerable and the real dangers — of the smoking of cigarettes, and I would further propose that that 10 per cent, in itself not a substantial amount but enough to begin to do the job, that the bulk of that $1 million be directed towards young people.

It should be directed towards young people; and I propose most seriously, Mr. Speaker, that there are many young people in this province who, because of their youth, because of their ability to speak at the level and in the language of other young people, would be understood and respected better than anyone else who might promote such a message.

I would urge very strongly the Minister of Finance, if he's willing even for a moment to give consideration, that he allocate only 10 per cent of the revenues forthcoming from Bill 12 to an educational programme, that he involve those young people in its design.

If he does and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) does, I would promise that the contents and the consequence of such a programme would double the pleasure that members of this opposition take in supporting the bill. It really is excellent, the happiest bill that you've put before us yet, and I'm

[ Page 947 ]

personally very happy to support it.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Hey, how come you guys are allowed to smoke over there?

AN HON. MEMBER: There's the smoker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate. I'll be very brief.

The previous speakers have raised some really excellent reasons why people shouldn't smoke, and I concur with every one of those reasons and may raise one or two myself in a minute or two.

However, I understand the debate, Mr. Speaker, is not about the health hazards of smoking — not at all. I understand that this Bill 12 involves raising the price of a package of cigarettes, a further tax burden to the people of this province — to the ordinary working people, the poor people, the underpaid people and even the cigar smokers, and there are several members on the benches opposite who smoke nothing but very expensive cigars, I understand.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Certainly I believe that, in terms of the price of smoking, those of us who unfortunately do smoke will smoke whether the price of a pack of cigarettes is 20 cents or $1 or $10 or $15....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hope I haven't given your Minister of Finance any ideas. (Laughter.) But I suggest to you that when we're discussing the health hazards of smoking the way to solve that particular problem and the proper debate on that issue is under health, not in the bill to raise the taxes of the working people of this province.

Any real smoker, as we know, Mr. Speaker, will pay any price for a pack of cigarettes or of good cigars.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would suggest, as a previous speaker has, that a good sound programme on the hazards of smoking, and a good, sound educational programme, particularly in our schools, would be very, very much in order.

I know that young people now seem to me to be smoking as much as ever, and at an earlier age, and so I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) consider such a programme, and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Use some of that $181 million that you flim-flammed into ICBC; use some of that money to explain the health hazards of smoking, I would suggest to you.

Certainly the ability of the poor people to pay these increased taxes is lower than that of the well-to-do. I feel that nobody in this province, if they feel like it, should be entitled to enjoy a cigarette, perhaps a glass of beer or two if they feel like it, and nobody in this debate, Mr. Speaker, has discussed the very serious additives in our food products that we eat every day. How about those health hazards, and what's the bill done about that? Not a darn thing, as far as I know.

Well, let's be sure, Mr. Speaker. Let's look at the whole damned thing on this drug business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You know, I would like to inform this House that just three weeks ago, actually just two weeks ago — just to prove a point that I'm not endorsing the health hazards of smoking, because there are real hazards — I had a biopsy of which I haven't had the results yet. But I want to tell you that I suspect it is negative. But the point is that there are literally thousands and thousands of people in this province just like myself who do smoke. There are many in this Legislature who do smoke, and some as heavy as I do very nearly. I think I'm the champ at the moment, but a few backbenchers over there are catching up.

It has been said that there are two ways to raise money for tax services: one is general tax on society as a whole or, two, a users' tax. Well, in this case some of the members are suggesting a users' tax, and in this particular instance I think this is an unfair tax.

You know, from a personal point of view, Mr. Speaker, certainly with the close cutbacks in our salaries as MLAs, and the government making our job more difficult, the increased price of smoking, when you're smoking quite heavily as I am, all adds up. You know, my wife and I and my one daughter smoke about six packs of cigarettes a day — six packs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Holy gee!

MR. WALLACE: Oh, no!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That adds up to approximately $5 per day for cigarettes, or $150 a month. I'm not proud of that. I'm giving you the bare facts, Mr. Speaker: approximately $1,800 a year, plus cigarette burns in my clothes, my car seats, my rugs and dirty ashes all over the house. So I tell you, I wouldn't advise anyone to smoke, and you're making it tougher.

Do you think I enjoy taking that rug in, getting a $50 repair job, buying a new pair of pants as I did last week because I had burned a little hole in my old

[ Page 948 ]

ones the only other pair I own? (Laughter.)

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not endorsing, so I cannot support.... I will have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I will not support this bill. I must vote against it on the basis that it is a regressive bill. Once again it hits the low-income people and the ordinary working people of this province, and I am going to vote against it. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to disclose my interest in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I'm not a smoker. My wife and family are not smokers. But at least the kids, as far as I can determine.... I don't know.

But I must say, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I was in about grade 5, and every day after school we used to go out in the back lane and we'd light up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. NICOLSON: That continued, Mr. Speaker, until I reached the mature age of 14 years of age and I decided that this really wasn't good for me and so on. I didn't succumb to some of the pressures of advertising and exposure. Of course, there wasn't television back in those days — but in the movies everyone used to light up...Clark Gable and so on. But Mr. Speaker, in spite of that and in spite of the fact that I have no monetary interest in this bill, I, too, take the viewpoint — and I recognize the point that was made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — that this is still a user tax and it has to be the most regressive form of taxation.

This is a taxation on human misery, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NICOLSON: A taxation on misery! Will you people show a little bit of spunk and speak up for what you believe in? Don't just follow what you've been dictated by the cabinet benches.

We have minds of our own over here in the official opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, to those members. So although I'm not a smoker, I do think that perhaps the next thing they should do, if they are following this type of logic, is to put a tax on candy, because candy causes dental caries. It's expensive. It's excessive.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's motherhood.

MR. NICOLSON: And if that's the kind of reasoning they are going to follow, and I see the Premier's taking notes.... I'm not endorsing that; I'm just saying that if that's reasoning, then they should put a taxation of candy.

Although we disagree on the way we're going to vote on this bill, I think the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), my MLA from Oak Bay, made an excellent point.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, so he lives in Oak Bay!

MR. NICOLSON: He talked about the idea of reinforcement here, or of ways and means. He mentioned that possibly there should be an incentive with a better rate. Just as we claim that people in certain age categories in driving are a higher risk, there should perhaps be a preferential break in Medicare premiums for non-smokers — perhaps a 10 or 20 per cent reduction. That, I think, would be a positive reinforcement for good behaviour — a positive incentive. This is a negative type of incentive; I don't think it's going to cause any difference.

I understand that with the taxation they have on tobacco in England — and it was Sir Walter Raleigh whom we have to blame for most of this.... It is in England where they have to pay about one hour's wages for a package of cigarettes because of the taxation, and that hasn't caused any noticeable decrease, I don't think, in smoking in that country.

The cost factor that the member for Oak Bay brought up about a bottle of scotch — I'd like him to consider this, Mr. Speaker: people who are hooked on this drug, tobacco, or hooked on the drug of alcohol, if they can't afford scotch, then they'll drink canned heat; they'll drink vanilla extract. Even today in Vancouver Centre there are grocery stores, supposedly, that have inordinate supplies of vanilla extract and these things that people will take. The member for Vancouver Centre knows very well what I'm speaking of.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a problem particularly in the downtown east side, and the cabinet listened to a brief on this very subject. I want to know what they're going to do about it.

But cost is not going to cut down on the consumption of tobacco. And, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) raised, it isn't going to raise that much; we're talking about a total of one-third of 1 per cent of the total provincial budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is the most regressive form of tax. It's a user tax and it's a tax on human misery. Perhaps for those who smoke expensive cigars there is a degree of luxury, but for those who just smoke cigarettes.... It doesn't matter if it's a millionaire smoking cigarettes or a pensioner who's subsisting on the most average income; if they intend to smoke, cigarettes are by and large the same price. There are one or two luxury brands, but they

[ Page 949 ]

tend to smoke the same price, so we're taxing the multi-millionaire, who maybe smokes a package of Player's a day, the very same as we're charging some pensioner.

I don't take this lightly. I visit with people in the chronic-care institutions, people who are dying of cancer of the larynx. I've met with these people many times and know them by name. I've heard their rasping voices — the loss of voice which accompanies disease which is related to excessive tobacco usage. But as a non-smoker, Mr. Speaker, I feel I cannot support this tax on misery, and I am going to vote against it on second reading.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, and just to correct the record, Mr. Speaker, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) suggested that when people can't afford to drink scotch they go to vanilla extract. Although my financial circumstances have changed, I'm not drinking vanilla extract. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to treat this bill with the same kind of adulation that the member for Victoria did. I feel that it's a bill where the government fluked upon the right decision.

They have made a number of mistakes, and for a change they moved in the right direction. I certainly can't agree, Mr. Speaker, with some of my colleagues who indicate that this is particularly regressive. It's more difficult for the poor, no question in my mind, and becoming one of that group myself, I certainly understand that particular syndrome. But I do happen to recall having read a great many pieces of information while I worked in the Health department. I saw some of the results of smoking and I think — forgetting about the taxation aspect — that it will discourage some at least.

It will bring it to somebody's attention. It's sort of like getting hit on the head with a hammer now and then. It kind of brings one to attention. I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I have been in some areas in this world where smoking is far more prevalent than here, and in those areas you'll find that every hospital has a very large bronchial ailment section.

Mr. Speaker, I sure hope that somehow or another we can get some health education going on the whole question of smoking. I'm a pipe smoker and they say they're not so badly off. I'm not quite sure of that. I don't think there's anything particularly good about any kind of smoking. Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly support this bill, not only for the fact that it's a reasonable way, an access for taxes, but it's certainly conducive to a little bit of thought being given — particularly by young people — to kicking the habit. So Mr. Speaker, with that I'll suggest that I'll support the bill.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I also, I suspect, will support this bill, although I certainly am very ambivalent about it. I agree with the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) that it certainly is a hardship on working people, and at the same time I disapprove of smoking. I do not smoke myself, and I agree with all the statements made about the health hazard.

However, I just want to raise two points very briefly. One is that a couple of years ago — I think 1972 — when the Health Education and Human Resource Committee sat, we looked at the whole business of alcohol and tobacco and the impact that it was having on the community at large. We were very alarmed at that time at the very rapid increase, certainly, in smoking as well as drinking among teenagers, among our young people as well as in the community at large. I was a chairperson for that particular committee.

One of the things that surfaced, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker, was the incredible budget that tobacco companies had for advertising. I think really if we could have found some way — and maybe you can — to plug in to that budget which the tobacco companies spend on advertising — false advertising mind you.... I'll discuss this with the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) afterwards, then really that would be a much more equitable source of income in terms of dealing with the whole education about smoking, as well as certainly finding part of the health budget to deal with it.

We were unable to work out a system of taxing the producers of tobacco or alcohol without them passing it on to the users. Now, you know, as business people, which is what you say you are, and you're much more familiar with the corporate structure certainly than I am, you might be able, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker, to zero in on this business of advertising, because really there's far more money spent advertising tobacco than you will be raising by this tax through this legislation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There was a bill. You changed it.

MS. BROWN: No, no! I'm talking about taxing, not banning the advertising budget. I know on the package of cigarettes there is a surgeon general's warning or something like that.... Yes, sure, but you know a lot of our stuff is beamed up from the United States, and we should be able to tax some of the money that's being spent on advertising of cigarettes. I certainly hope that the Minister of Consumer Services is going to be looking into the business of false advertising, certainly as it applies to tobacco. We see through the ads that smoking cigarettes make you get any man or woman that you want, and that it makes life more popular and makes you more

[ Page 950 ]

beautiful, and all these kinds of things, which we know are not true. So I certainly hope that the Minister of Consumer Services — and I'm glad you're nodding your head, Mr. Minister — will be doing something about this.

My final statement is — to the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker — that it tells something about us as a community that it is cheaper to buy tobacco, it's cheaper to buy cigarettes in this province, than it is to buy a dozen eggs. It's cheaper to smoke that it is to eat nutritional food.

I realize that this 1-cent or 5-cent or whatever tax is not going to be able to solve that whole issue, but I think that certainly this is something that the government should look at in terms of our priorities. Why is it that it is still cheaper to smoke than it is to eat nutritional food, than it is to buy a dozen eggs, than it is to purchase milk and these kinds of basic things that are so important to us?

Like the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), I would like to recommend not that you use a part of this budget to do it, but certainly that the ministers of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), taking into account the Workers' Compensation Board, should sit down with you, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker, and explore and see if there really aren't ways in which you can deal with the increase in the use of tobacco and abuse of tobacco in this province.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on this bill. I am a little confused. I hope I am not alone — I hope the Minister of Finance is equally confused about this bill.

HON. MR. MAIR: Did smoking stunt your growth? (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: I waited too late to quit. (Laughter.) Actually, I think it had the opposite effect on me, Mr. Minister. Let's see, it was about 12 years ago I quit smoking; I had smoked for about 20 years. So maybe there is some hope for my friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: I am going to give him a little free counselling on the side. I do think that the member made a very good point, Mr. Speaker, and he had every cause to be concerned about the brevity of this most important bill. It seems to have one main objective, when really that objective is not the one that I feel is of concern to those of us who would like to feel that the economy can provide the necessary revenues through other means than through the unfortunate circumstances of certain members of the society. In fact, it's a mere pittance in terms of the actual extent that it is likely to help the budget.

The minister, I feel, perhaps should have included a preamble of some sort in this bill to indicate his concern for and regret, perhaps, for having to introduce this bill in the manner in which it was. Being a Minister of Finance I suppose his concerns are rather straightforward in terms of dollars and cents, but really there is an injustice in this bill. I am the last one who would like to encourage smoking, but on the other hand I feel that the government is showing its lack of respect for the various groups within the community and is attempting to take advantage of what it perhaps feels is a safe bet. All of us know that smokers are people who have their problems one way or the other, and I can speak from personal experience. I am pleased to say that I am saving myself considerable money these days by not smoking.

Be that as it may, I think the government in bringing the bill forward has indicated a tendency to take advantage of what is the most politically expedient, Mr. Speaker, and the safest. No one is really going to attack them for taxing cigarette smokers. The Minister of Health certainly would appreciate the problems and would say: "Well, good. Anything you can do against cigarette smokers, fine." After all, what they are doing to themselves is really less than something that we should be compassionate and concerned about. Our member here again from Mackenzie was attempting to make a very good case, I think — it was a tragic one, but at the same time a very good case.

We have a duty to protect all of the people and the rights of all the people. I feel that we should attempt to do at least a couple of things at one time. Perhaps we should have a disincentive, as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) had pointed out, whereby we could be constructive and not punitive and not isolate people and show disregard for their rights. After all, we did turn them on, you know; we addicted these people. I think the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) was pointing out that we allow the publicity and promotion of these problems that are created through the use of cigarettes. I think that that being the case we have a duty to consider our role in what we have created.

It hasn't been all on the shoulders of those people who are, unfortunately, smoking perhaps to their own detriment. It's been our fault too. In fact, we're drawing revenue from both ends. We've really turned everything into a business proposition. We have the smoker who is being led down the garden path through very clever advertising, and we get him hooked and then we raise the price. We tell him that if he gets sick and goes to the hospital it's going to cost him more than ever. His insurance for medical services is going up. We squeeze him to death, and

[ Page 951 ]

we're telling him he should protect himself. This appeared to be a very simple bill but it really has quite far-reaching implications, as you can obviously see.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: It's the tip of the iceberg, as I see it. It's one of those situations where at first glance you think, well, you know, why not? Why not tax them? But when you think about it, we've got to make a stand somewhere. We can't just go on allowing these things to carry on and not stopping the real cause of the problem.

Why don't we hear from some of the smokers out there? I'm sure that they would say "hold it; this is unfair." We have a very bad habit, Mr. Speaker, of taking advantage of people in dire straits. I would like to suggest that the government take a look at the other side, Mr. Speaker, of how they could generate revenue. As the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has pointed out, instead of taxing on the retail end, let's freeze the price of cigarettes. Freeze it; don't raise it any more. You know, Mr. Minister, that makes sense. You have a group of people out there who are being exploited. Freeze the price of cigarettes, and then tax the guys that are producing. Put the squeeze on the other end. You certainly can appreciate that that's more reasonable. There are less of those people than there are smokers. You know, why not take advantage of the minority for a change instead of the majority? You think about it. You're doing in all of those people out there on personal income tax, and you said that you're not really going to be taxing those essential commodities when you raise the social services tax, but really there are an awful lot of people affected. It equals something like $200 million, so that's substantial when you're only taking a few pennies here and there.

I think you should take the philosophy that we want to do what we can to cause the least damage to the individual, for whom we're most concerned in committee. In this case I'd say do it on the other end. You'd make all the smokers happy. Perhaps I would be suggesting something that would be to my detriment because they'd all be probably voting for you. I don't want to see that, but at least they'd be happy. Then you put the pressure on the other end, on the producers, the advertisers, on those people who are attempting to take advantage of a very unfortunate situation, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You know, I'm going to have to support the bill for one reason — not because I feel that it's an answer to the problem, but I feel that it's a first step....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: No, no, give me time. This is very important and I know everyone is anxious to have the government stand up and close the debate and follow all the recommendations that were made...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: ...but I would just like to say that before you stand up and endorse the good advice that you received from the opposition, as my colleague from Victoria has stated, I don't think it's quite an excellent bill but it is certainly more credible that some of the bills that you've brought forward; and because of that I feel committed to encourage you to continue your efforts to try to bring justice and equality to all of us. I support the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'm closing the debate as a non-smoker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The most interesting thing we've observed is how the opposition will vote on this issue. I think most members basically support this measure, but there are some who don't. In other words, holy smoke, it looks like we'll have a division across the other side of the House.

This bill, of course, brings to mind the problem raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). We certainly, on this side of the House, relate to his concerns there and appreciate his remarks. I think this government does devote a considerable amount of money to education on the problems relating between tobacco and cancer and will continue to do so.

In moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, I do so with apologies to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who take the odd drag once in a while. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), I believe?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I noticed that you didn't have drag. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's because you're looking through your filter.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The only other point I would raise is that with this increase, the total revenue generated, it should be pointed out, will be somewhere around $31 million from the tobacco tax. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 12.

[ Page 952 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46

NAYS — 2

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

Bill 12, Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER
AUTHORITY (1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 6 is, of course, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1976. The sole purpose of this bill is to increase the borrowing authorization of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority from $3 billion to $3.5 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Socred waste!

HON. MR. WOLFE: The borrowing is necessary to carry on the Authority's dam, generating and transmission expansion projects to ensure there will be electricity and power available for the future. While the borrowing authorization of B.C. Hydro is being increased by $500 million, and the borrowing in the past year has been some $541.5 million, there still remains $455 million of borrowing authority. This being the case, not all of the $500 million authorized by this bill is expected to be needed in this coming year.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.