[ Page 977 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Schroeder — 977

Mr. Cocke — 981

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 11). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Lea — 989

Ms. Brown — 989

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 989

Mr. Barber — 990

Mr. Nicolson — 990

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 990

Mr. Lea — 990

Ms. Brown — 991

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 991

Ms. Brown — 991

Mr. Stupich — 992

Mr. Wallace — 992

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 992

Mr. Lauk — 993

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I understand that today, April 14, is the Premier's birthday, and the official opposition certainly wants to take note of that occasion. I understand that normally the Premier would be 44 today but under this year of severe government restraint he's only 43.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that he is born under the sign of Aries, which denotes a rather aggressive personality. Perhaps that manifests itself once in a while in trying to ram legislation through this House.

In any event, my colleagues and I in the official opposition do want to extend our warm congratulations to young Bill on his birthday.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I'd like to thank the opposition for extending their best wishes. It's a traumatic experience getting older and realizing you're getting older at my age. I was discussing that this morning with the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair). I said: "Wasn't it Ponce de Leon who sought the Fountain of Youth — one drink and you didn't get any older"? He said: "Heck, you can get the same effect by drinking out of Lake Erie." (Laughter.)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit caucus I would also like to express our warm wishes to the Premier and leader on his birthday. We want to assure him that we appreciate his leadership and to advise him that if the responsibilities of office don't age him we're sure the caucus will.

We were advised — not as thoroughly as the Leader of the Opposition — that he was 44 and holding, and we just want him to know that there will be a small token of appreciation — not really for public consumption — coming from the caucus.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): We were enjoying breakfast this morning around your table, Mr. Speaker. We were reminiscing about some of the phrases that are being used and that fall, almost, into abuse in this House, but at the risk of abusing that terminology, I would say, along with many others, I'm delighted to stand, rise, and take my place in this debate.

MR. KING: Do it.

MR. SCHROEDER: The tradition calls that I should congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the position of Speaker of the House. It's been a pleasure working with you already in the early hours of this session. Modesty prevents me from going into the second part of that phrase.

Nonetheless, it's good to be back in the House. We've had some speakers before me to talk about the changes that have taken place. They have mentioned various members of the opposition, and what this change — this migration — from one side of the House to the other has meant to each, but, you know, really no attention has been paid at all to the minority parties, the hon. Liberal leader, who I wish was here this morning, and also the leader of the Conservative party, who I wish was here.

You know that we referred to him in the last session as "Landslide" — "Landslide Gibson." You'll remember.... I think he came in with a 57-vote majority. He came in on a shoestring and now is just hanging by a thread. He's the party in the House who had everything to lose and lost it. He's the only party to have an 80 per cent reduction in caucus and is still here smiling, doing a good job, and I'm sure that with the good advice that he's getting from his caucus, and in spite of the good support that he gets from all the gathering clan, that he will survive, because all of the vital signs are there. I'm delighted that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is here. The House would miss him had he not been returned.

The leader of the Conservative party likely has demonstrated the greatest amount of stability in this House. He had nothing to lose and he didn't bother losing it. He had nothing to gain and he didn't bother gaining that. We would miss him had he not been here because.... Here he comes. Delighted to have you here, and I want to congratulate you on your return because the House would not be the same without our "party".

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Pleasure.

MR. SCHROEDER: You know, Mr. Speaker, when you work together as a family — and really that's what we become in this House...55 members. When you work together for three, three and a half years, there is a fondness that grows between individuals and you miss them when they're not returned. I think that we should just reflect for a few moments on some of the members who were not returned, and I think the House is poorer for their not being here. We have the hon. former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer), who undoubtedly should receive a plaque for "Mr. Relaxation".

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Rip Van Winkle.

[ Page 978 ]

MR. SCHROEDER: I think that perhaps he's the only man since the days of our good Lord who could fall asleep on a small boat in the middle of a storm. This happened when we were on tour with the committee on municipal affairs.

We're going to miss Mr. Dent, the former member for Skeena, the one who became recognized as "tunnel-vision Dent" while he was here. I think the House is poorer for his not being here.

What about Phyllis Young, the voice from the back that used to say "Mr. Speaker"? Foghorn Phyllis — it will never be the same without her.

And we have the sea captain from Esquimalt, Mr. Gorst, the former member for Esquimalt. The House will not be the same without Jimmy being here.

And then there was Raucous Roy. Raucous Roy is not here and I'm going to miss the many dinners we enjoyed together.

Indeed, the ones that are not here are to be missed, yet the ones that are here are to be congratulated, particularly those who are new.

Out of the official opposition I have been impressed with the calibre of candidates who were elected right here on the Island: Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), excellent. I've listened to your debate, and also the debate of the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), and although I think that all of us can look back to our first speech in the House, Mr. Speaker, and likely find some of the idealistic lines that we heard from the youngest member of the House, nonetheless I think that those virtues ought always to be upheld. Perhaps if we embraced them in this House, the House would be a better place in which to work.

We have many new faces on this side, and I hope that in the month that has gone by, Mr. Speaker, the new members find their chairs comfortable and have learned already that some of the idealistic ideas that they brought with them into this House cannot be so quickly brought into effect as they had first thought, and that the wheels of progress grind very slowly in this House, hon. members. I hope that your patience will stay with you, and perhaps over four years you will see your dreams come true.

We in this House have always, as a family, rejoiced over successes; we have always cringed over abuses. One of the things I find strange in this House is that we would spend any time at all heaping abuses upon each other because each of us knows that none of us enjoys the results of those abuses. I think one of the things I would like to see happen in this House is a diminishing of those abuses. In no way would I seek to change the character of the House, to delete anything from the fun that exists here, but I think that perhaps the abuses are the things that none of us enjoy and that perhaps we could do without.

Some changes have taken place. The administration has changed, for which I am pleased. The places have changed. Those who sat over there sit over here, and those who sat over here sit over there. The roles have changed, and those who were ministers before are now used-to-be ministers, and one of them becomes the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King). Roles have changed; we wear different costumes, and we play different games.

The faces have changed. Even some of the characteristics of individuals have changed. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), I hate to see the change that has occurred in that member's personality since becoming opposition. I rather liked the member for Vancouver-Burrard — and I confess it to you, Mr. Speaker — but since coming into opposition a bitterness, a caustic personality has crept in, and I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, I liked her better the way she was. (Laughter.)

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I'll bet you do. (Laughter.)

MR. SCHROEDER: But I want you to know that the tactics are the same. The speeches are almost identical, although they emanate from different mouths. The phrases are similar, and in spite of it all I want you to know it is still a great pleasure to be here. I enjoy the humour and the banter of this House.

To the budget. The budget is $3.6 billion, up from $3.2 billion over one year, and up from $2.4 billion the previous year. I remember in the election campaign of this past December debating with the candidate for the New Democratic Party who, on the telecast in our little city, lauded the previous administration for having increased the gross provincial revenues from $2.4 billion to $3.2 billion over a period of one year. He cited this as some great accomplishment to increase the revenues, because somehow or other he related it to the gross provincial product and, somehow or other, that was an indication of richness. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that an increase of $2.4 billion to $3.2 billion, an almost 50 per cent increase in provincial revenues, can only be translated into what it really is, and that is an increased tax burden — a 50 per cent increase of tax burden over a period of one year.

Let us make no mistake about it. It represents an expenditure which first of all must be collected from the very same person upon whom the benefits are to be heaped. I want to commend this administration for their responsibility in putting the curbs, putting the brakes on expenditure in one given year. Our increase this year, although there is an increase there, has been held to what we believe the people can afford to pay, and $3.6 billion, in my estimation, is a responsible budget for the year 1976-1977.

[ Page 979 ]

It's all public money. It's the people's dollars, and we've been elected here and given the responsibility to make every dollar count. To listen to some of the economic theories that we have listened to from across the floor certainly doesn't lend to the responsibility which is ours.

When we hear suggestions that if you can't balance a budget, if you can't limit your expenditures to what you can afford, then let's borrow, borrow so that next year we not only have to accept the responsibilities of the services of that year but we must, in addition to next year, accept the responsibility for what we were not prepared to accept responsibility for this year. I think that next year has enough trouble of its own without heaping upon it our irresponsibility of this year. So I want to commend the administration for paring down to the bare essentials the expenditures for this year.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, you can always tell when you have reached about the proper level. Because when protest is made in the province about the number of services that are being provided — when protest is heard about the restrictions in expenditure — you know you've reached just about the right level, particularly when along with the same protest that talks about restriction you hear a protest that talks about inability of the people to pay, an unwillingness to provide through tax dollars enough money to pay for the expenditures which are expected.

Strange as it may seem, as we have listened to these protests, the greatest amount of complaint has come from the three areas in the budget in which we have had the greatest increases. In Education, from $752 million to $846 million; it's an increase. Although, when you listen to the talk out in the province you hear only the word "cutbacks."

I remember a letter that came in which one of my own constituents was rather abusive regarding education cutbacks — wondered how in the world we could keep hiring the teachers we needed. "It's indicated that we were going to have to fire 25 per cent of the teachers" — I am sure these figures must have come to her from somewhere, Mr. Speaker. But the same lady wanted to know what the expenditure in education was, so I took the liberty of sending to her a breakdown of the estimates of the Education budget. Lo and behold, with one exception, an increase in every department — an increase in every major section of the Education estimates, save one. I invited the dear lady to point out to me where the cutbacks really were. Needless to say, we haven't heard from her.

The Human Resources department, a department in which we have heard a lot of protest about restriction, increased from $498 million to $589 million. The Health department — increased from $697 million to $871 million. The increases are there; I think the responsibility is there. I think that in each department the ministers have argued for increases. I don't suppose, Mr. Premier, there was one department that said to you: "Thanks a lot. We've got everything that we need." I'm sure the pressures were brought to bear that said: "No, for education we must have a greater number of dollars." I am sure the same kind of pressure that I want to apply a little later on in my speech today are pressures that have already been brought to bear in some of these areas.

But nonetheless, responsible administrators must not only put on a sheet of paper the number of expenditures — the number of needs that we have in the province — but they must at the same time, and on the same sheet preferably, put down the revenues, and the revenues of $3.587 billion do not quite cover the expenditures.

With the recapture — it maybe is a harsh word — but with the recapture of some of the other funds, the administration was able to make a balance. It makes it neat, it makes it simple, but it makes it responsible. Because not to balance is to borrow and to gamble on succeeding years, and gamble on borrowing again and again and again. Ultimately we are saying that someone in the future should be more astute than we are and that someone in the future should pay, in addition to their own budget, that portion of our budget which represents our ineptitudes, our discrepancies and our deficits. I hope we never get onto that merry-go-round, Mr. Speaker.

I think that when the required revenues — when the tax load — brings protests, you know that you have gone about as far as you should. I know that when complaints come from the cutbacks, you have gone about as far as you could. In this year, 1976-1977, both of those protests exist. I say it's a good indicator that the administration in this year is dead on.

I had to smile a little at the objection which comes from the opposition. Another word overused, perhaps, in years gone by — they have built themselves a straw man, because their objections are almost without foundation. Even the objections raised...I doubt whether they are sincere.

Let me give you an example. You remember, Mr. Speaker, the urgent debate that was called for in this House — an urgent matter of public importance in which the opposition wished to debate certain words attributed to sister nations of the Commonwealth in the budget speech. Do you recall that? Yet according to you, Mr. Speaker, there was ample coverage for that particular question. Needless to say, I waited throughout the rest of the debate and there was not one mention of the urgency that existed the day that the motion was introduced in the House. I don't believe that to be sincere — not one mention in the rest of the debate about that which was an urgent matter of public debate at the time.

[ Page 980 ]

I also had to smile a little at some of the economic theories — the pump-priming, deficit financing, borrow-so-you-can-feel-rich theories — that we heard from the opposition. They had no regard for the long-term cost of the short-term sort of false security benefits.

I think that perhaps Ottawa would give us the best indicator of what happens in the long run with that kind of a concept of using borrowed money to prime the pump that hopefully will produce enough cash flow to cover the expenses of any given year. The federal budget now provides 13 per cent of the gross revenue to cover the past extravagances and only the balance — only 87 per cent of every tax dollar — is left to come through the pump. The rest is used for priming. I want you to know it's a depressing thought.

The opposition has protested the 7 per cent tax and says that this 7 per cent sales tax is an irreversible trend, but I want you to know that borrowing money to operate general expenses becomes a treadmill from which you never retire. If Ottawa is any example, then we don't need any other example to prove the point.

I heard a lot of debate about the deadline. There was a lot of anxiety, Mr. Speaker, about whether or not expenditures or cheques that were written before the March 31 deadline would be charged to that fiscal year or whether they would have to be charged to the next fiscal year, or whether one administration would be made to look bad, or the other administration be made to look good. I think we need to be responsible, even in this area.

I believe that in fair accounting you need to charge to the year in which the cost was incurred unless it was capital expenditure, unless it was amortized expenditure, or unless the benefit of that expenditure affects a period greater than the fiscal year to which it is charged.

Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the flood plain.

MR. WALLACE: They're looking for more money.

MR. SCHROEDER: We have incurred some heavy losses in a flood that occurred on December 2 and December 3. These losses could have been averted. I think that I would like to make some suggestions to the administration that perhaps would assist us in averting this kind of loss in the future. I think that it should not be left unsaid that this administration in a few short weeks put to work the emergency dollars which were made available, and that dredging, riverbank protection and initial diking are taking place on the flood plain well in advance of the spring runoff. I want to thank the minister publicly; the letter to the editor will be coming, sir. I would like to thank the minister responsible for not only passing on the funds that were made available federally but for putting to work the funds which were available here.

Hopefully we can avert serious losses and further flooding in the spring runoff, but there is something that we can learn from the experience on December 2 and 3. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we need to address ourselves to is the fact that our emergency machinery really is not anticipating an emergency. I know that we have an emergency co-ordinator, but he operates from his home. We give him not enough funds even to operate an office. When an emergency arises he does not have the authority to mobilize equipment and men so that the emergency can be held to its lowest loss level.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that someone in each emergency area — and every flood plain should be called an emergency area — should be given enough authority so that when an emergency is obvious that person would be empowered to mobilize whatever manpower and whatever machinery is necessary so that losses can be held at their lowest level. I could not emphasize that long or loudly enough. It's a measure which must be taken.

Another thing that we learned through experience is that we need a complete review of the guidelines that provide for assistance to those who experience losses. I don't think there's any way that the original fund was intended to compensate 100 per cent for losses. But the guidelines that exist do not provide even enough so that those who experience hardship can go back to the area of damage and have enough fund dollars to take up housekeeping again.

Let me just give you an example — and I'm thankful for the fact that all damage to housing is covered 100 per cent — of loss to, let's say, electrical appliances. Losses are covered on a basis of 50 per cent of the depreciated value. When you take people who are retired, such as was the case in the Yarrow area where we experienced a flood — mostly retired people living there — these are mostly people who grow their own gardens. They had their foodstuffs in freezers — some of them two freezers and, a few of them, three freezers filled with food. The freezers were estimated to be valued at 50 per cent — this is for assistance purposes now — of the depreciated value, and they were devalued at 10 per cent per year.

If you had a six-year-old freezer and you had paid $500 for it, the depreciation on it was $300 and your compensation was 50 per cent of $200, which would give you $100 to replace a six-year old freezer. Then the sad part was that there was no coverage at all for the food that was in the freezers. As a result, we have scores of retired couples in the Yarrow area who have lost their foodstuffs for the rest of the year, or at least until the new crops are in, and with very little — certainly not ample — coverage. I would like to suggest that those guidelines be reviewed. We need to step up

[ Page 981 ]

the emergency procedures. We need to review the guidelines, because if we live in a land where we expect emergencies, then, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you we need to act like we are expecting those emergencies and be ready for them.

Education: I hate to see a further decline in the number of dollars made available to education as compared to our gross provincial revenues. In 1971, if my memory serves me right, the figure was close to 31 per cent; certainly over 30 per cent of the gross provincial revenue was assigned to education. We saw a constant decline over the next three years and it reached the lowest level in 1975, under the previous administration, of 25 per cent. I was a critic of that trend as I sat on the other side of the House, and I was sincere in that criticism. I would be less than sincere if I did not note that we, in this year, have a further decline to less than 24 per cent of the gross provincial revenue being assigned to education.

MR. WALLACE: I thought you had a balanced budget.

MR. SCHROEDER: I know that this is not in keeping with the ambitions of the Premier who has stood on the same platform as this member to say that we would like to see the proportion restored to what it was originally and a greater priority be given to education. I believe this is a year of restraint. I believe that in this year we must accept the fact that perhaps our revenues are not ample and our revenues cannot cover extended costs to education. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that we are looking at next year from the beginning but for us, less than Deity, there is no way we can tell what a year will bring forth. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if in your revenues this year you do experience a surplus, I would like to see those surpluses designated for education first so that we do not have a further deterioration of the education standard in our province.

In 1972, over 30 per cent; in 1976, we are now at 24 per cent. I think the priorities must be maintained. I think, and I believe along with many other members in this House, that our greatest resource is the people of the province, and I think that the only way we can realize the greatest value of that resource is to give them the greatest opportunity to further their own educational background so that they will have the greatest opportunity to prepare themselves for the life that's ahead of them.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that when literacy is in question we need to shore up our programmes to be sure that we obtain from our system what we require of it. If we listen to the population at all, I think that many, many voices have been raised that question whether or not we are getting from our system what we require. I further suggest that the only way we can get out of the system what we can is, first of all, if we establish the guidelines to that system that let them know in the system what we want from them, and then if we provide the resources for them so that they can do a good job. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you talk to the ministers of your government and make sure that it is so.

I want you to know that I'm proud to be a part of the new government and although we work at rather a great distance at the moment and, needless to say, having to take responsibilities in the chair, that isolation and insulation is even greater than perhaps I would like to see it. But nonetheless it is good to be back, and I want to encourage this administration to mind their business so that not only can we say it is good to be back now, but that it is good to be back and back and back and back.

M R. D. G. COCKE (New Westminster): I sometimes wonder if we don't lose sight of the fact that we're debating a motion in this House, and the motion is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair so that we can go into Committee of Supply.

Mr. Speaker, with all deference to the mover of that motion, it was moved so long ago that most of us forgot that it was even moved. With all deference to the person who moved that motion, I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances I don't really want to see you leave the chair.

Now I know that you have a feeling that you would like to see us get on with some of the business of the House and let your subordinate get on with his job, but I really don't think that we want to see your subordinate come forward here and sit at the Clerks' desk until such time as we get some good reasons for the kind of budget that was put before us when that motion was moved.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of empathy and understanding. I can sort of understand the advent of that budget — relatively new government, a group of people composed largely of businessmen. I know, for instance, that 35 — or at least I'm told, relatively reliably — out of 55 candidates had some very close relationship — that is, Socred candidates — with the car industry, car dealers, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Eat your heart out!

MR. COCKE: I'll eat my heart out, Mr. Speaker, and so will that member ultimately. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that there was such a preponderance of influence of that kind is no real excuse why a document.... Now it was a speech. We all know that. But it became a public document when it was given the official endorsation of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and sent abroad, sent across the province as an official

[ Page 982 ]

document really, describing the policies of the new Social Credit government.

Mr. Speaker, why would that document have been written in a language we would expect in an advertisement from the car dealers in the daily paper?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, if that's an insult, Mr. Speaker, then I suggest that the member reread that document. Never have we seen such a political document in the history of this parliament, and, for that matter, I don't really think that there has ever been one in the history of this country that was so biased and so politically inspired. Indeed the language of that budget, Mr. Speaker, could add a new dimension to some of the outpourings that we see from the car dealer industry.

Mr. Speaker, we named that budget a revenge budget. We called it a revenge budget because that's precisely what it was, Mr. Speaker. We didn't see the kinds of things coming out of that budget that we saw in the paper this morning coming out of Manitoba. We didn't, for instance, see that a temporary anti-inflation surtax on top-income earners and large corporations was announced in B.C., as they were in Manitoba last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: A different government!

MR. COCKE: Right! A different government with different priorities in different directions, Mr. Speaker, and that's why I certainly am proud to be on this side of the House, whatever this side of the House might be.

Mr. Speaker, I noted with some interest the member from the flood plains (Mr. Schroeder), as you described his region. I noticed that he suggested that there was 13 per cent of this budget to pay for past mistakes. Mr. Speaker, if that's the case, then I suggest to you that plunging this province into debt, as this government did recently, was absolutely inexcusable. They can't get it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They just cannot do it both ways.

Now either one was right or the other was right. I suspect that both were wrong, but that's neither here nor there. The arguments that are being put forward by the other side are almost bordering on being fallacious, certainly specious.

Mr. Speaker, I have a fair memory, and I remember having a meeting a year ago with a certain member who wasn't a member at that time but now is Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), this Minister of Finance who has been talking restraint: "Hang onto your liferopes — we need restraint." That member last year was the president of Wolfe Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd., and he wrote a letter, along with coming over to see a couple of directors of ICBC. One director is no longer here and one former director is still here with a half-decent memory, and certainly managed to keep this piece of correspondence just in case he wanted to refer back to it.

Mr. Speaker, at that time body shop rates....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Are those files part of the moving job?

MR. COCKE: This is a personal file, Mr. Member. And when you leave, as you will as sure as day follows night, you'll be taking your personal files. Don't give me the gears! I ripped up my personal files for the most part, Mr. Speaker, and that minister knows it because I happen to have been his predecessor.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): What was in the files when you got the office?

MR. COCKE: I didn't even have a phone book when I walked into that office. But that's neither here nor there; we won't go into that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loffmark shredded the phone book.

MR. COCKE: I had a Province paper on my desk when I walked into that office. Even the phone book...I had to go borrow one.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): He was ashamed of the phone book. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: It just went into the shredder by mistake. But, Mr. Speaker, let's get on with it.

April 23 is the date of this letter — April 23, 1975. What was the discussion of this letter? What was the body of the context of this letter? It was that at that time body shops were only receiving $15.50 an hour for doing body work for ICBC. At that time we happened to know that they were the highest-paid body shops in North America, as far as we could find out. Oh, yes.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Go down to Los Angeles, San Francisco; go anywhere you like. If you'd like to bring some evidence in here, we'd love to see it.

Mr. Speaker, April 23, 1975 — and what was the request in this letter? "Bring the rate up to $21 an hour." This same minister today is talking restraint, restraint, restraint. That was the pressure on poor old ICBC. The biggest expenditure that ICBC had was those body shops, as the member over in the corner knows perfectly well — a tremendous expense.

So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that when we

[ Page 983 ]

hear all this restraint talk, we are listening to a person who has certainly changed his tone and his language and his direction, because at that time he wanted to push ICBC up from $15.50 to $21. As history suggests — there is no question about it — we ultimately went up to $18.50 because we had no other alternative. So, Mr. Speaker, let's just remember that a lot of the talk we are getting from the other side is just that — just talk, just talk about something they feel might be politically advantageous.

One thing that I have heard across this House has been a common thread. Do you know what that common thread was? It's the old election campaign that is still regurgitating: let's get B.C. moving again, and it can only be done by a capitalist government.

Let me report to you with a good deal of sorrow, Mr. Speaker, that while we are talking about getting B.C. moving again we find, looking up to the Premier's constituency: "Westmills Rolls Up Carpet Operation." Westmills: I seem to remember Westmills somehow. Westmills Carpet Ltd., Kelowna, B.C. It says "...will phase out operations in its Kelowna carpet mill, the site of its first manufacturing operation which started up in 1966." Do you remember the history, Mr. Speaker? Do you remember that at that time the Okanagan was considered a depressed area, and they got grants out of your pocket and mine? They got tax offsets out of your pocket and mine, making our income tax that much more unendurable in this country.

Now we see, because there is a suggestion that they might have to conform to some pollution standards and it no longer profits them to stay in Kelowna, that they're going to Calgary — Westmills Carpets. Now I have no quarrel with Tom Capozzi and some of his friends who set up Westmills Carpets, but I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have a quarrel with governments that subscribe to setting up industries at our expense in this province that go poof, like that, at the drop of a hat, when the economic conditions suggest that maybe it would be advantageous to move elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, more unemployment in Kelowna as a result of this, and this just occurred. Here we are in a province with 109,000 people on the unemployment rolls. We were criticized two or three years ago when we bought Can-Cel in order to keep those jobs up in the member for Skeena's (Mr. Shelford's) constituency and the member for Prince Rupert's (Mr. Lea's) constituency, and so on. We were criticized but, Mr. Speaker, somebody has to intervene. There has to be some social conscience with respect to the direction of our economy. I'm delighted to see social conscience in Manitoba — delighted.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted just to go over some of the talks that we've heard in this House for some of the members and some of the ministers. I heard, for instance, from the Minister of Transport and Communication (Hon. Mr. Davis). He said that there would be cooperation and consultation. People are the priority. Mr. Speaker, people are the priority. I wonder if there was any consultation in the closing down of Westmills. He suggested, for instance, that they got on with the building of roads and pipelines and rail lines, and then suddenly, in 1972, the activity ceased.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that as an old minister in that other government, that defamed government, and looking for my share of the budget. I didn't see any great signs of reduction in those kinds of activities, because every time there was an increase in those activities, naturally it made it more difficult, as any minister will know, to get his priorities at the top of the list. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that's just a lot more poppycock that we've been hearing the last few days — balanced books, bottom line on all rates, the whole story that we've been given.

But, Mr. Speaker, does he continue on with that bottom-line policy when it comes to the export of our natural gas? I suggest the answer to that question is now. I've yet to see that minister stand up, since he's been Minister of Transport and Communications, and suggest for one second that we're going to make our price to the United States realistic. Remember what it was before, and remember what we did over the last couple of years in increasing B.C.'s take. We were in a position where we were selling our gas for 32 cents per thousand cubic feet when they were buying their own gas from Texas, Louisiana and other states, for $2 higher, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to you that that's the kind of thing we are unhappy about.

Mr. Speaker, that minister went on to talk about a number of other things. He talked about public transit; cars use too much gas, use too much fuel — and he talked about bent fenders and all sorts of things. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that's a preamble to toll roads, or something bordering on that. But will he, at the same time as he talks about cars using too much gas, begin talking about public transit? Because there must be an alternative if, in fact, we're to solve that problem.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) made his usual speech — he's a good performer in this House — and then he ended it up by, I think, a suggestion that might have been very badly timed. He made a strong recommendation for the hiring of Ray Williston, and he defended Robert Bonner. Now I suggest to you that that member I don't think has the influence that he might feel he had, and it's about time we heard whether or not some of the things that have been rumoured around are actually going to take place. Is Mr. Williston going to head BCR? If he is, what will his excuse be for the kind of accounting procedures that they used until 1973-74?

[ Page 984 ]

Mr. Speaker, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) talked about municipalities suffering and that they needed greater cooperation and help. He didn't say how they were suffering; all he said was that they were suffering. People are supposed to take that message as being serious, but he didn't make any real suggestion as to how.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that during the term of our government was the first time they had any sharing whatsoever in the tax base of this province. I suggest that it was the first time that they had any real consultation. Mr. Speaker, let's see what happens in the future. Lots of promises.

Then we heard from the Minister of Mines and trees and all sorts of things (Hon. Mr. Waterland). He was extolling the virtues of constructive criticism. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if he was extolling those kinds of virtues, why did he not read the budget speech and some of its infamous language? Had he done that, it strikes me that he would have turned some of that invective on his own government.

Mr. Speaker, I worry about that minister; I think he's overloaded for a rookie. I'm certainly worried about the way he's talking. He's talking to the mining companies as though it's going to be a free ride for them in the future. He's talking to the petroleum business in the same fashion. I want to remind that minister, if he'll read the Blues, about old Senator Douglas in the United States years and years ago — not that many years that it makes a difference in policy, but long enough years ago that it kind of set a direction.

Remember what Senator Douglas did? He dug into one oil company particularly deeply — the Sun Oil Co., as I recall. Big head office, magnificent buildings, tremendous assets — and what did he find? He found that the janitor in their head office paid more in income tax to the federal government in the United States than did that immense corporation. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that kind of situation is still prevalent in North America. If you don't believe it and don't....

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): United States or Canada?

MR. COCKE: Both. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman hasn't really been in politics long enough to have studied the tremendous tax break that the mining and petroleum companies have had — particularly the mining companies in this country, with their moratoriums, et cetera.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I resented, probably more than anything, one statement out of that minister's mouth, and that was that B.C. is once again a member of the free world. I think that was a most insulting, shameful remark, and can only come as a result of a sort of a conditioning process that's going on over there. That's absolutely unacceptable to me as a human being, and to me as a responsible citizen of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: I think that it's darnable — because I can't say damnable.

Mr. Speaker, we went on to hear from the new Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) — he talked of precious natural heritages, and I was interested. Listen, I'm happy that he talks about previous natural heritages. I am worried, however, because at the outset of his career he wondered out loud why he was being appointed. He suggested at that time that he didn't know anything about it. Now I find that that same member, who two or three months ago didn't know anything about it, is chairman of one of the most probably important committees in government — the Environment and Land Use Committee. As far as I'm concerned and as I recall, because I was once on that committee, it is one of the most important, sensitive jobs in government. From a person who said just a few weeks ago: "I don't know anything about it" — ooh! I would worry. If I were the Premier, I'd keep my eye on that situation. And that's just a good piece of advice.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not too sure about all this pontificating about the high level of concern over service to our people; I want to see a little bit of action, particularly in that area. We want to watch that our heritage — our greenbelts and our environment — is conserved in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I go on to the Member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford). I was really interested in that member's speech. I think that he made the same mistake, unfortunately, as the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) — he didn't join the Liberal Party and that way find himself up at the head of the ranks.

But other than that, he made some very good selling points about the oil companies. Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, we had a real ongoing fight with them over the last years. They're pretty well a power unto themselves. They go their own direction and they say: "You can dance in Hades or wherever." Mr. Member, keep on that fight, keep on that direction, because I think it's credible.

I hope that if, in fact, you do come back into the cabinet benches that you continue to fight, because every time you go up north you see this terrible disparity. As if it isn't bad enough to pay more for everything else, you pay such an astronomically

[ Page 985 ]

larger amount than you should, even if transportation costs are the real reasons. Plenty, way more than you should! Now I suggest that anybody who doesn't understand that go up there and gas up your car sometime, because you'll sure learn.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), interesting speech, talked about inflation. He talked about how the budget provides more for people services. Wasn't that great? All the time he's been telling people to go get their shovels. He didn't go on to suggest some of the services that I know he has cut in his department.

It was interesting to hear the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) out talking to the Red Cross the other day and extolling the virtues of a couple of their programmes that were only put together because there was a grant from the Department of Human Resources — or at least certainly got together because there was a grant from Human Resources — and while he was talking they knew it had been cut out, but he didn't. Get that committee of yours working. Get some communication between ministers going, because we don't like to see you embarrassed, Mr. Minister. We don't like to see you go out into the public and make a bit of a fool of yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't mind that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in one other aspect of that Minister of Human Resources' speech. You know, he was talking about all this extra service we're going to give people. Look at the budget. I'll tell you one place we find the extra service. Know what we're going to do? We're going to give builders interest-free loans. That's paying off a debt, Mr. Speaker. Yeah, that's right. I spoke during the election campaign to HUDAC. That's where the headlines in the paper called me a skunk. Do you recall? Okay.

MR. LOEWEN: What did they call you?

MR. COCKE: A skunk. You know, that shows where your head is at, too.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that must have been a reward — interest-free loans to developers. Well, well, well. What a thing to find in our budget of B.C. Not unexpected, but it's there.

I listened to the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd). I listened to a very fine travelogue from the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad). Interesting travelogue — I don't think we've ever had this kind of opportunity in the House before. Also, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) gave us a few remarks. I sat there and felt to myself oh, how we miss our tiger, when I was listening to those remarks. Money, money, money, money, money, money, money.

You know, look, get a little bit of sensibility, some of your people. Direction is people, not money. You naturally have to be careful, and you have to be rigid about the way you put together your programmes, but, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis should not be on money, money, money, money, money, money. And if Hansard can't follow that, I'm sorry.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to see us start putting coin slots in doors of public buildings in this province. I would like to see a more socially oriented province.

I go on to talk about — just for a second — the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt). He said that rich and poor have to pay for services, certainly using sales tax as a cheap source of new revenue, and all the rest of it. He never even brought into his consideration the found money, the $150 million extra that we brought in in natural gas revenues, per year, and that's being very, very conservative in deducting the amount that's required for the federal share.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Tell us where you got the money for the Marguerite.

MR. COCKE: The money for the Marguerite? Where would you expect we got the money for the Marguerite?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: We took a collection in cabinet that day and went out and bought the Marguerite. What's the Minister of Municipal Affairs doing making idle remarks like that? You'd think that a minister of the Crown would be sitting there either doing some constructive work or at least making some constructive criticism.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I went on to listen to the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair)...

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: ...and what did I hear him say? He talked all about farm income assurance, and he was saying what a great thing it was. It saved the cattle ranchers in his area.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It was a great thing in his area. Oh, if he'd only been here last parliament. Oh, if he'd only been here. He would have found that his side —

[ Page 986 ]

over here at that time — was not enamoured of that programme at all. He then went on to criticize the whole business, the whole industry, by saying that slaughtering is all moving elsewhere. All right, if that's the case, let that minister stand up in cabinet and say, okay, look, our friends are getting away with murder. They're moving industry out of this province, like they moved Westmill, Mr. Premier...

AN HON. MEMBER: Westmill?

MR.COCKE: ...and like they're moving all sorts of industry out of this province while you're in power.

MR. LAUK: Who owns Westmill?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, be tough.

I don't want to deal too much with this situation any longer. I wonder if I could find out how far I'm into my speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: No loyalty.

MR. COCKE: Eleven minutes left? Boy, I've got to get cracking.

That minister admonishes the government to take great care in not letting industry upset delicate balance, that Minister of Consumer Services.

I want to suggest to that Minister of Consumer Services that unless this new Social Credit government changes their ways and doesn't put forward the same kind of priorities as the old one, then they're going to find Buttle Lakes all over the place again, they're going to find mining in parks, they're going to find cutting down trees in parks. Mr. Speaker, that's what we are talking about. Last night we were talking about green belts? Today we're talking about the delicate balance. Well, if that minister is really sincere, let him stand up and fight and see to it that the delicate balance in this province is protected.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl).... I say the kids in Esquimalt have been done a service by the electorate. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and I suggest that that was a most interesting speech. He said that the government is prepared to take less and less and give more. I've never seen such a guy for being able to do cartwheels like he does, most of it in the hall out there when he is talking about the minister, his predecessor. But when he said that government looks at the agricultural industry as the most important industry in B.C., I almost had a fit. Why? Because just the day before, I got to the airport here in Victoria and I happened to ride on the limousine on the way to the airport with a bunch of farmers that had been here to see that minister. The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) knows who I mean; the Federation of Agriculture people had been over here.

Well, I'll tell you something. They were hotter than firecrackers! They couldn't get the answers to the most elementary of questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like when can you meet him?

MR. COCKE: Like when can we meet you next? Oh, agriculture is a top priority. I'll bet you that minister hasn't spent an hour and a half on agriculture since he's been minister, and if he has let him prove it. Let him meet with some of the farmers and find out what their problems are, because, Mr. Speaker, they have got problems. Here he comes; here he comes! The advent of a new.... I hoped you walked the road to Damascus this morning, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. You need to change your whole outlook; you need a burnishing of your soul. Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: You tell him!

MR. COCKE: You just wait till that light goes on. Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

MR. LAUK: You spoke against it and you're against farmers.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to also....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): You just return me your files.

MR. LAUK: I see now you need them.

MR. COCKE: Listen, I need all the time I can get, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) spoke. He regrets the $40 million per year interest on the loan. If he regrets the interest on the loan why did we see him standing up in the House and voting for the bill? Mr. Speaker, what kind of pap is that? Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) spoke. He wants the sales tax to reduce as quickly as possible back to 5 per cent but he voted for the increase in sales tax up to 7 per cent. Well, well, well! He goes on and talks about the Brunette Highway and he talked about New Westminster as if

[ Page 987 ]

he knew something about it. The history of that town, Mr. Speaker, is such that nothing ever happened in New Westminster until this old party formed a government in British Columbia, and then something began to go in that town.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) spoke. He talked about a third of the members in this House being new and that that was great. We also heard from the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster). "No one will suffer from this budget," he said, pontificating. "No one will suffer."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that was an interesting speech but he certainly said nothing because there have already been a great many people suffer. If you don't think so, go out and talk to your constituents.

MR. KERSTER: I do. I do.

MR. COCKE: I was interested in other speeches. I just want to make sure that I get one point in here because so much of my speech is.... I am going to have to not deliver it. But while the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Premier are here, I want to make a charge. I think it's important that everybody listen to this. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the budget for hospitals is something we should be looking at. I suspect, and I have been informed pretty authoritatively, that what happened before March 31 in the hospitals was exactly the same thing as happened in the universities and schools.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that?

MR. COCKE: That was that advances were given in the form of loans repayable in 1976-77; two, that advances were given against 1976-77. I'm talking in terms of millions. I am suggesting also — this was fair enough — that they also paid before March 31 any of the amounts that could be justified as far as overruns were concerned at the hospital.

All of this, Mr. Speaker, was to do the same kind of thing that they did in the school system and in the university system — bleeding the treasury. I'll be putting questions on the order paper with respect to every hospital in British Columbia if necessary. I certainly will, because the evidence that I have, as far as I'm concerned, is irrefutable.

MR. LAUK: Did you try to pump up the deficit?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not pointing my fingers at any particular minister. I'm just suggesting....

MR. LAUK: Did these hospitals need the money?

MR. COCKE: They got cheques, Mr. Member, that they didn't even know were coming. They didn't even expect them!

MR. LAUK: Shocking! Shocking! More flim-flam from the old crocodile.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am informed reliably.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to suggest, while we're listening to the whole question....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, can you make that member come to order?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, you know, when your colleague tries to take you out of 40 minutes.... (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister who is promising a good look at intermediate care had better take a look around him. I'm glad he's promised to study intermediate care, because I think it is a very important area to study. I hope, for instance, the minister....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, don't you make too-flowery promises, because I've seen those promises go.

But I hope that he will reinforce the home-care programme — certainly it's the underpinning of intermediate care. Let him get on with his work, and I wish him the very best of good luck in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, if I have a few moments, I would like to talk for just a second about minerals.

MR. SPEAKER: Your last two minutes, Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: Oh, dear, isn't that a shame.

The stuff that we've heard from that government over the last few weeks and, certainly, when the election campaign was going! You know what you've done? You've ruined the mining corporations; you've ruined the mining business in B.C.

Let's see what Executive magazine says about it — that's hardly an NDP publication. A Southam business publication, well, well. And this they get from the "Diamond Driller":

[ Page 988 ]

"The mining industry has been crying the blues about government which says they have reduced industry incentives below the point where it is interesting to do much more than operate easy loads. The exploration drilling figures for most provinces bear this out."

I stole the figures from the Bank of Commerce Newsletter which got them from the Canadian Diamond Drillers' Association. Listen to this:

"Projecting the trends, there will be no drilling in Newfoundland by 1976; none in New Brunswick by 1980; none in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia by 1982. By 1986 only Nova Scotia and the northern territories will be seeing any action."

That's what's been going on, so don't give us the drivel about this government having wrecked the mining industry. The mining industry is in a heck of a position.

MR. LEA: The minister says that it's renewable anyway.

MR. COCKE: Of course! But they are in tough shape because that's the world condition, Mr. Speaker. You know, I'm sick and tired of hearing the charges that come across this floor.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I only wish I had time for more. Thank you very much.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to correct the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and a statement he made in his remarks.

When the former government discussed ICBC rates with the body shops — and this is relative to something he said in his speech....

Interjections.

MR. KERSTER: If you listened once, you might learn something.

They had just raised their salaries in this government out of sight; they had just made irresponsible labour agreements....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

MR. KERSTER: Wait a minute! Listen! But when they approached the body shops — and listen well, Mr. Member for New Westminster, because you were using...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. KERSTER: ...some funny numbers, and I want to correct them right now.

When the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia approached the auto body shops, they approached them on the basis of the divide-and-conquer situation. We did not ask for $21 an hour.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would both of the members please take their seats? Order, please.

Hon. Member; you're addressing yourself to an incorrect statement, as I understand it, with which you disagree. That's permissible. But it's not permissible to get up and debate the issue on the floor of the House. If the hon. member for New Westminster made a statement with which you do not agree, you can get up, point out what the statement was and give your interpretation or correction of it.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Just say you don't agree.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm already listening to a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I rise on standing order 42: "No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech...."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Premier, the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) has the floor — not to debate the issue, but to explain the statement under the rules of the House.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would then go on to explain that the statement....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a point of order on the floor right now, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: On what rule is he speaking?

MR. SPEAKER: He's speaking to correct a statement with which he does not agree, I gather. Would you allow the member to make his statement as long as it's brief?

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, the reference was made that the autobody shops had requested $21 an hour. I would correct that statement to a request that was made for $19.50 an hour. We were offered

[ Page 989 ]

$15.50 an hour. The statement was made in my office, and I'm not debating anything. I'm keeping this right to the hourly figures that were mentioned by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). We were offered $15.50 an hour and we were told that we'd make up the difference because they would pack the hours. That's the fact.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, under section 42 of our standing orders I can reply to that. My suggestion is....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR, COCKE: My suggestion is that I quoted from a letter asking for $21 an hour. I'm not talking about the....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) in debate did make a statement about bodyshop rates. The hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) corrected that particular statement as he understands it. We take the hon. members' word that they don't agree, particularly on the rates that were corrected. Both members have made their statement.

On behalf of Hon. Mr. Gardom, Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 11.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, during second reading of this bill I asked the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to get some information, and he said he would. I don't know which is the proper section; I guess any section would be as proper as another to bring this up in committee. I asked the Minister of Finance if he could bring to this House any paper, any book, any reference by any economist who thinks that the social services tax is a fair and equitable tax. He indicated to me across the floor that there were three or four economists he could quote from saying that this tax is fair and equitable. I wonder whether the minister has brought those references with him today to let us know what economist he has read who says that this is a fair and equitable tax. He indicated earlier, in second reading, that he did have such a reference, and I'd like to have that.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Speaking to section 1, there are a couple of areas which are not exempted, and I wonder if the Minister of Finance would like to reconsider at this time. In his statement introducing this piece of legislation, he spoke about the very generous exemptions which would ensure that this bill did not work a hardship on people on fixed and low incomes. Among those exemptions which were overlooked were ones that had to do with vitamins, and exemptions for people who need the services of an osteopath and the bags and various kinds of things that people who have undergone those kinds of operations need.

Thirdly, there is the whole concept that a child ceases to be a child at the age of 15 despite the fact that they're still attending school until 17 in some instances. Children of 15 are not usually employed and supporting themselves. They're still a bit of a financial demand on their parents at a time when their clothing in particular is much more expensive than at any other time.

I'm wondering whether the minister would be prepared to take a look at these gaps in the exemptions and assure us that he will consider including them in his list of exemptions.

Mr. Chairman, I really would appreciate at least an indication that the Minister of Finance has heard my question. I think that the points which I've made are very valid ones. There are people who have had kidney operations and other kinds of expensive operations who need to use bags and these kinds of things for the rest of their lives. Why are they not being included in the list of exclusions, Mr. Minister of Finance? What about the really very vital area of vitamins? What about the fact that children of the age of 15 are still a financial drain on their parents, and the fact that this is their most expensive year? Please at least indicate that you've heard what I've said, Mr. Minister.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): The many exemptions that apply under the Act include:

[ Page 990 ]

medical material sold on prescription of a physician, dentist or veterinarian; artificial lenses; orthopaedic appliances; equipment designed solely for the use of cripples or chronic invalids; hearing aids; dentures; and also dental and optical appliances when sold under prescription of a dentist, optometrist or physician, in general terms.

We're constantly considering new exemptions and we'll be happy to consider those. We've had other approaches regarding the matters that you've mentioned. I would say, of course, that your former government did not elect to install these exemptions that you've mentioned, but certainly we'll keep them under consideration.

MS. BROWN: I would bring to your attention that osteopaths are not included under Pharmacare, and this is the reason why they are not covered under this list of exemptions.

I appreciate your statement that the former government did not include them, but you are in a very solitary position at this time, Mr. Minister, and in a position to include them in your list. I would appreciate it if you would seriously consider doing so.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): The Minister of Finance may recall that twice last week I suggested to him that he might consider removing altogether the sales tax on those mobile homes purchased by persons for whom that mobile home is their primary place of residence. I'm aware, as is the Minister of Finance — and I'm certain yourself as well, Mr. Chairman — that the Social Credit Party very successfully campaigned upon that platform which said that individuals shall be encouraged and assisted by the government to obtain their own homes. I support that; I encourage that commitment myself. What I asked the minister last week and what I'm asking now — perhaps he's had a few days to consider it — is whether or not in the light of that political commitment he would be willing, realizing the very difficult situation that some persons on low and fixed incomes are in who are compelled to purchase mobile homes because they cannot afford stationary homes, to remove altogether from social services tax that charge against mobile homes.

I would remind the minister that there is no sales tax on homes which are at the moment stationary. Persons whose homes are mobile because they cannot afford any more are being discriminated against twice. First of all, they are simply poor and cannot obtain the luxury of a fixed home on a private piece of land; then secondly they have to pay a social services tax which their well-off friends who live on solid earth do not have to pay. As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I did mention this twice last week to the minister, and I hope he might have a response today. I believe there are a number of people who very much look forward to the new government acting on its commitment to allow individuals to own their own homes, and I would propose that those individuals must include persons who live in mobile homes and would further propose that the sales tax be removed altogether on the sale of those homes.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We will review the matter.

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, also during second reading I brought up some matters of exemptions which really can only be described as an anachronism. It sounds funny when you talk about sickles and scythes being tax-exempt in the agricultural industry, and it made for some levity in the House, but I'm serious about this, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know how long it could be, and certainly there were some reviews and there were some new exemptions made under our jurisdiction and some of them at my urging, I might say, but the brief which I'm sure the minister listened to from the agricultural industry which was given to them two, three or four weeks ago, pointed out some serious shortcomings; or we could maybe just say that the list was hopelessly outdated, Mr. Minister.

Modern capital expenditures which are required in the agriculture industry in keeping with the modern technology — cattle guard fences, as I recall, and certain veterinary supplies.... It isn't always necessary to have a veterinary order, or to call in a vet in terms of getting certain supplies which can be referred to as veterinary supplies, particularly in the maintenance of cleanliness in the dairy industry, which is very important. Detergents and other modern supplies have not been brought into line with modern technology and modern practice.

My question is: does the minister acknowledge this anachronism, and would the minister seriously undertake to review and modernize this list? Nobody uses a sickle or a scythe — you can take that off the list. If anybody's going to use that it's a hobby farmer such as myself to keep down maybe half an acre of grass, but not a farmer going out. Although maybe we can leave those things in the list, could we also bring some of the more modern portions into line?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I recall the presentation that you mention. Our people are having a look at it, Mr. Member, and I certainly think some of the suggestions in it are valid, so we have that under review.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the reason that I brought the question up when I spoke before is that the Minister of Finance said that there were economists who said that this was a fair and equitable tax. He said that to me in this House. Not that I

[ Page 991 ]

doubt the Minister's word; I'm just a little curious. I'd like to know who those economists are.

I'm having some doubt as to whether the minister has read any book by any economist, or any paper by any economist. I know he's a chartered accountant, but there's a great deal of difference between being an accountant and being an economist. In private life, the minister is in the automobile business. I suppose if you had a car lot full of one Cadillac and a number of Chevrolets and you wanted to get more money in, you'd put the price of the Chevrolets up and you could leave the Cadillac where it is. But it seems to me what this 7 per cent is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We're on section 1.

MR. LEA: Yes, that's right. It just seems awfully strange to me that you take this approach of putting a tax on which is going to hit the lower-income people. I would just like the minister to give the rationale for this kind of a tax, where the poor people and the average person are hit harder than the rich. He promised that he would bring this information forward as he promised to bring all sorts of other information forward which he hasn't brought. I wonder just out of curiosity if he would tell me who those economists were or are that have said that this is a fair and equitable tax. He said he was going to. Please do it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, in speaking earlier on this bill I brought to the minister's attention the fact that it is a regressive piece of legislation, that in fact it does work a hardship on the poor, on people on fixed incomes. I went to a great deal of trouble and spent a lot of time itemizing for the Minister of Finance some of the people who were going to be hurt by an increase in the social services tax. I spoke about women over the age of 65. I spoke about single-parent families. I also mentioned the fact that both Senator Croll's report on poverty and the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women demonstrated that it was people earning $7,000 a year and under who were going to be hit hardest by this particular piece of legislation. I also quoted from a number of newspaper articles and various people who suggested that the $200 million that would be raised by this piece of legislation was not necessary at this time.

What I'm asking the Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, on this section 1 of the bill is: if in fact it does turn out that the $200 million is not necessary, is the minister seriously considering wiping out the additional 40 per cent increase, wiping out the additional 2 cents which has been added to this tax, and in fact even making a commitment to try and wipe out the whole sales tax thing itself, if that ever becomes possible?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the member's question, I think we canvassed those matters at length in the last few days. I know that you have a view that the tax does impose a hardship on people of low income.

I think it has a lesser impact, of course, on people of low income than on people of higher income. For instance, if you'll read the budget speech, you will see that the impact of the increased tax is such that the business community pays $110 million and individuals pay $90 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's on capital construction. If you will follow the course of those figures further and divide the impact of the amounts paid by individuals by the total population, you arrive at the fact that the average individual in British Columbia will have an increased impact of $40 per year — that's average.

So if you want to assume that lower-income people will pay a lesser amount than that and higher will pay a greater amount, I would suggest to you, Madam Member, that the impact would be somewhere in the nature of $20 per year for a low-income person. I am not making excuses for that fact, but I think it's something we should appreciate, as well as the fact that there are many exemptions applying to day-to-day expenditures of a family nature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must warn against recanvassing material that has been covered in the debate in second reading. We are on section 1. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, that was an interesting explanation given by the minister. I am wondering whether he compared the incomes of the people on lower income with the income of the corporation. In terms of working out the tax, Mr. Minister, that is interesting, the two figures that you compare, but I am talking about people who earn incomes of $7,000 a year and less. When you speak about corporations, I am sure that you are thinking of a completely.... Surely you must be speaking of corporations that make a great deal more than $7,000 a year in terms of their income.

In any event, whatever increase comes through this sales tax — this 40 per cent increase — is also passed on via the corporations so that in the final analysis we do find that people on fixed and lower incomes do pay a higher percentage of their income. Mr. Minister, surely you can't disagree with this — that people who make $7,000 a year use all of their income just to be

[ Page 992 ]

able to survive. There is no saving for that particular income group. You, yourself, in introducing this piece of legislation, said that you did so reluctantly. You admitted yourself, Mr. Minister, that you did so reluctantly.

All I am asking is that in the event that you find, or your government finds, that the $200 million which will be raised by this 40 per cent increase in the sales tax is not necessary, would your government — would you — consider wiping out this 40 per cent increase? Would you make that kind of commitment? That's all I'm asking, Mr. Minister.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, I don't really want to take too much part in the debate of this section because I don't want to repeat things that have been said before. But two things have happened that I feel I should comment on.

First, the minister was asked a very specific question: that was to identify any one of the four economists whom he referred to earlier in the debate. That is, I think, a proper question in committee stage. When he did say that he knew of four economists who supported this point of view and was prepared to give that information at some later date, certainly this has been long enough for him to have recalled the names or to have found out the names — or the name of at least one of those economists — if he could find anyone anywhere that would back him up on that statement.

Secondly, and this, Mr. Chairman, is repetition, but I am drawn into it on the basis that the minister himself was repeating when he moved away from his earlier justification of this impost on the basis that it was easy — that was his reason for doing it this way. He moved away from that and tried to justify it.

Interjections,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Well, now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to find a source where he is quoted as saying that it is an easy way to raise it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1, please.

MR. STUPICH: In any case, he did move away to try to justify it on the basis that poor people pay less money in total than rich people in this. I'd just like to remind him of the Premier's comments with respect to this particular tax. The Premier does not look on it as the proper way of doing it. If I may quote from the Premier's speech as printed and widely distributed:

"The Financial Review discloses an alarming trend. More and more government revenues are coming from taxes collected from people. Personal income taxes return by far the largest cash contributions to government and are the fastest-growing revenue source. The 5 per cent sales tax is next."

Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Finance should be reminded of the Premier's attitude towards this particular tax when he tries to justify it on the basis that poor people pay less in total than do rich people.

But we would like to have one of those four names, Mr. Chairman. That is a proper question at this particular time of debate.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to pick up on a point that the minister mentioned yesterday. He was emphasizing the exemptions. The argument, really, that has gone back and forth across the House right through this bill is the question of the hardship on lower-income groups. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the fact that the tax applies to telephone bills and electricity. It is a very essential commodity to have electricity. We have heard about the vast sums of money we're borrowing to provide the increase in electrical generation, and obviously the costs there look to be escalating year by year, and therefore is this not a very valid criticism from this side of the House that here is an expenditure which affects all of us?

No matter what your income is, you've got to light your home, and you've probably got to use an electric stove. And some people have electrical heating in their homes. I would even say that a telephone is anything but a luxury these days, particularly when many people are not living in the centre of urban areas where they can easily get access to medical help or the police or the fire station. It is a fact that here is one area of application of tax which is particularly hard on low-income earners. I wonder if maybe the minister could tell us how much of the tax is derived from telephone and electricity. Has there been any consideration given to increasing exemption?

The other point I raised yesterday: has any consideration been given to exempting people on Mincome or in receipt of social assistance? After all, if a Mincome person can get a card to go on a bus at a reduced rate, would it not be possible to exempt the Mincome recipient and the person on social assistance from all sales tax? It seems to me that if our argument is that it should be based on the ability to pay, and the government feels that the sales tax must be maintained in some way and to some degree, would the minister comment on the possibility of some of these other avenues of exempting the lower-income groups?

LION. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay raises some interesting questions on

[ Page 993 ]

exemptions, as have some of the other members. I can only say that we are doing an exhaustive review of all exemptions, which are a very complicated list. I might mention, with regard to telephone bills, for instance, it is understood that we don't tax on the long distance calls, just on the regular fee for the telephone bill. Of course, exemptions which apply to regular daily costs of families include rent and mortgage payments, and the other things we've mentioned over the debate here. We do have this under review, and there's an extensive list and it does take some time.

MR. LAUK: I listened for the minister to indicate some understanding of section 1 and its impact on the people of British Columbia. I don't think that that's been evident. How the minister, after the debate in second reading, certainly...he didn't have an opportunity to get up and reply to questions as he does now, but surely he learned something in the debate in second reading.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You were outside of the House.

MR. LAUK: You stand up here in committee, Mr. Minister of Finance, through the Chairman, and say $110 million of this burden will be borne by corporations or businesses? How absurd, how patently absurd that really is. Oh, you can put anything you want in there. Let me tell you what it's like.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You don't believe that?

MR, LAUK: Of course not, because it's not true, and you know it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It is true.

MR, LAUK: It is not true, and I'll tell you what is true, Mr. Minister.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: This tax is passed on by each and every business, either in the construction field, or retail sales, or whatever you want. It's passed on to the little people and you know it. You don't sell a Chevrolet for the same price after a tax has been levied. You don't absorb the sales tax.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Members. Order, please. We're on....

MR. LAUK: Patent nonsense, Mr. Chairman, for a minister of the Crown to stand up and give that nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on section 1. We're not recanvassing the debate in second reading.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Oh, Mr. Chairman, don't be....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your place. We're on section 1 and we will not recanvass material covered in second reading. On section 1, the member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister's the one who stood up and said $110 million of the burden placed on the extra 2 per cent mentioned in section 1 will be borne by businesses and corporations. That's what he said; you heard him. I'm sure you were as shocked as I that a chartered accountant, a businessman, and now the Minister of Finance of the province made an absurd statement expecting the people of British Columbia to swallow that nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 1 please.

MR. LAUK: I think that on section 1, Mr. Chairman, he should think very carefully about changing his mind. At least, I was hoping that until he got up and made that absurd statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, on section 1.

MR. LAUK: As far as exemptions are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister should consider carefully fulfilling the promise that was made during the election campaign by the Premier, who said: "we're going to take off the sales tax on building materials." Now far be it from me to try and encourage the Premier from fulfilling his promises. Another promise you'll recall is that he was going to freeze taxes, but that was a long time ago, time immemorial, four months. He forgot, but perhaps he can recall now that he wants to take the sales tax off building material. "Get construction rolling again," he said, waving his hands in the air, wearing a little boater with "Work with Bill" on the top. Remember that? It wasn't that long ago you said "Take it off building materials." Now's your chance.

I think that the Minister of Finance and the first minister have something to talk about now, because I saw a glimmer of recollection. Four long months ago — and they remember that promise. Maybe, while we take a little break....

[ Page 994 ]

I move that the committee rise, report progress...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...and ask leave to sit again. Get it straight! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order.

MR. LAUK: Therefore, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right!

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.