[ Page 571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

McKim advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 573

Grouse mountain logging. Mrs. Wallace –– 573

Environmental protection areas. Mr. Lea –– 574

University and college financing. Mr. Nicolson –– 574

Mr. Rose

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 13). Second Reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 575

Mr. Reynolds –– 577

Mr. Rose –– 579

Mrs. Dailly –– 583

Mr. Mitchell –– 585

Mr. Barrett –– 590

Appendix –– 594

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the assembly to extend a very warm and special welcome to three very good friends of the Gardom family: Miss Sarina and Miss Lucy Pym, who are visiting Canada from Kent, England, and are accompanied by Miss Gwyneth Wrixon, now of Vancouver.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the members' gallery this afternoon are two very important people: my daughter Barbara McCallum and my son-in-law Gordon McCallum, both school teachers from Surrey.

MRS. WALLACE: There are four other equally important people in the members' gallery, from the beautiful community of Shawnigan Lake. One of them is also a teacher, David Towner, here with his wife Eva, and they are joined by Tom and Betty Underwood. I think it might be of interest to the House to know that Betty Underwood worked for some 15 years in the Legislative Library here in Victoria. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two well-known citizens from my constituency representing the Kamloops Society for the Mentally Handicapped: the president of the society, Mr. Dave Tigchelaar, and the past president, Mrs. Lois Hollstedt. We had a very productive meeting this morning in my office, and I would ask this House to make them very welcome.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, two of my constituents are with us in the House this afternoon, seated in your gallery. They are both employees of CUPE Local 561, our local school board. I'd ask the House to join with me in welcoming Betty Bolton and Bette Mclsaac.

MR. COCKE: In the gallery today is a school trustee from the great royal city, Michael Ewen. And I believe also in the gallery is a very close friend of mine, Ruth Fraser, with some friends. I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The gentleman leading us in prayers today is the Rev. Joseph Matsheng from the Republic of Botswana. He has just spent two years here at UVic completing his master's degree, and will be returning in early August to Botswana as a lecturer. I would like the House to accord him a very special welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, sitting in your gallery this afternoon are some friends of mine: Mr. Ron Clarke, who's a former recreation officer at the British Columbia Penitentiary in New Westminster and is presently a correctional officer at William Head here on Vancouver Island; and Mr. Dean Mailey and Mr. Bob Mackin, who are partners in Mackin, Mailey and Associates Ltd., an advertising firm in Vancouver. I'd ask the House to welcome these people.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are four guests from the Vancouver Elks Lodge: Mr. Richard Slamon, Mr. Dennis Dallas, Mr. Don Baird and Mr. Chris Cohoon. I know that members will not only wish to welcome the representatives of this fraternal organization, but will also this afternoon give a further demonstration of the way brotherly love operates in this Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like the House to welcome the mayor of the city of Langley, Reg Easingwood, and his chief executive officer.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Although I don't believe they are in the gallery at this moment, visiting the precincts today have been four members of the Skeena manpower development committee, Mr. Bill McRoe, Mr. Bill Hutchison, Mr. Val George, and Mr. D’Arcy Rezak. I would ask the House to please welcome them as well.

MR. BARRETT: We have in the gallery today one of the most distinguished young people in British Columbia, who is observing this Legislature, pondering his future career. I'd like the House to welcome Gerry Scott, the NDP candidate in Vancouver-Little Mountain.

MR. LAUK: I rise under standing order 8, instead of the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is noticeably absent from his place today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, could we at least commence with the formal part of the business before we introduce points of order. That would follow immediately the Chair calling on Mr. Clerk to commence the business of the day, at which time the member may wish to seek the floor on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: I apologize for interrupting that flow. The hon. Law Clerk has been so speedy in calling the order of business I thought he'd miss this little member.

MR. SPEAKER: We have taken cognizance of the member's desire. Mr. Clerk.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Introduction of bills.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 8, which states that every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given him by the House. In these critical times in British Columbia the first minister should be in his place during question period. I therefore ask....

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. At this time I must inform hon. members that this is a point of order that has been canvassed on innumerable occasions in this House and the decision should be well known to all members at this time: the Chair has no power to insist that the members be in the House. It is the responsibility of each member, and the points of order raised under this particular section cannot be enforced by the Chair.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, this is a different aspect.

MR. SPEAKER: That would be refreshing, hon. member.

[ Page 572 ]

MR. LAUK: Under ordinary circumstances the question has been raised by the hon. Provincial Secretary with respect to those absent on this side of the House, and from time to time — and only very occasionally — by hon. members from the opposition with respect to the absence of members of the treasury bench. However, I don't recall one instance where it has been raised in relation to the Premier, who should be present during question period. I asked for a ruling from the Chair that with respect to standing order 8 the Premier be summoned to the service of the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would it be in order to commend the second member for Vancouver East for being able to attend the House today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

I'm sure the point has been well canvassed and sufficiently discussed in this House and should be familiar to all members.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Speaker to summon the Premier to the House under standing order 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

The Chair does not have the authority to summon members. If it did, hon. members would find that some of the days they take off would be very difficult so to do.

MR. LAUK: If that is Your Honour's ruling, I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a ruling to be challenged, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Are you ruling that that is not a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: I am ruling that it is not a ruling to be challenged.

MR. LAUK: I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: You are challenging the ruling that I am ruling that it's not a ruling?

MR. LAUK: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The usual ruling has been challenged, hon. members.

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

YEAS –– 28

NAYS — 21

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I wish the House to know that by the attempts to attack the absence of three members of this House by the member for Little Mountain....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm coming to the point of order. That member by implication attacks the 8,000 young people who are taking part in the B.C. Summer Games and also the 3,500 volunteers. I would remind the House....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I remind the House that the only reason those three members can be absent is because of the great majority the people of B.C. gave this party on May 5.

MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the ministerial statement, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: That minister — or the government — does not know that it could well be possible that all 8,000 athletes requested that I get the Premier back into this House and not at the opening of the B.C. Summer Games.

Oral Questions

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Attorney General.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Unless my recollection is faulty, I believe you called oral questions prior to the point of order of the second member for Vancouver Centre. If that's the case, I would imagine that the 15-minute period is already running.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point raised by the member is a point that has been addressed previously. Nonetheless, the Chair will commence the question period from this particular point in view of the fact that points of order taken prior to the question period.... It was close, but in fairness the Chair has a responsibility to uphold question period.

MR. D'ARCY: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I sit very close to the Law Clerk, and he got up and called for introduction of bills. The member for Vancouver Centre rose, and there was no mention whatsoever of question period.

[ Page 573 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. In any case, I believe the matter has been disposed of. We have about 14.5 minutes remaining in question period.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: I have a question I'd like to direct to the Attorney-General. The treasury in the other 19 government ministries was opened to McKim Advertising and friends in May 1982, a full year before the election campaign. McKim was appointed official agent of record for the whole government service. Has the minister launched any investigation to determine what extra funds were obtained by McKim Advertising in the period after that of the auditor-general's report?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: In view of the fact that the $5 million of unauthorized expenditure made to McKim Advertising during 1981-82 is peanuts compared to what they billed for in the year leading up to the election, does the minister realize the possibility that even greater abuse of the taxpayers' money existed in the 12 months before the election?

HON. MR. SMITH: It's a question, again, which is meant to suggest broad-brush wrongdoing, without solid evidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has it.

HON. MR. SMITH: No. He knows very well that what is being examined now are the matters before the auditor-general, in her report and subsequent report. If this member wants to bring forward to me or to a law enforcement officer or to someone in authority some specific charge and the specific evidence, then he can be sure that it will be given earnest consideration.

MR. COCKE: I'm absolutely amazed at the chief law enforcement officer of this province. The reason we've asked that the police be called into this is the stonewalling that's going on in this whole question. The amount of money spent on wasteful and partisan government advertising leading up to the election has never been revealed. Will the minister ask his colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who's rarely here, if he's prepared to make a special provision of those accounts to the Legislature'sPublic Accounts committee to investigate them immediately, in this session?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no, he can ask my colleague.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we in the opposition are becoming just a little bit frustrated over this whole question. I've asked the Tourism minister, but I'll ask the minister again. Has the Minister of Tourism anything to say today with respect to the investigation that he has been holding with respect to the mismanagement of money according to the auditor-general's report, with respect to McKim and other advertising agencies involved?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have told the hon. member on several occasions that a full investigation is going on regarding the auditor-general's report dealing with matters in the Ministry of Tourism in the fiscal year 1981-82. As soon as that is completed an answer will be brought back to this House.

[2:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, now it's an investigation. It was a review earlier.

I ask the Minister of Tourism once more. That department suspended employees who, it was felt, mishandled funds. Why is it that the minister has not suspended the use of the advertising agencies within his ministry during this "investigation"?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To repeat, we are in the process of going through the auditor-general's report very thoroughly. Nothing, contrary to the member's suggestion of the other day, will be destroyed or hidden from him or any person in this province, and a complete report will be brought back to this House in due course.

GROUSE MOUNTAIN LOGGING

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Will the minister advise what steps, if any, his ministry is taking into the provincial flooding hazard to North Vancouver as a result of the proposed logging of Grouse Mountain?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The ministry is investigating and comparing different reports as to the extent to which any logging might create flooding. Other investigations are also proceeding regarding the logging itself.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he's investigating this. It seems to me that this could well be a parallel case to Lions Bay, and it would affect a great many more people in the city of North Vancouver than the Lions Bay situation. In view of this, will the minister assure the House that he will undertake to make public a competent study of flood potential from the result of any possible Grouse Mountain logging?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know that we are going to be preparing a great report, but the information will certainly be made public and will be made available to the municipality of North Vancouver.

MRS. WALLACE: Is that a commitment to file that information in the House once it's available, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I mentioned that we didn't know whether it was going to be in the form of a written report. I can provide you with the information by letter or by filing it in the House, if you like.

MRS. WALLACE: There is a great deal of widespread concern, including that of the city council of North Vancouver and a great many citizens. In view of this concern, rather than taking action after the fact, has the minister decided to put a moratorium — a freeze — on logging of Grouse Mountain, as he is empowered to do under the Environment and Land Use Act, until such time as we know what the results will be?

[ Page 574 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe the member says we are empowered to put a moratorium on anything we don't want to see happening in this province. I think we do have to act within the laws, and that will be investigated.

MRS. WALLACE: As I read the Environment and Land Use Act — I think as anyone reads it, except the minister — it does empower him to put a freeze on an activity that he feels could be detrimental until such time as he has a study completed. Now he's made some vague commitment to make some kind of study. My concern is that the logging will go ahead before we know whether or not it's going to be harmful. Is he prepared to use the Environment and Land Use Act to put the freeze in place until such time as he knows what the results are going to be?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As a responsible minister, I don't think I have the luxury of imposing moratoriums on the basis of my feelings. I think I need more evidence than that. I don't have the same luxury as that member has.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREAS

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Last week while visiting the Queen Charlotte Islands and addressing a small group of market loggers, the minister stated that the government is looking into the possibility of removing timber from environmental protection areas. I'd like to ask the minister how he can rationalize cutting down on the silviculture program, and at the same time looking at the environmental protection areas to remove timber from?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The very nature of the question indicates that the member for Prince Rupert has absolutely no idea whatsoever of what an environmental protection area is insofar as the forest inventory is concerned,

MR. LEA: Could the Minister of Environment let me know whether he has had discussions with the Minister of Forests — I guess you're having the discussion now, by the look of the lips — about removing timber from the environmental protection areas and putting it into the timber supply?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have many discussions.

MR. LEA: I'm asking the Minister of Environment whether he has had a specific discussion with the Minister of Forests about removing timber from the EPA into the timber supply.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FINANCING

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, and technology and tunnels. Lee Southern, secretary of the Universities Council, says that the government has failed to provide the needed information in order to prepare final university budgets. We're already one-third of the way through their fiscal year, and we're just over a month away from the commencement of the fall semester. When will the minister be giving sufficient information to the Universities Council so that they can finalize their budgets?

HON. MR. McGEER: Today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD. I wonder if I can direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If I've intruded upon a supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: The member defers for a further supplementary.

MR. NICOLSON: I might ask the Minister of Education, or the Minister of Finance, who seems to be answering the question, if the same would apply to the colleges. I'll ask that of the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would refer the member to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Education, then. I'm always pleased to oblige. Would you answer the question, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm wondering if the member could repeat the question. It was some time ago, and I was discussing something else with my colleague. I apologize to the member.

MR. NICOLSON: There has been some difficulty in finalizing both university and college budgets for this year. I would ask the minister if he has received information from the Treasury Board similar to the information received by the minister responsible for universities as to whether the grants which have been holding up the finalization of college budgets have all been passed so that they can finalize their budgets.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This is the first concern which has been expressed to me. I have not had any inquiries from any colleges with respect to the budget. On budget day all the information was communicated to the colleges. I can advise the member that I'm aware of a couple of meetings which were conducted; one was yesterday, and there was also a meeting today with respect to college budgets. I can't be any more specific than that, but if the member would like to leave with me a specific problem, I'd be quite prepared to assist him.

MR. ROSE: Since the minister has very kindly said that he would respond to specific examples, I wonder if he would look into the matter of an authorization for furniture for Fraser Valley College in Abbotsford, because if that authorization doesn't come through by July 15, there'll be all kinds of students and no chairs for them to sit on.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, July 15 is now passed, I believe, so I was just wondering whether or not the right date was given by the member, but he has registered his concern and I'm quite prepared to make an inquiry on his behalf.

[ Page 575 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 13.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: I don't think there can be any question on the part of anyone in this House that I am very much concerned about health hazards relative to tobacco use. The members of this House know full well that I have introduced for some several sessions a piece of legislation that would serve to regulate smoking in public places. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that taxing is the answer. Taxing in the form of a regressive tax — a sales tax — is not the answer to preventive medicine. It is not going to bring about the result that perhaps this government hopes it will; I don't think they really hope it will. What they hope is that it will bring into their coffers an additional $24 million a year. It has nothing to do with their concern about the excessive use of tobacco or the use of tobacco at all.

I think the facts speak very clearly. Tax increases do not decrease the use of either alcohol or tobacco. This is borne out by the most recent survey across Canada, where it is indicated that the largest annual increase of any component, except tax increases, in the consumer price index over the last year has been in the field of tobacco sales. There is no way that increases in tax are actually reducing the use of tobacco, so that is not the aim of this bill. The aim of this bill is to increase money, increase tax returns, increase the burden on the taxpayers of British Columbia at a time when they are already under economic duress.

We might ask, Mr. Speaker: why the increase in the use of tobacco in a time of economic downturn? I think the answer is very evident: the increased stress that is put upon individuals as a result of a reduction in income, as a result of concerns about their economic future. Those persons who are addicted to the use of tobacco — and it is an addiction; it's an affliction — are inclined to smoke more heavily. It has nothing to do with what it costs or the ability to purchase tobacco, and it has nothing to do with how high that tax goes or how low; people are still going to buy that product.

What a great many of us would like to see instead of a bill that increases taxes.... My colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has indicated 60 percent overall; certainly just running through the figures here it ranges anywhere from 20 to 50 percent without any escalation. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, these figures are very much out of line with the minus 5 to plus 5 that the government is setting upon the wages of people in this province — the restraints within which the government is indicating we should live, assessing tax increases from 20 to 50 percent and perhaps even 60 percent when you consider other escalating costs and the federal tax now being proposed. Certainly those kinds of approaches are not going to resolve the problem, as this government would indicate that it should and as the speakers have indicated that it should.

[2:45]

The two persons who have spoken on that side of the House have indicated that this was a tax which would help encourage people to stop using tobacco, because it was harmful, and that therefore it was a good tax. That's not going to happen.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.)

What's going to happen instead is that people are going to have to take money they can ill afford to support a habit — and it is a habit; it is an addiction — that is being augmented by this government. It's being augmented because the government has taken no action to try to limit the use of tobacco. Federally we have some very weak-kneed legislation that insists that on each package of cigarettes there be a little statement that excessive use may be harmful to your health. Now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that cigarette smoking and the use of tobacco is harmful. Yet that is all we've done.

Why have we taken that approach? Why has the federal government, supported tacitly by this government, taken that approach? I suggest it's a very lucrative tax base for both governments. They receive a lot of money in their coffers as a result of this. Also, I suggest, it gives a great deal of support to the tobacco industry, generally speaking.

There has been no move to take any steps to ensure that tobacco is taken off the shelves as brand-name product. Any product as harmful as tobacco should not be accessible for anyone to buy. It should not be pushed through advertising, to make profit for those companies and to fill the coffers of government.

It's interesting to note that Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada Ltd., a company which is engaged in manufacturing and marketing tobacco products in Canada — principally cigarettes, through controlled subsidiaries — in 1976 paid a dividend per share of 37.5 cents per share. In 1977 the dividend rose to 52 cents. In 1978 it rose to 66.3 cents. By 1979 the dividend was up to $1.00 per share. In 1980 it rose to $1.20. In 1981 it was $1.35, and in 1982- last year, Mr. Speaker that tobacco company was reaping $1.55 per share off the backs of addicted citizens in this country. And what has the government done about that? Nothing. All they want to do is bring in a tax bill to get a little bigger share of that profit for themselves.

We know that one tobacco company is supposed to compete with others. But when we look at the list of companies that are controlled by Rothmans, and we see that Rothmans also owns the House of Craven, Alfred Dunhill of London and Rock City Tobacco, to name but a few, we can surely recognize that there's a tremendous monopolistic control over that particular drug, which is being pushed with the consent and support of both the federal and provincial governments on citizens of this province and this country. And what does the government propose? To increase the tax. That's all — just to increase the tax. That's not enough, Mr. Speaker. That has really nothing to do with controlling this problem which we are facing, that's causing us tremendous expenses in our health care system. An increase in tax is going to do nothing to decrease the use of tobacco. Allowing this kind of thing to continue, and these kinds of profits to be made, is nothing short of criminal. In the financial statements for Rothmans alone the figures are even worse — the figures I read earlier were for Rothmans of Pall Mall, in total. They

[ Page 576 ]

had a net revenue in 1982 of $524 million, with earnings per share of $4.45, according to their financial statement. Those are the kinds of things I object to. We allow this type of exploitation to continue of people who are unfortunately addicted to the use of nicotine, and we do nothing about it.

I would like to deal with another company, Imasco Ltd., which manufactures consumer products and supplies consumer services in Canada and the U.S. Manufactured items include a complete range of tobacco products, food products, consumer services, retail outlets, beauty aids, gifts and so forth. The interesting thing about Imasco is that it is the sole owner of Shoppers Drug Mart. It's an interesting thing: here we have a tobacco company that also controls a drug company that is selling drugs which will be.... I know you're going to say I'm not talking to the bill, Mr. Speaker, but I am speaking to the bill. My concern is that we're putting a tax on something deliberately to raise money on the basis of an addiction which we are supporting, aiding and abetting by going along with this kind of corporate structure that makes these kinds of profits not only out of selling the tobacco products, but by selling the drugs required to cure or aid any pain or discomfort as a result of the diseases created — heart disease, cancer, whatever.

Those are the kinds of things that are happening; those are the kinds of concerns I have. And all this government can do is come in with a bill that is going to put a 20 to 50 or 60 percent increase on a regressive tax that's going to be a lot more difficult for people on low incomes to pay, and that does nothing to help those people who are addicted. The one thing we did have was the Alcohol and Drug Commission. It's been mentioned before, and I don't want to be repetitive. Whatever things it was able to do were so minuscule as to do nothing to help those people who are addicted.

What should we be doing? We should eliminate the sale of brand-name cigarettes and they should not be displayed publicly. If you are addicted to smoking, then you know it can be approached in a couple of ways. You can buy it as an over-the-counter drug. It should be put under the drug act; that's really where it belongs. That's where we put other addictive drugs, and it should be treated in the same way as all other addictive drugs. It shouldn't be sold, advertised and exploited as the smart thing for young people to do. It should be put in a plain package and sold either over the counter or on the basis of a doctor's prescription. I personally would prefer the latter, where there is encouragement for that patient to get some treatment and support in trying to shake that addiction.

If we're serious about trying to control and assist people who are addicted to smoking, then that's the direction we would be going. We wouldn't be putting on a tax that is going to cause tremendous hardship. And it is; if you are addicted to cigarettes and suddenly find that the $50 supplement you've been able to earn under Human Resources is cut off, and all you have left is your social assistance, the stress is going to be greater; and as stress increases you smoke more heavily. The fact that the tax has been increased is not going to cure that addiction. You are still going to buy those cigarettes, or you're going to buy the tobacco and roll your own, or whatever. Somehow you're going to get that nicotine, because your system has come to crave it. It's going to mean that there will be less money to provide the bare essentials for living.

MR. REID: That's a shame. They should quit smoking.

MRS. WALLACE: It is a shame. I don't think the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) understands the kind of situation that a person who is living on such a restricted income is faced with. If that person has an addiction to nicotine, it's not going to be cured by the fact that the cost is more, because under stress it's more and more difficult. That is the reason why this tax is so unfair, unjust and regressive. It just does not pose the answer to the situation that we're facing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[3:00]

If we are going to ensure that our young people do not become addicted to nicotine, then we must not push it in front of them. We must not allow tobacco companies which are making millions and millions of dollars, whose return on their shares has increased year after year.... We must ensure that we take steps to put that product in a less accessible position. We must invest at least as much money in spreading the word about the harm that comes from tobacco smoking as we have been prepared to accept into our treasuries by taxing that product. That has never been done. We must ensure that we encourage and help people to kick the habit. If we are to keep those cancer patients out of our hospitals, if we are to stop people from dying of heart disease as a result of smoking, all the things that have been detailed so well in so many medical journals, then we're not going to do it by disregarding the government's own guidelines and increasing the tax in these excessive amounts. We will only do it....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is leaving and his colleagues are saying he's going out for a smoke. Perhaps he can't stand the stress of this place. Perhaps he can't stand the pressure of an opposition which is committed and determined to stop these kinds of regressive taxes being placed on the people of British Columbia. Perhaps he needs to go out for a smoke. It's not going to bother the Minister of Finance if the tax goes up 50 percent on a package of cigarettes; it's not going to worry him one little bit. But if the single parent who is trying to raise a family and has found that that $50 that she earns has been cut off, and she is faced with stresses as to how she's going to be able to feed and clothe that family and meet the payments for her rent, and if she is as addicted as the Minister of Finance to nicotine, it's going to be very difficult for her to meet this. But the tax is not going to be able to deter her, because a habit, an addiction, is something that is acquired over the years, and it is not stopped, in the great majority of instances, simply by the fact that it costs a bit more, no matter how limited the income.

That's the sad and unfortunate part about this government's approach towards taxation, and about this whole government. They don't seem to recognize that there are people in this province who have just about reached the limit of what they are able to take. I think that was demonstrated amply yesterday when you saw a group of people converging upon this Legislature, many of whom had never participated in that kind of venture before; people who were concerned and disturbed about joining in that kind of venture yet were there because of a genuine and deep conviction that there was something very wrong with what was happening here. There was nothing more poignant nor more real than the chant that

[ Page 577 ]

developed constantly there: "Why? Why? Why?" That is what the citizens of British Columbia are asking this government. Why are you doing this? Why are you taking the steps you are taking? Why? Why? Why? That was the chant that we heard. Certainly this is just one of the measures — a minor one, I agree. This is not one of the most critical bills, but it is an increase in tax. It is a regressive tax, and it is part of a package, Mr. Speaker, that has raised the concern of British Columbians around this province. It is part of a package.

I think we all agree that smoking is probably one of the most preventable causes of illness, disability and death that there is. I submit that this government should be moving to prevent the continuing use and expanding habit — and it is expanding, not decreasing — which is such a great contributor to our sickness problems here in British Columbia. We should be doing something far more than trying to tax it out of existence. It has never worked before and it will not work now. Education has to be the answer, and it has to be long-term education. We have to ensure that the use of tobacco is not shown as being a desirable, clever or sophisticated thing to do. We must ensure that we do not allow various companies to fill the pages of our magazines with highly coloured advertisements that pretend to show competition between the various brands and types and which encourage people to use tobacco. We must ensure that we have educational programs in place for young people to prevent them from starting to use tobacco — and the schools are attempting to do some of that, but with very little success. Certainly it will be less and less with the kind of cutbacks that we're seeing in education now, because there will be less and less money and teacher time available to carry out those kinds of programs.

We must ensure that there are programs in place that encourage people to stop smoking, meaningful and lasting programs, and the kind of help and assistance that will accomplish that — not just a snow job, which is all we've seen in the past. We must ensure that the people of this province have an opportunity not to breathe second-hand smoke, which has been proven to be just as harmful, perhaps sometimes more harmful, as first-hand smoke. A lot of businesses are doing that voluntarily, but I think that is something that we have to look at and ensure — that those people who have made a concerted effort to stop smoking or who do not smoke are not subject to breathing second-hand smoke. That can create just as many health problems. It's just as costly as for those people who actually smoke. Those are the kinds of problems we should be addressing, Mr. Speaker, instead of talking about trying to tax people out of using tobacco. It has been proven over and over that those methods do not work, that taxing does not work — not when you're dealing with something that is addictive. All it does....

Let me relate to something that I know the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) will understand. I know he knows that if you put the price of beef up too high, people switch to using pork. He would agree with that. I would suggest that if you put the price of nicotine cigarettes too high, people are going to resort to using other drugs, which they may be able to grow in their back yard — illegally, but cheaply — and we're going to find more and more people in trouble with the law and more and more use of drugs that are forbidden by law. And that is certainly not in the best interests of British Columbia.

I would urge the government to take a second look at this bill. This bill is not the answer. It will not bring about the results that the government is looking for, unless, of course, they are only looking for dollars. I suspect maybe that's it. But if they really have a concern about the health of the people of British Columbia, if they really have a concern about the people who are addicted to smoking nicotine cigarettes, cigars and tobacco in other forms, if they really have a concern about the health costs resulting from those activities, then this bill should be withdrawn. It should be brought back in an entirely different form that will do that job and not simply put dollars in the coffers of a bankrupt government.

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

Motion negatived on the following division:

[3:15]

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 28

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

MR. REYNOLDS: I hadn't planned to speak on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker, but the speech from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) got me stirred up. I know the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has to speak next and it is going to be a very hard act for him to follow, so I thought I'd get in between them.

It was interesting that on that last serious vote we had in the House on Bill 13 the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) wasn't here for the vote. After he made that noise earlier in the day I found it quite surprising that he couldn't make it for the vote. It's such a serious matter that he had to bring it put before this Legislature earlier about where the Premier was. The Premier is just doing his duty as the Premier of this province, opening the Summer Games. That's where he should be this afternoon, with all those young people.

Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly glad to see the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) here this afternoon. I wouldn't know what it was like to make a speech in this House if he wasn't here yapping away. One thing that he should know is that if....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a personal reflection and it is inappropriate.

[ Page 578 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Take it easy. Just slow it down.

MR. REYNOLDS: They are asking me to slow down, Mr. Speaker.

I just can't believe being in this Legislature on Bill 13. I really understand now why they have closure in the House in Ottawa. The federal parliament wouldn't have this kind of a debate on such a frivolous matter. I guess the NDP would love me to say: "Would you want closure?" I'll tell them right now, Mr. Speaker, that if it was my decision we'd have closure on this bill.

MR. BLENCOE: You want closure. We figured it.

MR. REID: You bet! We're tired of listening to you turkeys.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria keeps on pointing across the floor saying: "You want closure." It is this member who said he wanted closure. I speak for myself as an independent MLA in this House who has a right to his opinion. I am stating my opinion that we should have closure on this bill because I think it is a waste of time to be speaking a full day or longer — whatever these members in their filibuster are going to do — on a tobacco tax bill. I say that because I've spent a little bit of time looking at the speeches that were made by members of the NDP in this House over the last few years on tobacco tax; because there have been increases in the past. If you listen to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), Mr. Speaker, he said in the House earlier today: "Traditionally we've voted in favour of taxes on cigarettes, but not this year. We won't support any increases in taxes." Hypocrisy shows itself again for the NDP as a party who supported it all during the past years but this year, under pressure from the labour unions, is voting against anything that this government supports, no matter how good it will be for this province. I say, Mr. Speaker, that all those good reasons in the past just go down the drain when the labour leaders of this province tell the NDP what they want them to do in this Legislature. I find that a shame.

MR. BLENCOE: Minus the Spetifore.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria says we minus the Spetifore. I didn't know that Mr. Spetifore grows tobacco on his farm. If he could grow tobacco on his farm he probably wouldn't have sold his land, because it's a very expensive product and he could have made some money. Again the NDP have a very thin skin and they can't help being reminded of some of their speeches of the past, so they've got to bring up other topics. They can't stick to the topic, as we found out in the debate this afternoon and this morning from other members. We had the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talking about savings accounts of the rich — how they should get those out of the rich people's accounts so the poor people could have more money, and how the interest accounts on savings were a waste of money. He strayed off the topic, Mr. Speaker. I don't intend to do that. I just intend to show that members of that party don't really want to debate taxes on cigarettes because they know that the majority of the citizens of British Columbia, no matter what party they belong to, support taxes on cigarettes if the government needs more revenue,

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Even those of us who smoke — and I admit that I smoke.... The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) says "Shame, " and I don't disagree with him. But I happen to....

MR. MACDONALD: Reynolds Tobacco Co.

MR. REYNOLDS: Reynolds Tobacco? I can only assume that the second member for Vancouver East says Reynolds Tobacco because he probably owns some shares in it and is trying to give them some free advertising so his shares will go up in value.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BLENCOE: It's better than Dawn Development.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hear from the second member for Victoria about Dawn Development. We'll get on back in the budget debate to talking about shares that members own in this House — from both parties, Mr. Speaker. It may surprise the member for Victoria to find out about some of the shares that members of his party own in companies that have been debated in this House in the past. We'll talk about that in the budget debate. I think that's only fair. We shouldn't be talking about it when we're debating cigarettes and the cigarette tax. I should get back to that, but it's very hard when the second member for Victoria keeps on poking his nose into the debate.

Standing on his feet, the member for Prince Rupert said earlier in the day that members of this party just stand up and sit down and do what we're told. Well, I don't think that was a completely fair comment from that member, because members of this party have great free debate in their caucus and make decisions in their caucus. When we get to this Legislature we stick together, but we don't do what we're told. We're a team in this Legislature, and that's why we all support the legislation brought in by this government.

MR. REID: Hear, hear! Leadership and good government. That's what it's all about.

MR. REYNOLDS: There's no question about that. I think we've heard that comment many times — "leadership and good government" — but I think, as the member says, it's extremely true.

I don't want to take very long in this debate, because I know the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) is getting excited to get up and speak in this debate. I really just wanted to say that I support the....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I know they miss me.

But I want to point out to the NDPers that in their speeches they talk about addiction — the fact that the price is going up and that people will switch to other drugs — and try to point out to people that this is a bad tax. If this tax is as bad

[ Page 579 ]

as some of them are saying — although, as you will remember, I stated earlier that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said that they've always supported tax increases on cigarettes in the past — why is it that the NDP, who repealed...? They reversed the course that the Social Credit government had had prior to 1972, when they repealed the Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act on becoming government. I find that extremely hard to understand. I don't disagree with what they did in 1972, because I think people have a right to advertise their products if they're legal and should be sold in this country. That's why I didn't disagree when the Social Credit Party repealed the axe on the advertising of liquor in this province. I think if a product is legal, they should have the right to advertise it, But is it not hypocrisy when members of this House stand up and talk about increases and addiction and all the problems...? Yet this is the party that allowed the tobacco companies to start advertising again in this province. I say, I don't disagree with them.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Prince Rupert says "fair trade," and I agree with him. But how, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, can some of your members in this House get up and talk about how bad tobacco is and this and that, and still talk the other way? I find that a little hypocritical.

[3:30]

The member for New Westminster, as I said, strayed from this bill quite a bit, and he brought up the point about the.... He said to somebody across the floor: "One word about the arms race that is taking place." I think that was really straying away from this debate. I phoned up some of the people here in the services base, and I found out that 60 percent of those in the NATO force were smokers and 40 percent of the NATO workers weren't smokers; but they're all in favour of Canada's policy of being an effective partner in NATO. I know that really doesn't relate to Bill 13, but the member for New Westminster did it, and I just thought we should tell the truth in this debate, and I wanted to bring that up.

As I said, I don't want to speak very long in this debate, because it shouldn't be a long debate. It's a tax that is going on smokers. As I said, I smoke, and a number of other members of this Legislature smoke. Other members from our side who don't smoke have said: "Don't smoke. It's a terrible habit. It's a killer, " But it's our right in a free country to smoke if we want to smoke. As a smoker, I'm not opposed to this government putting the tax up. I would have put it a lot higher. I would have increased the tax on liquor. I think products that are legal, that are harmful in this country, should be well taxed. I just can't go along with the NDP when they complain that it's a tax on the poor. We're all people in this world, and if a product is bad for one, it's bad for the other. If a tax will stop people or slow them down.... I agree with other members of this House who have said that if it stops a person smoking, or if increased taxes on liquor stop him drinking, it's good for our society. It certainly will help us in health care. If this bill stops a few people smoking, it'll certainly save a few beds in the hospitals from people who would otherwise suffer from heart attacks and other diseases related to smoking.

I am proud to say that I support the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and his Bill 13, and I intend to vote for it.

MR. ROSE: I hope that thunderous and prolonged ovation doesn't take away from my total time, because in order to explain to some of the members of this House the pernicious nature of Bill 131 will probably need most of my 40 minutes.

I would like to congratulate the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds). He was also a colleague of mine in the federal House at one time, and he was an extremely active member. He supports the arms race and NATO. As a matter of fact, you would almost call him a nuclear active member, or if not active, reactive. He made some charges against my political party. I won't deal with those immediately, but I would like to ask him about that very interesting set of statistics which he gave concerning the percentages of Canadian Forces members who smoke. He said, I believe, that 40 percent did not smoke and 60 percent did smoke. I wonder if he could enlighten us, after I'm finished my time here, on whether or not there was any connection between those who smoked and wanted to stay in NATO, and those who didn't smoke and wanted to get out, and whether or not there was any relationship between those who smoked and were in favour of the arms race, and those who did not smoke and might not be in favour of the arms race.

It seems to me that smokers have a kamikaze complex. Perhaps smokers are more ready to die than other people. If you could get all your soldiers to smoke, they would probably display a lot more courage in the field. That's something that might be explored. I learned this morning that because we're concerned about nuclear war or holocaust we're about ready to radiate a few beagles, dogs, all in the cause of trying to find out what causes people to vomit — besides speeches by certain members in this House — having to do with radiation. Perhaps there could be a link between those people who have a temperament for courageous acts and heroism during war and whether or not they smoke. If there was a link there, if you could find a positive correlation between smoking and bravery, there's a lesson there for all of us.

The member also made some remarks about the removal of advertising on tobacco in 1972 by the New Democratic government. I'd like to enlighten him here. It wasn't that we were in favour of advertising one kind or the other. There was a ban on electronic media advertising at the time, and in order to be fair to both the print media and the electronic media.... A lot of the electronic media came from across our borders, such satellite stations as Bellingham and other places, over which we had no control whatsoever in terms of their content — beaming and blasting in an open-skics way, as the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) often says, into our backyards. We felt we would only be fair to all if the same rules applied not only to the print media but to the electronic media. I don't think it was in the interest of increasing the consumption of tobacco, although I think it's to the government's advantage to see that that happens. I think the sale of liquor and tobacco has always been acceptable because of the massive government revenues which come from the sale of those two products. I would very much like the member to know that it wasn't really because we felt smoking should be encouraged. I think he would agree with the idea of freedom of speech and publication, and we felt it was the kind of measure that was more unfair to one side of an industry than to another.

The other thing I'd like to talk about is the charge that somehow this party is doing the bidding of certain trade unions, and this is why we're fighting these tax measures. As

[ Page 580 ]

far as I know, the World Council of Churches does not belong to the British Columbia trade union movement, I'm quite certain that members of tenants associations who are opposed to the destruction of the rentalsman's office do not necessarily belong to trade unions.

I realize that I'm straying a bit here, but I do congratulate you for remaining alert and awake during this. I noticed you nodded off during one of the other speeches a little earlier, and you were busy on the phone. I don't know whether you phoned your bookie, or what you do up there, but I do know that you did appear to wander just a nod.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who was speaking?

MR. ROSE: It wasn't one of yours. As the hon. member knows, you don't put up any speakers — just one speaker, and then we carry the ball. I think it would be interesting for the people in the galleries to know that what we're really doing here is....

It's not that we necessarily have a great abhorrence for Bill 13. I think our record is clear on our objection to the use of tobacco and our regret that so many people are addicted to it. I think we have an excellent record there. We see Bill 13 as being absolutely symbolic of a group of repressive, unfair tax measures that have been undertaken as a punitive means by which a government that has mismanaged the economy and now needs desperately — and I say that advisedly — to get some money in the till.... When the results of its so-called restraint program come home to roost, it's probably going to need a lot more revenue than it can anticipate. It is our view that it's going to be business in this province.... The economy, contrary to what the government may assert in their so-called program, is going to be reduced. Their revenues are going to be reduced. So they're running around madly trying to squeeze every nickel they can out of every taxpayer, provided that taxpayer is in the middle or at the lower end of the income scale.

That's interesting, because it is true and undeniable that the poor and the middle-incomers who are taxed at the source pay far more income tax than, say, corporations or people at the other end of the scale. For instance, I have some facts here that have come out of such sources as the "Review of Taxation." In the last 30 years the corporate tax share — and this would include tobacco companies; I didn't want you to think I might stray too far from the general point — has dropped from 21.4 percent to 10 percent, which means that the total tax bill in our country has to be picked up by others. If the corporate share has dropped, it's quite obvious that somebody else has had to pick up the difference. Guess who picked up the difference. Individuals.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Not only deficits. You have to know what the total budget is of a country. When I first went down to Ottawa the total budget was about $11 billion. That has now multiplied ten times, and that's part of the deficit, Mr. Speaker, I did stray a little bit there, and I thank you for your admonition.

During the same period the contribution made by individuals has risen from 19.7 percent of the budget to 36.6 percent of the budget. A sales tax or an excise tax, which everybody pays regardless of income, is going to impinge much more heavily on those people who are in the lower income bracket.

It becomes a larger share of their total tax bill than it does for those who smoke the same amount and have a larger income. But they pay exactly the same tax. Gradually over the past 30 years, the shift in our country has gone from a 25 percent share paid by corporations...to individuals. I think that's an important figure to reckon with. According to the same report, thousands of individuals earning more than $50,000 a year paid no income tax at all in 1979, so the public treasury lost $2 billion.

To get back to the point, we can assert that if it were not for the fact that so many large corporations, businesses and individuals, through tax shelters and tax giveaways of one kind and another, had escaped paying taxes, then perhaps there wouldn't be such a need to tax more at the retail level such things as cigarettes — sales taxes and other regressive taxes.

Just to leave the tax for a moment — and this is my final citation on this subject — in 1980 "Review of Taxation on Capital Gains in Canada" found that "Canada has the lowest rate of taxation on wealth, inheritance and gifts of all the OECD countries." I'll leave that for a little while, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to turn to something else. It's asserted that somehow we have done if not a complete 180-degree turn, at least a lateral arabesque on this business of cigarettes and taxation related to consumption of those "deadly pills," as my father was wont to say. If you were to look for one citizen in all of Canada who led the fight for years and ultimately won with the printed warning on every cigarette package manufactured in Canada, "This product may be harmful to your health," we'd have to think of Barry Mather. Barry Mather was an MP. Incidentally, his wife Camille was a former member of this House. They represented the beautiful riding of Surrey...

MR. REID: Sunny Surrey.

MR. ROSE: Sorry Surrey.

...for something like 12 years. He was a member of the New Democratic Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: And a true gentleman.

MR. ROSE: Unfortunately we have to speak of him now as the late Barry Mather, but he was hooked on cigarettes for a great number of years. He finally kicked the habit, and whether he was a true gentleman or not — which he was — has got little to do with it. The fact is that he did kick the habit. So I don't think that our party has to take a back seat to any party in terms of our objections and our concerns about people who are addicted.

Some people think that this debate is largely smoke and mirrors. I don't know whether that's true, but.... I know also that regardless of what we do, all of us, on both sides of the House, tend to cloak our actions in the most noble of motives. I'm quite sure that the members of the government feel deep down in their hearts that people should pay more if they do things to themselves which are damaging to their health. They should pay more for that because they are a greater health cost.

[3:45]

My colleague from New Westminster disagreed with that. This morning he suggested that — I don't how frivolously — smokers actually were less costly in terms of hospital beds and ambulances and everything else, because they

[ Page 581 ]

didn't live as long. I just couldn't quite understand the logic of that, but he's deep. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is very deep, and it's not always possible for us to understand what he means right.... He doesn't speak in terms of superficiality. He's obviously thought about this rather deeply, but I can't quite follow him on that because I haven't seen the set of statistics on which he based these assertions. He's a very good friend of mine.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Up until now.

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Finance is back. He's got his batteries all charged up and got his nicotine count up again.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He's had his fix, and he's back in here ready to heckle. He has a beautiful voice, and I know that when he heckles it's certainly worth hearing. Even when he doesn't heckle it's worth hearing.

I am currently staying at the house of the member for New Westminster. He is a pipe-smoker of no mean proportions; he's an infamous pipe-smoker. The member for New Westminster, Mr. Cocke, is certainly hazardous to my health. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), in her stunning speech in which she had everybody here perked right up and listening, made the observation that it's not just the smoke that you smoke yourself that can be injurious; it's the stale and second-hand smoke that can really be extremely.... I was going to say extremely fatal but how can you use a superlative with fatal. It can be bad news for you anyway. That is possible. I have tried to no avail, as others must have tried in the past, to get him to kick that habit of pipe-smoking — especially when I'm eating — but there's no way that I can convince him to do that, at least up to now. That's the fault and the fallacy of this business of discouraging people of smoking....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Up until now you've been a guest in his house.

MR. ROSE: I don't know. I think I'm entitled to the normal notice, even though you've destroyed the rentalsman's powers.

What I was really trying to lead up to, before I was deflected, was the fact that I don't think it will matter very much to the member for New Westminster or to anybody else who is hooked on a habit, no matter how much you put the price up. People are going to buy it anyway. They're going to buy booze and they're going to buy cigarettes, if they're hooked. So, really, the idea of putting up the price of cigarettes merely to encourage better health and a better lifestyle is not very productive.

It reminds somewhat of World War II. Some people here might have gone through orientations in the army where various social diseases — they're contracted frequently through the opposite sex — were discouraged in rather gory and lurid films. I don't know whether that cut down any kind of heterosexual contacts during that period; as a matter of fact, I think it worked just the opposite. Because of the luridness of the films and the scare tactics associated therein, it probably piqued people's interest. It might even have increased the intensity with which they pursued that particular bent of which humans are sometimes guilty.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't think tobacco will do it, but it does have certain powers over certain people. Take the hon. government House Leader over there — he's given up smoking, but who knows? The way he handles tobacco he may have some other particular problems. I wouldn't want to predict it, but I suggest that smoking is not something — or chewing, or snuffing or whatever — that you can control by the amount it costs. What will happen is that we'll get "smokeleggers." You know what happened in prohibition. You put the price up; the price was so high, and then you had the Al Capones. How would you like the Al Capones of the tobacco business to come in here? If you put up the price of tobacco to the point where people cannot afford it and they give up other things.... Someone suggested they're going to give up milk for their children and I think they will if they're really hooked and need the money.

I can vividly recall being a smoker. I don't want to make this too autobiographical, but I waited 30 years for a safe cigarette. I could smoke at least three packs a day without any difficulty at all — not even on a good day, just an ordinary day. My colleague over here from Mackenzie is similarly addicted. Actually, he is a pitiful figure when you realize what a slave he is to that habit. He is actually a slave to that habit. He was asking me how I finally kicked the habit and I said: "Well, it was very simple. I went to a Chinese doctor who put two needles in my ears...."

AN HON. MEMBER: And he left them there.

MR. ROSE: I hope you're not going to think that this is frivolous, or make light of it; this was a very serious point of my life. I would say a watershed almost. I was going to join the CA or Cigarettes Anonymous or something like that, but I finally went to this Chinese doctor. He stuck two needles in my ears which were attached to an electrode, plugged it in the wall, and said to me in broken English: "If you don't quit smoking I'm going to turn on the switch."

I went through years of being in almost as pitiful a condition as my colleague from Mackenzie. From behind closed doors I can tell a smoker; they have a particular rattle. You follow them up or down stairs, and they have a certain kind of sound.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, it's not quite like that, but I understand that you're an addict as well. Most people don't have it as severely as you do. They do have this particular rattle of phlegm in their chest.

I can recall a Sunday morning in my apartment in Ottawa, going through the wastepaper baskets and straightening out the accordions that I called cigarette butts. I want you to know, especially those in the audience who have never smoked, that it's very difficult to straighten out a crumpled cigarette. When they dry, they break.

I'm really saying there is no evidence whatsoever that people are going to be dissuaded from cigarette smoking because of the price. When you're hooked, you're hooked. I have one on either side of me here. I think it's a social thing. If I said to one of my colleagues: "Don't come close to me because I don't like the smell of your breath", I think that

[ Page 582 ]

would be far more effective. It's the social rejection, not the health things, that I think are going to make the difference.

In my house I have a wife who, among other things, is very frank. We have a little sign on our television that does not say, "Thank you for not smoking," but "Smokers will be shot." No one smokes in our house anymore. I used to, or I tried to smoke in the house, but actually when I was smoking I lived a much more outdoor life than I do presently. I might have been healthier.

A tax on sin is always acceptable, because I think there's a great deal of guilt associated with smoking. People know it's bad for them. They know it's a matter of time. As a matter of fact, it doesn't seem to affect some people at all. I wouldn't say it's good for anybody, but it doesn't seem to affect some people. I was going to talk about one of my colleagues; I won't name him, but he was a very famous British Columbian. It was tremendous irony that after years of three packs of cigarettes a day, and probably at least a bottle of whisky, when he finally did get cancer it was in the prostate. I don't know if that has any lessons for us, but I think it's an interesting sort of irony there.

What we're going to get out of this, Mr. Speaker, is $18 million. And that's all. We just think it's another tax grab, because it's added on to what the feds have done to us this week. And so what happens here is that a pack of cigarettes, now $1.65 — not that money makes any difference, but....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know where you buy yours, but I was told on reliable authority, by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), that it costs $1.65. He says they're more expensive in machines, but let's take $1.65 in round numbers, and....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's more than that.

MR. ROSE: Are you sure you're smoking tobacco? I mean, other cigarettes are a little more expensive than that, I'm told. I'm not sure, since I've never purchased any. But $1.65, and we add 5 cents to the provincial tax, and then we add 7 cents federal excise tax on top of that, then we've got them up to $1.77, which won't go into one of the cigarette machines, so what are they going to be in the cigarette machines — $2 or $2.25?

The member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) talked about the percentage of smokers who were in the services — 60 percent did and 40 percent didn't. I would like to have a breakdown of the number of smokers by social and economic class. I would think that by far the largest number of smokers tended to be people of lower income. I don't read any great socialist message into that, for once, and I'd like to reassure you of that. I don't see anything like that happening. But I would think that if that is true — and I'm not certain it is — it does help to add to the case that the extra excise and sales taxes, and extra taxes in general on cigarettes at the retail level, tend to work far more economic difficulties on those people on lower incomes than on those people on higher incomes.

People said the stress factor is there. Other people have mentioned that. I think that stress and tobacco are linked, as I think stress and drinking are linked, and stress and drug addiction. They're all linked together. I think we all tend to smoke more and drink more when we're under certain kinds of pressures.

I would like to think that it's not just the lower-income people who tend to be heavier smokers. I think it's young people.

Is that my three-minute light, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have 13 minutes left, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm quite sure that I won't need that whole time, because I think I've made my case, and perhaps people will accuse me of just talking out the bill, just keeping this going, and delaying the work of parliament if I don't sit down when I am actually through.

I was saying that people get into smoking because of certain social pressures. There's peer group pressure. If you look at the old movies, Casablanca and all those old movies on the late, late show.... I'm quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that you do stay up and watch them occasionally, because I've seen you nod off in here occasionally, and that's probably because you have stayed up too late. But everybody smoked. The guy could hardly kiss the girl and vice versa without sort of running into one another with those two cigarettes like those two things that stick out of slugs.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, they didn't have filters.

But that's changed. You very seldom now see anybody who is a figure of admiration smoking. It used to be the butler who killed everybody. Now it's the smoker who kills everybody. The whole image is turned around.

[4:00]

But among young people, and I notice this because I was a teacher for a number of years in high school.... As far as young people are concerned, it is a sign of maturity, or at least among certain peer groups — if you smoke it must follow that you are growing up; you must have entered that period of at least adolescence or beyond. I think the serious part of that is that people who smoke are giving it up at a greater rate than they ever did, but they're starting earlier. Perhaps that is a crucial thing — young adults.

It has been asserted — I don't know with how much accuracy — that a great number of people in Third World countries.... We as a nation have been much more health-conscious about cigarettes, and we've demanded low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes for I guess the past 20 years. We've been more conscious of it since the United States surgeon-general put out his very fine report condemning the tobacco industry — which, incidentally, is getting out of tobacco. We're depending more and more on tobacco tax as an income while the tobacco companies are diversifying. They're going into everything from plastics to shredded wheat to textiles to get out of it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: My friend the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) says they're even into cigarettes. Well, they're getting out of cigarettes. They're getting out of it because in our culture the handwriting is on the wall for cigarette companies. Not in the Third World countries, though. At the same time that we're demanding more low-tar and low-

[ Page 583 ]

nicotine cigarettes, the Third World countries are being shipped the same brands but with inferior tobacco, which is a higher tar and nicotine content. The Nestle's milk, and other similar kinds of issues regarding Third World countries, is an example of how the west treats the Third World. I think their health habits in the future are going to be severely threatened.

I just want to close by citing one more thing, because I'm always impressed by the way the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), expresses himself. He always expresses himself with a great deal of aplomb, lucidity and confidence. I might quarrel a little bit with the nature of his content, but he sounds good. He talked about the fact that he would like to see the revenues from tobacco actually go down. I'll just go over it. B.C. is going to get $18 million dollars from this extra tax — others have observed that they do it while they're going to get rid of the treatment centres — and Ottawa is going to get $280 million from its new tax, and the minister wants to see revenues go down.

I've got a little advice for him. It probably won't work any more than prohibition does, but if he really wants to get out of this thing that causes huge medical bills, then ban it. Don't keep milking the public for more and more money on it. It's like saying the same thing as the liquor store thing. I don't think he could get away with it, but it seems to me that if you don't want that and you feel guilty about taking money from it, because it's a health hazard and you're not putting the money back into health, then perhaps you should consider banning it. Then you'd really have a demonstration on your front lawn. It'd be bigger than 20,000.

If I could close by just saying that in this party we don't think that this particular piece of legislation is the be-all and end-all of legislation for the province. I think in other times, if it weren't tied into what we consider a vile and repressive package, which leaves at stake not only our moral reputation but our economic one, that we would be prepared to what some people might regard as play around with this legislation and set up a lot of speakers on it. I think that's fair to say. But we see it as only a symbol. Bill 13 is only an unlucky symbol of what the whole 28 bills amount to as far as the future of British Columbia is concerned.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: While the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) says there might be some more good ones coming, we don't have a lot of faith in that. What we want you to do is to realize that we're very serious about what we're doing over here. We don't always look or sound serious, and I don't think you have to be gloomy. But I do think that I want you, Mr. Speaker, and the members opposite and the people in British Columbia to know that we are serious and we think the government's moves are wrong-headed, we think they are a power grab, we think they are dumb, we don't think they're going to work, and we think they're repressive. That's what we're fighting about, and we're not necessarily fighting Bill 13, but it is symbolic.

Therefore I know you will regret this, but I have to conclude with this: since we feel this way, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 29

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

MR. SPEAKER: With the unanimous consent of the House, could we agree on dispensing with the requesting for recording in the Journals and just have such recorded automatically? Is there such agreement, hon. members? I hear some noes.

[4:15]

MRS. DAILLY: For the very few of us who were privileged to be here during the last speaker's delivery of his reaction to this bill, I must say that they'll understand that I stand up feeling somewhat as if it's going to be very hard to follow that speech, because the speech delivered by the member for Coquitlam-Moody was delivered with great humour, and it held the interest of all the members who were here. But at the same time he was making some excellent points about why the official opposition rejects this bill to further increase the tobacco tax. I feel that my speech will certainly be dull in comparison with what I consider was a very witty, pointed and exceptionally well-delivered speech for all of us. When that member said that he was a teacher, I must say that I'm glad to have him here, but those kinds of teachers are also a loss when they leave the classroom.

Some of the government members have accused the opposition of being somewhat frivolous in bothering to debate this bill at any length. They seem to be somewhat surprised that we have continued to put up speakers to speak on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that this bill is being spoken upon by members of the opposition because we feel that it is symbolic of the policies which this government is continuing to bring in and which we reject.

What we find here again is another regressive taxation policy. No matter how you cut it, this increase in the cigarette tax, particularly in these times with so many people who are unemployed and yet who are unfortunately addicted, is going to be far more of a hardship on that sector of our society than it will be on many of the Social Credit members who have spoken — the few — in support of this tax. It's all very well for those who have a good salary and are secure — for the present anyway — as most of us are, to say: "Oh well, this

[ Page 584 ]

tax won't hurt. Well, we hope it will hurt the number of people who smoke, but it won't hurt people by discriminating against one sector." That is not true. It does discriminate. It discriminates against a group in society who are inclined to reach more and more every day for some sort of drug, either alcohol or tobacco, because of the present economic situation. It does create more stress, and I think you and I both know, as people who have both smoked and I believe quit.... I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker; is it all of a day, or two? Nine months! Oh well, things do get born after nine months, so I suppose something new has arrived: we have a Speaker who has decided that smoking is very bad and who has set a good example by quitting. Anyway, I feel that....

MS. SANFORD: What about the Minister of Health?

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), I understand, still smokes. But as a reformed smoker I'm not going to use this to attack those who do. What I want to do is attack the policies of this government, which are really pretty short-sighted with this bill, because there's no way that increasing the taxes is really going to decrease the number of smokers. Unfortunately that's not the way it works. I remember going to England many years ago and being absolutely shocked. I smoked at that time — this would be about 25 years ago. I only quit two years ago, but I was smoking a long time ago and I'm not quite that old. I remember going to England and being absolutely amazed at the number of smokers, It seemed to be a lot more than in Canada at the time.

MR. HOWARD: Cigarettes there would put you off smoking.

MRS. DAILLY: And some of the cigarettes there would put you off smoking.

What amazed me though was when I started comparing the cost of a pack of cigarettes in England with what we were paying at that time in Canada. I also compared the cost with the wage scales in England at that time. You know, Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely amazed when I worked out that most of the people who were working, for example, in a factory in England were actually giving up one hour's pay — and that was quite a long time ago — for a pack of cigarettes! The point is....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Even non-socialists smoke. The point is that I couldn't help thinking that it didn't really matter to these people how much these cigarettes cost. If they're addicted, they continue to smoke. This is why the official opposition simply cannot take the attitude that the government does. They stand up and pontificate about their concern over the number of people smoking and the injury it is to their health and that that is one of the reasons for bringing this in.

Actually, a recent article I read said the addiction of the individual person who cannot stop smoking is an addiction to be as concerned about as the addiction of some governments who continually see putting taxes on cigarettes as a source of revenue. That has turned out to be an addiction for some governments. So if you are talking strictly from the point of view of raising money, I suppose there is some small argument here, but we are faced with an $8.5 billion budget and yet the amount to be raised here is approximately $18 million. I want to repeat that it is coming off the backs of those who can least afford it.

This government keeps talking about getting off the backs of the people. The problem with this government is they say they are getting off the backs of the poor people and the powerless and the weak, but they're not. They're getting off the backs of the rich, and they're making things much easier for the powerful than they are for the poor. Again, this bill is just another symbol; in fact it's more than a symbol. If it is ever passed, it is a fact that this government is not really concerned about adding more and more to the income reduction of the people who do have this particular addiction.

The speaker who preceded me said he wondered if studies had been done on the socio-economic group which apparently are more addicted to smoking than any other sector of our society. I must admit that I don't have those studies, but I must say that from personal observation when I have been in England, where the taxes have gone up and up.... The cost of a pack of cigarettes is to my mind absolutely phenomenal, and smoking is certainly not on the decrease.

Mr. Speaker, I think many of us at some time or other have attended a bingo game. I remember the years I used to go to bingo. It was a long time ago when, frankly, I was short of money and it was kind of fun to go and play bingo and hope desperately that one could win and make some money. The interesting thing is that when you go to a bingo game, you can hardly see the room or breathe the air because of the smoke that you find in those areas. All I'm doing is making another point, Mr. Speaker. The people who go to play bingo are certainly not the people who have assured salaries. They are going there because they are desperately hoping, like a lottery, that they can make some extra money to survive. Here again, at the same time they are desperately trying to make more money, they are also ready to continue to consume the cigarettes which are costing more and more — and under this government's policies will be increased,

The only way that we can seriously do something about the health hazard of smoking is through education. I really believe that this government is very hypocritical in taking the stance on this bill that they are going to reduce health hazards from smoking and decrease smoking when at the same time they are pulling in resources every day which would provide educational programs and facilities to help people who are addicted to smoking and to alcohol. It is really a hypocritical stance.

This government must realize that the best way to lower the incidence of deaths from smoking and to look after our young people particularly and stop them from embarking on a whole lifetime — and it certainly will be a shortened lifetime — of smoking is through education.

When you have increased cutbacks in school funding and in programs offered in our schools because of this government's fiscal policies, and when you have cutbacks in community educational programs, night schools, you name it — all the areas where we could possibly.... I won't say possibly; I can say with some surety we could perhaps educate people to the dangers of smoking, and perhaps even assist people in quitting. This government is really operating in a vacuum when it comes to assisting people in the area of the ills and hazards of smoking. The member for Cowichan-

[ Page 585 ]

Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) gave an excellent speech in which she outlined for this assembly some of the very sobering facts about smoking today. I think it would not be taking too much liberty at this time to repeat a few of those points, because it does tie in with why we are against this bill. We are concerned with stopping people from smoking, but we do say that this bill will not do it.

Statistics from the federal health department have been quite sobering. For example, in 1979 smoking killed at least 28,700 Canadians. This was about five times higher than the number killed by traffic accidents in the same year, which was 5,764. It goes on to say that before non-smokers shrug and mutter that smokers know the risks, and that they're hurting no one but themselves, they should note the health department's warning about the dangers of inhaling smoke from other people's cigarettes. Now that I'm not smoking — and I'm sure that you're the same, Mr. Speaker — we are more aware of the fact that we have quit ourselves. We're no longer inhaling, but we're getting everyone else's smoke. As was pointed out before, the smoke that comes towards us from those who are smoking is deadlier than that which the smoker inhales. I think you and I particularly are very concerned about this. That's why I know that if you were able to sit there and vote, that you would agree with me that education comes first and the matter of money is entirely secondary to most people in the whole area of quitting smoking.

The federal department says that one study of nonsmokers in a working environment demonstrated that passive smoking, inhalation by non-smokers of tobacco-polluted air, was equivalent to smoking 10 cigarettes a day. You and I quit, Mr. Speaker, but we're still exposed to almost 10 cigarettes a day. I think we probably speak for most people who are no longer smoking — we want to do something about it. I'm not standing here trying to be sanctimonious about being a reformed smoker; I'm not standing here to filibuster any particular motion; I'm standing here out of concern to say that if this government is going to do something to stop people from smoking, increased taxation, particularly at this time, is not going to meet that purpose. In fact, smoking by the people who are the poorest is probably going to continue exactly the same, and it won't matter to the people who have money. They'll still go out and buy their cigarettes. So for the sum of $18 million, which is not paltry, once again this government is making the burden of that taxation felt by those who can least afford it.

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have anything more at this time. I know other speakers are going to follow me, but I did feel I would be remiss if I didn't express my concern that I think the government is once again being very shortsighted with this bill. It's regressive taxation. We shouldn't even be dealing with another taxation bill at this time; we should be dealing with the budget. However, this has been put before us and we must deal with it. Once again, this government is, with this regressive tax, showing less concern for the poor and the helpless than for the others in society.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move adjournment again of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[4:30]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 28

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

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, when this particular bill first came up.... Before the minister leaves, I would like to pass a message on to him. I really think it's important that when you look at a bill like this and you look at the effect that it has on people, you have to look at it first from how it affects you personally. Not being a particularly reformed smoker, I remember 20-odd years ago when the surgeon-general brought out a report about the evils of smoking and about how it was going to cut our life. For every package we smoked we lost five minutes a day. I kind of figured out that I was dead three weeks ago. Anyway, I was impressed, and I quit smoking for about 18 years until I got elected to this Legislature. After two years, and the tension from listening to the garbage from the government side, I started again. When the minister brought down his budget and filed all these bills, I decided that I'd quit. Every morning when I get up, I think of this rotten Social Credit budget, and it keeps me off the cigarette for another day. So it's really important that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait till we do the booze, Frank!

MR. MITCHELL: Well, that really doesn't bother me, not being an alcoholic like a lot of the members of the cabinet. The price of booze is really not going to affect me. Anyway, from my family and my wife, I would like to pass on to the Minister of Finance that his rotten budget and his bill stopped me from smoking. Every day when I get up I think of it, and I say that something good comes out of everything.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, finally one of you is speaking in favour of the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: No, I'm telling you how it affected this particular member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can't make up your mind?

MR. MITCHELL: I made up my mind that I cannot accept any legislation that is going to increase taxes at this time, As my colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) very ably stated to this House earlier today, every time that you suck out additional moneys through taxation, that is money that is not being allowed to circulate within the economy. You have the small business communities that are.... This year the Minister of Finance is telling us that he is going to be able to suck out $18 million from the economy, and that's $18 million that is not going to be spent in the small business section. He's bragging that next year

[ Page 586 ]

he's going to be able to take out $25 million from the economy. That's another $25 million that will not be allowed to circulate within the small business community, which creates a large section of the jobs in this country.

I think it's important that you look at the bill and at how it's going to affect each one of us as individuals and each one of our ridings. This is the main attack that this side of the House has on the legislation, but I would like to repeat something I said earlier in another debate. I think that it's important that this House, this parliament, should come back to some of the traditions that parliament needs.

Let's review the context of where Bill 13 should have come in our B.C. parliamentary democracy. A bill of this nature, a bill of taxation or any bill should have been presented to this parliament back in January or February. Within the traditions of parliament we have our throne speech, our budget speech, our directions and the bills that are going to come before this House before the end of the fiscal year. This is a tradition that is held to in every province but B.C. Only in B.C. did we go through January, February, March, the end of the fiscal year.... Then the government embarked on orders-in-council, special warrants to run the province, and then they embarked on an election. And all the time they had sitting in their offices Bill 2, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act; Bill 3, a bill that was going to cut out the rights of workers; Bill 4, an income tax amendment bill; all these bills....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. We are addressing Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I'm just working up to Bill 13. I've only gotten to Bill 5.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that if we had had a proper parliament, a proper session, when July 7, came that taxation.... Let's face it, there was taxation put on the people of British Columbia without legislative authority to back it up. If the government, in their wisdom, felt that on July 7, 1983, they needed to take another $18 million out of the economy for this year, another $25 million for next year, and another $25 million in 1985, another $25 million in 1986, this legislation should have been brought up and debated in this House prior to the ending of the fiscal year and prior to the election.

[4:45]

I know that if I went on to Bills 5, 6 and 7, you would say I was straying from the intent of Bill 13.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, I got to Bill 7. And I think it's important that we get back to traditions of parliament. This government keeps on advertising with my dollars and the taxpayers' dollars what a great, open government they are. They take money out of the budget to spend for advertising, for false promotions, stating facts that are not fact. They didn't say in any of this advertising they have paid for with tax dollars — which they are now trying to recover — that they were going to raise tobacco tax 25 percent. I can't recall any candidate I know in the Social Credit Party or any government members or MLAs who campaigned through this province and said: "We are going to raise tobacco taxes 25 percent, or 17 percent, or 15 percent, or 5 percent." None of them said that. None of them said they were going to cut out the rentalsman.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I can't mention that? I can't work my way up to Bill 13? It's important that I get to Bill 13. The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) keeps on telling me that I should get to Bill 13.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the speaker agrees with you. We would hope that you would get to Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: I will work my way up there, sir.

I know the members over on the other side of the House aren't completely aware of why we are debating this bill in detail, why we are bringing to the....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, I'm talking to the members over there.

MR. MOWAT: Talk to your own members.

MR. MITCHELL: Oh, no. I don't have to talk to my own members, because my members are very competent. They know why we are debating this particular bill in detail. We are stalling it because we believe in the parliamentary traditions. We should be dealing with the budget debate and the estimates of this province before we debate taxation. You say that we have to debate taxation without legislation, and that's what you're doing. You're taxing people today without the legislative authority to back it up, and that's wrong. We have massive firings and we are spending money, and we do not have the legislative authority to back it up. In our parliaments we do have the right to debate the issues which are going to affect our ridings, our province and our citizens. The government, for whatever reason they may have, feel that they can trample over the rights of parliament and individuals. They feel they can run a province and an election without bringing these bills before parliament, but they should have earnpaigned on their record, and on their facts and the truth.

Getting back to unlucky Bill 13, we must debate it. We welcome and expect to listen to input from the back-benchers and those who have been excluded from the cabinet. We expect to listen to what they have to say about this policy. One of them rose in this House, and what did he say? What was his major announcement? In his opinion we should have closure and cut off debate. Is it parliamentary practice that we should cut off debate? Mr. Speaker, I know you don't believe in it. I know that in this province, and in this country thousands and thousands of people have died, have lost their jobs or have been persecuted because they were fighting for the right of debate in a proper forum and method. The legislation and laws are going to govern them, and the direction of this government is going to take money from the pockets of those who are spending it. I don't care if they're spending it on cigarettes. It's an awful habit, and there's no person stronger than a reformed smoker. I guess it's since July 7 when they brought in this rotten budget that I was forced to join my clean, healthy-living colleagues.

Interjection.

[ Page 587 ]

MR. MITCHELL: Right now the back-benchers are split. Did you hear that? One of them says I'm looking better, and the other one says it's a matter of opinion. They're split. I know that you're not going to give me any caucus secrets, Mr. Speaker, but I know there are a lot of people in your caucus that are split. I know there are a lot of people in your caucus who do not support the repressive legislation and taxation without legislative authority to back it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. MITCHELL: Then my secrets would be out. But I'll tell you right now — and you know I'm right — there are splits in your caucus; it's just the law of averages. Since this legislation came down we have candidates all over the province who were not elected to the Social Credit Party and who are standing up and saying: "If I had known that type of legislation was going to be brought down, I would not have run for the Social Credit Party." If they knew that you were going to bring in taxation without legislation and deny the rights of the people in this province and that you were going to break contracts, they would not have run for your particular party. They are publicly getting up and saying that. I know that if they had known that Bill 13 was going to come in and that you were going to raise the taxes on tobacco 25 percent, the law of averages would say.... Those 22 people were not the only ones unaware of this particular piece of legislation. Within that wonderful 35 members sitting there very quietly, the only time they want to get up to speak is to promote closure, to cut down debate. They say that some of you are not happy with this legislation.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, would you please address the Chair.

MR. MITCHELL: He keeps on interrupting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's unfortunate, hon. member. Would you address the Chair, please.

MR. MITCHELL: As long as I don't refer to anyone in the gallery I'm all right.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: This wonderful member down here from Surrey, the one who keeps injecting everything — I would like to comment on him. He's a man who has had a lot of publicity. I wanted to thank him here and he's not here.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: There he is. I wanted to congratulate the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) for doing a little moonlighting policing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this relevant to Bill 13?

MR. MITCHELL: Oh, yes, it is. This is a type of public involvement.... Because he didn't smoke — and that's referring to Bill 13 — he was able to outrun a young person.

And I congratulate him as one who has outrun a lot of young persons. I know what a great thing....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Now a little relevancy, if you will, hon. member. Back to Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: The information I received was that he was stealing the money to buy cigarettes, so I think it's on Bill 13.

In the debate on this particular bill it is important that we review the context of the bill. You are going to increase revenues to the province. You're not bringing this particular bill within the normal parliamentary tradition that would follow the throne speech, the budget speech, the discussion of estimates. If those traditions had been followed....

The only member who stood up from the government side and debated this.... In the past we never debated in detail these repressive taxes on tobacco, because they were normally brought in in the proper position in parliamentary debate. We used to have debates in their proper time, January and February and early March, before the end of the fiscal year. We didn't have debates in the middle of the summer after an election. We didn't have debates where they brought in regressive legislation after the election. At least in 1979, before I came into this House, we did have a budget. We had a great promise that We were all going to get five BCRIC shares.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Please, back to relevance in debate. I must insist that you make your remarks relevant to Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: You're very right, Mr. Speaker. I know that I strayed off, but it was those people down there who kept interrupting me.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: The only thing I can say, if I can answer that person down there.... The five BCRIC shares that I got from the government....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, they ruined.... I got the paper and Mr. Kaiser got a quarter of a billion dollars that he ran off to America with. But anyway, I wouldn't mention that. I quite believe when he was here he voted for the Social Credit, and I got my five shares in 1979, and I didn't vote for them. In fact, a lot of people in my riding didn't vote for me, and I got another job. Even after they got bribed. I wasn't bribing with cigarettes at that time. I wasn't smoking. You are part of that government that offered the five BCRIC shares as bribes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now back to Bill 13, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: I would say that the Social Credit government.... The Minister of Finance was part of the government that tried to bribe the people of Esquimalt.

MR. MITCHELL: In closing, Mr. Speaker.... I know I have some notes here.

[ Page 588 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If you could only read them. Who wrote them?

MR. MITCHELL: I wrote them myself, and that's the problem. They refer directly to this particular Bill 13, this unlucky bill that is trying to make legal something that has been in force since July 7.

I believe the government and the Minister of Finance, in all his wisdom and with all his experts, needed $18 million. He didn't need it until July 7. I know he could have brought this in before the end of the fiscal year and said, "On July 7 I need $18 million and I'm going to raise the tobacco tax on that date." I know he had all that information because he has one of the most efficient departments, with all the economists and computers. He knows how much money he has and needs, but he didn't want to bring in that bill before the end of the fiscal year; he knew his leader was going to go to an election and he didn't want to bring in Bill 13 or all these other 25 repressive pieces of legislation. So he didn't bring it in.

If we are going to have an honest government and parliamentary debate, we should have that debate from all sides of the House.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: We've only had one. Do you represent all sides of the House?

MR. REID: Yes, both sides.

MR. MITCHELL: The conservative wing of the party represents all sides of the government side of the House. I guess that right-wing turn.... Would you say the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) represents the left-wing of the Social Credit?

[5:00]

I congratulated the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) for his moonlighting on the police. We appreciate it. I still hold very close traditions of public involvement. But there's a man who believes in law and order, and then he gets up in this House, with all his wisdom.... No, he didn't get up in this House. He sat back there and did his normal heckling, the kind of dumb remarks he throws out which are recorded in Hansard. A lot of them are dumb remarks. One of them was: "Push up the price of cigarettes." — from a man who believes in law and order. Do you know the effect that would have? Say we made the price of cigarettes $10 a package. Other people besides myself would take the pledge, and we'd have what happened after the end of the war, and during the war in Europe — a black market in cigarettes because of the shortage and the cost. You would have black market cigarettes, and a whole new criminal economy would start. Do you think the mafia that grew and spawned on Prohibition through the twenties, with all their new sophisticated equipment and helicopters...? There would be cigarettes coming in from all countries. In fact, people are even paying $5 for these English cigarettes.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Did you hear him? He's going to ship in cigarettes by barge and trucks. I think that's wrong, and I really think that might be the leadership we should ignore. We should ignore the unparliamentary debate that's going on.

MR. REID: I withdraw all comments.

MR. MITCHELL: He withdraws those unparliamentary comments. I agree with him; I think he should withdraw these snide remarks. He's withdrawing them and I hope you accept it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Speaker would accept your addressing the Chair and getting back to Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: I keep getting interrupted.

Mr. Speaker, you won't let me debate or even mention some of these other bills. I just want to read the titles of them and show how Bill 13 is going to increase taxation, take it from those poor people who are still addicted, like my friend the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who is honest about it. He's honest about the fact that he is hooked on it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

He is a lovable guy, Mr. Speaker. He's such a lovable guy he doesn't develop the hate that I do against the government — not so much the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I did because I knew it was legislation in which they were going to raise the taxes on cigarettes. I quit on July 7, that very morning when I got up.... I think I told the other Speaker before you came on that when he brought in that piece of legislation I knew that that was the pressure I needed to quit smoking. Because the Minister of Finance isn't here, my wife wants to thank you that you brought it in. We're going to defeat it, I hope, but it did get me to quit and she wanted me to pass on her thanks to you, Mr. Minister. So I pass that on. You weren't here when I passed it on to the Speaker. I'm not sure that the other Speaker — he's a Whip — would pass that message on to you, so it's on the record and I've given it to you directly.

I hope I've covered the main parts. I am opposed to an increase because that increase is taking the money out of the economy and we can't afford that 25 percent increase in cigarettes — that $18 million that the minister didn't need until July 7 because he wouldn't have made it retroactive until July 7. I am opposed to the legislation because it was not brought in in its proper order within the parliamentary debates. We had our throne speech; we didn't complete our budget speeches; we haven't had an opportunity to go through the estimates for each member. We are bringing in taxation legislation without it coming up at the proper time, Maybe we need $17 million this year, once we go through the budget. Maybe after we have gone through the budget, as we have for the last two years, when we went through the estimates and were able to cut out the fat, the waste, the garbage that you allowed.... Pardon me, the government did. I know you wouldn't have allowed it, but the government allowed all that waste to creep into the budgets for '82 and '81 — all that waste — $179 million that we, without the computers, without the experts, the economists that the Minister of Finance has at his disposal.... We went through those budgets and were able to cut out the consulting fees, all that furniture, all that waste of advertising. If we had that debate properly we could maybe save that $18 million. We might

[ Page 589 ]

even be able to cut it down so that you only needed $8 million. I know that once we get into it and the various ministers in the cabinet explain their particular budgets and answer our questions openly and honestly, because it's an open government, and we maybe make a few exposures that won't be quite as headline grabbing as trips to Broadway or Arizona or wine.... There will be very down-to-earth, solid opposition debate.

I really think that we shouldn't ramrod this particular bill through at this time. I think that taxation bills should come up after the budget debate is completed, after we have gone through the estimates. They have been collecting money since July 7. They are not collecting any from me, but they have been collecting money on cigarettes since July 7. I'm not a legal man, but I know that when I was a policeman we couldn't go out and lay tickets on a motorcycle for not having a helmet on until the legislation was passed by parliament, until it was proclaimed by cabinet. We had to conform. As policemen we had to conform with legislation that had to be legal. There seems to be a different law for rich finance ministers. They can go out and order people to collect money prior to the legislation passing. I don't know how he does it, but I know if I had tried to take a.... When the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) first brought in the legislation under which they were going to require people to wear helmets on motorcycles, we couldn't have gone out and charged people and taken them before the courts. It would have been thrown out. There's a certain policy, and I think it's a just policy, that legislation should be properly debated. It should be properly understood, and it should become legal after it's gone all through the proper studies. I know the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has a piece of legislation that they jammed through here last year. We passed it. I said that it was illegal, that it was improper.

Getting back to Bill 13, that legislation has not been proclaimed; I think they were wise in not proclaiming it. I say that we shouldn't be enforcing any legislation until it's debated in its proper context. When we complete that, then it can be enforced. We have bills in there that go back to the beginning of the year. It's wrong. I will say that the Minister of Finance did announce that he was going to deny renter's tax credits and tax rebates, but it's wrong to bring in legislation before it's debated, to take money out of the pockets of the working people — the little guy, the big guy — without it becoming part of the laws of the province.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: They keep on interrupting me, Mr. Speaker. This little fellow down here keeps giving me orders. I have enough trouble with my own caucus; they're always giving me orders. Every so often I get away with something, but not very often.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote against this piece of legislation because it wasn't brought in properly. It's repressive. It's against all traditions. Before we get away from it I would welcome all the members of the rump group of the Social Credit over here, these people who are closer to the door, closer to the government, and closer to the research people that bring in their speeches, which are all ghostwritten.... I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that I have a ghostwritten speech here, but I will ignore it. I don't like these notes that are handed to me. I would really like to welcome the other speakers to get into the debate, and I would like to warn the people that I know in their caucus, and their ghostwriters, who are going to write their speeches and their notes, that they should be prepared to debate this tomorrow.

Mr. Mitchell moved adjournment of the debate.

[5:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would commend standing order 16 (2) to all hon. members, particularly the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It states in part that every member present shall vote. I'm not aware that the hon. member for Skeena has voted in this division.

MR. HOWARD: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, I will vote. Do you want to know how?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you indicate your vote, please?

MR. HOWARD: Well, I vote in the affirmative.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 27

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask that it be recorded in the Journals that the hon. member for Skeena was somewhat indecisive in the last vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The affirmative vote by the member for Skeena has been recorded.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under the rules recited in Beauchesne and Sir Erskine May, I request that a roll call be taken after each division, and that each member be asked to stand in his place and indicate how he votes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I see no provision for that in standing orders.

[ Page 590 ]

MR. LAUK: It's in Sir Erskine May and Beauchesne, and in MacMinn on unique and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm reading our standing orders, hon. member, and there's no such provision in this House. Standing order 16 is quite clear in its entirety as to voting procedures, and that is not one of them. The Chair finds that the motion has failed, recording has been asked, and unless there are further speakers.... The member for Skeena rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations raised, he cast an improper motive in my direction about indecisiveness. The House Leader should be aware by now that there is no question of indecision on this side of the House. We know exactly what we're doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. House Leader, was there any improper motive imputed to another hon. member?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No siree, Mr. Speaker. Bah humbug to you, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That establishes that.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Smoker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's not a smoker.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he's a non-smoker.

The reason we're opposed to going further with this bill is the manner of this government's illegally collecting taxes before they have legislative authority,

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Do you presume that all the backbenchers are a bunch of drones and they're going to vote for every bill that's put in by the government? How do you know that they're going to vote for this bill? What right do you have to go out and collect the taxes on the presumption that they're a bunch of sheep and they're going to guarantee.... There might be the spark of independence in one of them, and they might vote against this bill. You have been collecting taxes on the presumption that the back-benchers are nothing but sheep and they're going to go along with that, and I resent that implication on behalf of the back-benchers of the government.

[5:30]

We've got here a demonstration of how a government is so arrogant, so presumptive, that it doesn't even know the names of its backbenchers, but it knows how they're going to vote ahead of time. I think that's going too far. I think those semi-literate people who made it here on the Social Credit ticket should be given the chance to think it through themselves rather than a presumption. Don't just use the example that one of your kind can make it with no show of wit whatsoever to be a minister. Those options don't come all the time. Mr. Speaker, that was filled up by the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet). That chance is gone. The rest of you are going to have to show your independence and explain to the people out there why taxes are being collected before they are the law of the land. It's a form of Social Credit. Collect the taxes anyway; let the peons pay. We're going to pass the bill — maybe. It's illegal, and they've been acting illegally, not only since July 7 but well before we even got to this House with eight months of the chamber not sitting. They went through unprecedented warrants, and they intend to go on operating that way. They have an arrogance about collecting money from the people without representation: warrant after warrant after warrant.

We even had to do the unprecedented thing of calling in the Lieutenant-Governor to ask if they had the right for those warrants well after the end of the fiscal year. This is another example of it in this bill: collecting taxes without even having legislative authority, with the presumption that they'll make it all out retroactively. What a way to demonstrate to the people of this province your respect for legislative law and order. You just say: "We're going to bring in a bill here and we're going to collect taxes, so we'll start on July 7. Maybe it will pass through the House and maybe it won't." Not one of those drones who are on the back benches is going to say a whimpering word. I've got more confidence in those backbench drones. Some of them are going to say something. One of them knows three words. He's gone out of the House to rehearse them: "leadership," "good government," and "my name is." That's no way to treat those free, independent backbenchers: presume that they'll go along like some kind of drones and vote for this legislation. Everybody who's paid that tax should have their money back before this bill goes through — every one of them.

Do you know what they're using this money for, Mr. Speaker? Some of this money that they're collecting illegally at this date is going into surveys. That's a fact. Here's the kind of survey that this cigarette tax money goes into. Can you imagine the questions they were asking in 1982? They bear relevance to this cigarette tax and the whole package of legislation. They were asking this question in 1982:

"Below are some suggestions on how the B.C. government could try to cut back on expenditures and the cost of governing, which, in turn, would result in some service cutbacks for taxpayers. I want you to tell me whether you would agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat or disagree with the possible course of action, as a means of trying to reduce the $1 billion provincial deficit."

This is what they are trying to do with this tax. This is the question they asked in 1982, paid for by taxpayers' money: "Should we cut the size of the civil service by firing or laying off people?"

The next questions is: "Should we freeze all future growth of the civil service for a period of two to three years?"

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, we'll read it and let the people of British Columbia understand how their tax money is being spent — illegally collected under this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if we could make reference to the bill — Bill 13 — it would be most appropriate.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly I can. This is a means of collecting tax money that is already being collected without public authorization, and I'm relating it to how that illegally

[ Page 591 ]

collected money has been spent on polling. Everybody who goes out and spends their money should understand that one and a half years ago this government, before this tax was brought in, was doing polling with taxpayers' money and asking questions like: "Should we disband such agencies as the Human Rights Commission?" They were asking: "Should we cut back on social assistance programs?" They were asking: "Should we reduce highway maintenance?"

Mr. Speaker, they were using taxpayers' money, as collected in this bill that we are debating now, not to lay out a framework of government policy but to determine what the public thought on the lowest common denominator and then to turn that into Social Credit policy, using taxpayers' money to do it. A year and a half ago they knew exactly this whole package that they were going to bring to the House, but they didn't have the courage or the commitment to be honest enough to tell the people of British Columbia during the election that this was going to be part of the package. That's why we're opposing this; this is another one of the bills that's been brought in on the great lie.

We've had, Mr. Speaker, a group of church leaders in our community say that this government was dishonest. Can you ever recall a time in the history of this province, when debating legislation such as a tobacco tax, that it was debated in the atmosphere of the religious communities calling this government dishonest? I'll tell you why that's valid: never once in an election campaign was there a promise that "if elected, we are going to increase the price of cigarettes."

MR. LEA: "Tax hikes with Barrett; jobsites with Bennett."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what was said in the election campaign was: "Tax hikes with the NDP; jobs with Bill Bennett." It was a deliberate distortion in the political campaign by not telling the people of British Columbia the truth. The religious communities of this province have exposed this government — to quote their own words, not mine — as being "dishonest." If there was ever any proof of it, it's in this very bill, although the government thinks it's mundane and doesn't understand why the opposition is stalling it.

I'll tell you why we're stalling this bill: it's part and parcel of the big lie that was told during the election campaign, the big lie that was spread by this party and this government and those MLAs, who went around this province saying that no such bill as this would ever be brought in and that there would be no tax increases under Social Credit.

The church community said it's dishonest. The church community said the government is leaving itself open to the charge of telling lies. Well, the church community has got it right. Not once during the election campaign did the Premier or anyone in the cabinet or anyone else over there who speaks for the government say, "If you vote for us, we're going to bring in an increase in taxes," including an increase in the tax on cigarettes. Did any of you ever say that? Did any of you ever tell the truth around this bill in the election campaign just past? Oh, it seems like a small bill. It's only a few cents more on tobacco. Well, I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker, it's got something to do with the word "principle." When the religious communities accuse that government of being dishonest in not telling in an election campaign what they intended to do, by golly, I'd rather go with the religious communities and principle than with a government that lies and brings in legislation like this.

1 heard one them say in the corridor: "I can't understand why the NDP is opposing a little bill like this tax on cigarettes. Everybody knows that cigarette smokers should pay more. Why are they fighting to keep this going? Why aren't they saying that the tax should go on?" It's got a lot to do with this bill. It's the one dimension they don't understand. This bill has been called by accident by the government, because they can't even see the connection between the religious community's statement and the bill that's in front of us.

It's a small bill. It seems like a small amount of money. But it is proof positive of what the religious community is saying. A dishonest government never told the people that this bill was coming in. We in the opposition are going to remind everybody that this is the kind of legislation that they didn’t tell the truth about.

They said that no tax increases would take place. They stood up in front of hundreds of people. They used taxpayers' money for television ads that featured the weatherman. They went on, and some of them looked right into the camera and said: "There'll be no increase in taxes." By their own words they have accused themselves of being liars, Mr. Speaker — a government that is so dishonest that the total religious community of this province not only sent a letter but stood out on the stairs yesterday saying: "We have a dishonest government and we should perhaps pray for them."

MR. REID: Hallelujah!

MR. BARRETT: "Hallelujah!" says that member. It's the fourth word that I now know he knows. He's going to be a member.... It's a whole new description of their presumption that they are going to get support on this bill from every one of the backbenchers. It's the Hallelujah Chorus. It's the backbenchers down there, Mr. Speaker, who are going to support this bill — whatever they say. Never mind principle, never mind philosophy, never mind honesty; it's simply a matter of slavish commitment to politics above all.

I haven't heard one member in the government get up today and express shock that it's not the NDP, it's not the socialists accusing the government of dishonesty through this kind of legislation, because it wasn't proclaimed in the election. It's the leaders of the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, and representatives of the Catholic Church who are all accusing this government of being dishonest. What example could this government have called any more fittingly, around that statement that they're dishonest, than this bill that is now collecting taxes illegally, a bill the likes of which they swore during the election campaign would not show up in this budget year? There it was, in a headline yesterday: "Bennett Government Dishonest, Says Religious Community." And who went out of their way to prove the religious community is correct? The government. How did they do it? By calling this bill today to flout the religious community. That's why the bill was called. It's a deliberate snub to those communities which have accused them of being dishonest. They deliberately called this bill today to say: "We can do anything we want. We lied to get here. We've been collecting the money illegally, and we're going to try and ram it through the House."

Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be a small bill, and it may be just a tax on cigarettes, but I'll tell you that it's a matter of principle to us. They lied to bring it here, and we're going to point that out to the community.

[ Page 592 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. member speaking that temperance and moderation is always a good practice in debate. One should use parliamentary expressions whenever possible.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will call the members to order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that if it is not in good taste to quote the religious communities of this province in their description of this government, then it's another attack on the religious communities. It was they who called this government dishonest. The religious leaders in a broad spectrum across this province said that the people were never told about the tax increases. It's not me, your humble servant in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, who is using their words; I'm quoting what the leaders of the religious communities themselves have said about this government and this subsequent legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first government in Canada ever to be condemned.

MR. BARRETT: The first government in Canada to be so condemned — that member's absolutely right. But it goes down with a litany. If I may borrow from those principled people their own words to express their philosophy, it is a litany of firsts: the first to have a cabinet minister go to jail; the first to have an Attorney-General block justice for 707 days; the first not to go to the police when serious charges have been made by the auditor-general; and another first — being called dishonest by the leaders of the religious community. That's what this bill is all about: a little bit of opening. You've been collecting taxes illegally, you never said anything about it during the election campaign, and it is a reflection of the basic dishonesty that you've been labelled with by the religious communities.

[5:45]

They read the list; They made philosophy on the basis of polls. They said "respect to individuals, " and they believe in freedoms. Can you tell me what respect there is to the individual taxpayer out there, or to freedoms out there, when a government comes in and by edict says: "Start collecting this tax on July 7. We never told you about it in the election campaign, and the bill hasn't gone through the House, but we're going to take it out of your pocket anyway." That's simply not right. It's not fair, it's not decent, it's not the proper way of doing things. Right, fair, decent and proper are all words foreign to this government. They went back to all of this....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that that one cabinet minister makes these little noises of interruption. I ask him, during the election campaign did he once stand up and say: "If you vote for me, one of the things I'm going to support is the introduction of new taxes on cigarette smoking"? I'll bet you he never said that. Did you once, Mr. Minister, criticize the Premier when he said publicly that there would be no increases in taxes? Now that the minister has learned that he went through the election campaign under false pretences of statements from his leader, has he stood up and said: "I disagree with what's going on because you never talked about that in the election campaign"?

That's exactly the point that the leaders of the religious communities are making. It was a spokesperson of the United Church who said: "If I were a cabinet minister and I got elected with this group and I found that I had not been told the truth by my leader, in good conscience and morally I would be forced to resign." Have you seen any one of them resign over that kind of behaviour? They think that by dividing this all up into one little piece at a time.... "Who in the public is going to worry about tobacco tax? Why would anyone in the opposition debate the tobacco tax? Gee, we can get it right through the House." Normally that would occur, but these are not normal times. This is a situation where the people of this province were not told the truth, where cabinet ministers did not utter a word about this in the election campaign, where leadership in the religious community is questioning their own morality politically in endorsing this kind of legislation because it's tied in with a whole package of abusive, regressive, unnecessary legislation, none of which, including this, was discussed in the election campaign.

They don't even understand it. They're puzzled in the hallway about why we're opposing this. They're puzzled out there, saying: "Goodness gracious. Why in good grief is the NDP fighting about this little bill?" I'll tell you why. It is this little bill, along with every other that has come into this House under the label of dishonest government put there exactly by the church leaders in our community....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That was your whole campaign, and you still lost.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order. To the debate, with parliamentary language.

MR. BARRETT: I don't mind that minister's interjections. I have never sold my soul for political power. During the election campaign, when we accused this government of embarking on massive tax increases, they were interviewed on television. They were asked right in front of the television cameras: "Will there be an increase in taxation on user fees of hospital services?" "Oh no," said the Premier. "Oh no," said the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Just recently in the evening, one particular television channel reran those promises for the people of this province to see — the bald-faced lies that were told and that led to this kind of legislation today. They think it's funny to have their leader say one thing, when he knew all along something else was going on. They think it's funny that the Minister of Health said, "Oh no, there won't be any increases," only to get elected and bring in the increases. They think it's funny that this little bill on taxation should cause all this debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'll tell you what this little bill on taxation is all about. It's about lies my government told me, and that's the result of this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker. What a disgrace! What a

[ Page 593 ]

shame! I don't see one whit of sorrow, shame or embarrassment by this government in the face of the headline they got. If the religious communities ever ran a headline past me that said our government was dishonest, I'd have called an emergency caucus and cabinet meeting and said: "Well, gang, we'd better do something about this." When the religious community calls you dishonest, we'd better call them in and talk to them about it, explain our position, or else back off the legislation. They've done neither. They deliberately flouted the statement by the religious community's leaders by bringing in this bill today in an attempt to ram it through the House in the face of that public condemnation.

It's a fact. Oh, it won't bring this government down, but I hope it shames them a bit. I hope that perhaps over hors d'oeuvres tonight before they have a full meal, like a lot of senior citizens and handicapped people in this province won't have, and through the cigarette smoke as they drink their cocktails with their hors d'oeuvres, they'll remember exactly how they got here, exactly how the political party they represent did not tell the truth. Mr. Speaker, that is all that counts to those members. It doesn't matter how you got here. It doesn't matter what you said as long as you got here.

MR. REID: That's democracy.

MR. BARRETT: That's democracy? Democracy is not based on lies, and we know that here, Mr. Speaker. Democracy was not built by a group of people seeking power and telling lies in the process. This bill was never talked about in the election campaign.

I've got them all yelling at me. They all want to participate, Mr. Speaker. Isn't it curious that when they have the opportunity to stand up in the debate, they don't open their mouths, but they're all catcalling across the floor.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Not all of them are catcalling. Some of them have even dumber sounds.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Would you be a little more decipherable, please? I'm sure that the residents of Surrey are proud of the one and a half members they've elected. I'm sure they are. One and a half out of two isn't bad.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we have a little order in the chamber, please? To the hon. member now speaking, if he could at least every now and then refer to Bill 13, somehow in passing and possibly....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're an idiot. You sold out a long time ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm making is that in the face of a statement by the religious communities of this province, a statement that was emblazoned across the front pages of the newspaper, saying that this government was dishonest because it never told the public that this is where it was going.... Have you invited the religious leaders over to explain to them? Have you? Have you talked to any of the religious leaders in our community and explained to them why this legislation is here when you never said a word about it during the election campaign?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Now you're calling the religious leaders socialists. Is that the answer to them?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: No! There they are, Mr. Speaker. Now they're calling the head of the United Church, the Catholic Church and the Lutherans socialists, as if somehow that washes it away.

I'll tell you what they won't call them. They won't call them Christians. Do you know why? Christians tell the truth, and that's what they're afraid of, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Sure we're taking a little time on this bill! Sure the people of British Columbia should know what the truth is! The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that not once during the election campaign did any single candidate for that party tell the truth about this tax or any other one, and that's what has upset the community out there. They'd like to believe the government. They'd like to think that a government that's seeking office would tell the truth. They'd like the children of this province to believe that when they speak they're telling the truth. They didn't tell the truth. They lied and now they're laughing about it. Well, we don't think lying in government is a laughing matter. That's why we're fighting this legislation.

It ill behooves those ministers over there to sit there smugly, thinking that this legislation is going to go through easily.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! You've got your power! You've got your mandate, as you call it. But you lied to get it! And you've been found out out there in the community. A government that lies is a government not to be trusted, and here is proof of that lying in this very bill today. It's not a great amount of money, Mr. Speaker, but it's the principle of telling the truth that has been violated by a government. That's why this group here, regardless of numbers — 22 or 2 — has always adopted the philosophy in this House since the first time a socialist was elected in 1898 — when they had never heard of a Socred — that the truth counts more than power. That's why this group will outlast anybody over there, any time.

There are many, many other good people in this province who believe that truth comes before power. There are many others, some of whom are in the religious communities. But I have never before witnessed in the history of this province a united voice from the religious communities of the province of British Columbia saying that a government is dishonest. This bill is a paramount example of that kind of honesty. Not me, Mr. Speaker; I'm quoting religious figures in this

[ Page 594 ]

province. It ill behooves me to use those words, but the Christian leadership of this province has said clearly that the government is dishonest, to allow the government to reconsider its position, I will move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

24 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following question:

With reference to the Zenith Child Abuse line, what are the figures for 1982 and to date in 1983 for the following categories: anonymous, by neighbours, by parents, by family member, by child involved, any by professional or agency; and other calls: parents wanting help, children lonely or wanting help with problems, information about child abuse, other problems, and crank calls and hang-ups?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy stated that, in her opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that she had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

26 Mr. Barnes to ask the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the Council of the 80s—

1. How often has the Council met, where, and how many persons attended each meeting since February 20, 1982?

2. What are the names of those persons on the Council? In which towns do these people live?

3. With reference to each meeting of the Council since its inception, (a) which members have received monies for travel expenses; (b) which members have received monies for other expenses; (c) how much has each received; and (d) what has been the total cost to the Government of B.C.?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy stated that, in her opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that she had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

27 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

Re: Day Care—

1. How many persons received a subsidy from the Government?

2. What is the average amount of the subsidy paid each month?

3. What are the numbers, by month, for 1982 and to date in 1983 for (a) licensed family day care, (b) unlicensed family day care, (c) group day care, (d) in-home day care, (e) nursery school day care, (f) out-of-school day care and (g) special needs day care?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy stated that, in her opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that she had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

[ Page 595 ]

29 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to Pharmacare—

1. How many persons received payments under Pharmacare from February 27, 1981 to March 31, 1982?

2. What is the total paid to patients during this period?

3. What is the total paid to pharmacists for prescription fees during this period?

4. What is the total cost of drugs prescribed and supplied by pharmacists during this period?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. From February 27, 1981, through March 31, 1982, 91,139 individual claims were processed.

"2. From February 27, 1981, through March 31, 1982, the total paid directly to patients was $11,875,426.31.

"3. From February 27, 1981, through March 31, 1982, $25,596,017.10 was paid directly to pharmacists for dispensing fees.

"4. From February 27, 1981, through March 31, 1982, $37,882,213.16, was paid directly to pharmacists for prescribed drugs supplied by pharmacists."

30 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following question:

With reference to the number of social assistance recipients, what is the breakdown for the following categories: single males, single females, family heads, single parents, children, handicapped, and GAIN for people ages 60 to 64, for the fiscal years 1981/82, 1982/83 and to date in 1983/84?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy stated that, in her opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that she had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

31 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the number of social assistance recipients placed in employment—

1. Were any placements made in 1982 and to date in 1983?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, how many persons were placed in each month in 1982 and to date in 1983?

3. Were any of the placements in public employment, and if so, at which level of Government?

4. If the answer to No. 3 is yes, were any of these positions subsidized in any way by the Provincial or Federal Governments?

5. How many persons were placed in private employment? Were any of these positions subsidized in any way by the Provincial or Federal Governments?

6. How many jobs were subsidized and what was the total cost to (a) the Provincial Government and (b) the Federal Government?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"1 and 2. The Ministry has not made direct placement of income assistance recipients into employment for over two years. In April 1980, the Ministry shifted its emphasis from job placement to helping recipients gain the skills and qualifications required to obtain and maintain employment on their own. The latest statistics indicated that over 7,300 persons participated in an individual opportunity plan in April of this year.

[ Page 596 ]

"3 and 4. This information not collected. Statistics on federally subsidized placements not available to Ministry.

"5 and 6. In 1982/83, the Ministry of Labour committed $537,689 to employers providing training for income assistance recipients on 324 jobs."