[ Page 1325 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment.

Mr. Reid –– 1325

Mr. Stupich –– 1326

Mr. Howard –– 1327

Mr. Lockstead –– 1331

Mr. Lea –– 1333

Mrs. Wallace –– 1335

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 13.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. REID: I rise to speak on the motion to hoist Bill 13. It's interesting that at this stage we're debating the hoist and the request to delay the process of good government and good leadership for another six months. In the last few days we've had some indication of the leadership for the other party. I'm hoping to have the opportunity of meeting the new leader pro tem, Mr. Kube, who has been authorized to indicate to their group an advance of $600,000 on behalf of Mr. Kube.

Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to watch the interview of the Solidarity meeting in question, where Mr. Kube indicated that the Solidarity group was not being funded in any way by the federal government, by way of Mr. Kube to the advantage of the unemployed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he lie?

MR. REID: Oh, I don't know if he lied, but he sure didn't know what he was doing.

MR. PARKS: Did he tell the truth?

MR. REID: Well, he indicated as a leader — because they have about 22 potential leaders, and now 23.... No, 22, because the lame-duck leader isn't going to run again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are currently on the hoist to Bill 13, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act. Somehow we must be a little relevant to the bill before us.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the reason I raised those points is that the hoist is a delaying tactic. It is a cost to the taxpayers out there of around $80,000 on every given day when we delay, delay, delay. I think that the taxpayer and the voting public on May 5 indicated they wanted some good leadership and good government from across the water here. As one of the representatives and a back-bencher in this government, I would like the opportunity to get on with the business of the day, save the taxpayers some money and get onto the very controversial day-to-day problems of the province rather than be dictated to by a pro tem leader of a group that wants to continue to hold up passage of any legislation within this chamber.

One of the reasons for concern, Mr. Speaker, of the three items within our $1.6 billion budget for 1983-84 is the health costs. They all have to do with operations of hospitals and the health care system, which backs up into many, many reports indicating that smoking is detrimental to your health and is a large contributor to the health costs of this province. So, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the continual hoisting of concerned legislation proposed for this year and to the continued delay of government procedures by allowing the expenditures of taxpayers' money in the magnitude of $80,000 to be continually wasted on frivolous debate, and I emphasize the word "wasted." Frivolous debate on the question of hoisting the tobacco tax. How ludicrous to delay the decision of a 25 cent tax on an item which I'm positive meets the support of the majority of the taxpayers and the majority of the people who voted for good government and good leadership on May 5, 1983.

I'm concerned about the non-passage of Bill 13. Why should we be debating at any length the opportunity to hoist this bill? I think the sooner that we as a government can impose a tax on such sinful things as smoking and encourage more people to quit smoking to reduce the costs to the health care system....

[10:15]

Interjections.

MR. REID: Hallelujah! To encourage people to quit that very, very sinful act, and to unequivocally support....

AN HON. MEMBER: Repent!

MR. REID: Repenting, yes. But the sooner the youth of today can be encouraged to quit smoking and quit being sinners....

MS. BROWN: That's not a sin.

MR. REID: I've been encouraged by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to indicate that it is just a little tobacco tax, but it is a very big problem. Smoking is a big sin, especially in the presence of people who have previously smoked heavily and have been able to quit and continue to abstain in the presence of other sinners.

I would suggest that the question to hoist Bill 13, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983, does not give this government a chance to get out into the field and encourage the sinners out there to quit puffing away on that very sinful cigar, pipe or cigarette in the presence of some people who have had the foresight to quit, irrespective of the concern for the taxes, because I don't think the tax is the question. I think this government should encourage more quitting, not more smoking. More quitting could be encouraged by the application of this tax as soon as possible.

The hoist certainly is out of the question because it allows the opportunity for us to waste taxpayers' money within the confines of Victoria at a cost of $80,000-plus every given day that we waste time. and does not allow us the opportunity to go out in the field and reduce the health care cost in the long term by talking people into not smoking any longer. I think there is an evangelistic role that we should provide by proceeding to a vote. Let's get on to Bill 13. Allow the tax to be implemented, to discourage more people from that sinful act of smoking, especially in the presence of those of us who do

[ Page 1326 ]

not smoke any longer, some of whom had the courage to finally do away with three packs a day.

Interjection.

MR. REID: Forty-three packs a day. I have been passed a note, Mr. Speaker. You are a sinner.

Interjection.

MR. REID: Yes, he is a lawyer.

On a very serious note, this government would like to deal with the question of extraordinarily high deficit budgeting, which was brought upon us by such accelerated items as Human Resources, Education and, most of all, health care costs, which are largely brought on — I am positive, from the research I have been able to do — by this continual smoke, smoke, smoke.

Members of this House should set an example for the rest of this province, and maybe the rest of Canada. Some of the members on the opposite side have taken an example with the money provided from Ottawa — spending $600,000 ill-advisedly. So I think it would be positive for me to say that I would advise the members of this House to set a precedent and reduce smoking. If you don't want to reduce smoking, then buy more cigarettes to help the province pays its bills by the 25-cent tax which is added. Reduce the smokescreen that continues to be provided by the back-benchers from the opposition — all the opposition; they are not only backbenchers. But they are here for one more term and then we won't see them any longer. The smokescreen they are providing today is creating a real problem for some of us nonsmokers who don't believe in the wastage of taxpayers' money and secondly the wastage of time to delay the discussion of the tobacco tax, which is a very sinful act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: This would be an opportune time to draw members' attention to what we are actually discussing. The Chair is of the opinion that the merits or otherwise of smoking per se might be touched upon very lightly but certainly cannot be the sole topic of discussion in speaking to the hoist.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you won't be voting on this legislation. I believe you are still a smoker. Oh, you've quit? Good for you.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) were to listen to himself, he would be supporting the amendment today to hoist this bill for six months. But I expect he didn't listen to any of the arguments that he made so well. He's concerned about the non-passage of this legislation — concerned about holding it up for another six months. If he had had the time to read it in the last two and a half months since we've been called into session, or two months and a week since this bill was introduced, he would realize that it came into effect on July 7 when the budget was read. I'm sorry — it came into effect on July 8, Mr. Speaker. So he may set his mind at rest. However long it takes for this legislation to pass, it has been in effect since July 8, and he hasn't even noticed the difference.

Mr. Speaker, another point he made was how ridiculous it is for us to be sitting here today, two and a half months after we were called here to serve the people of the province, and to be talking about an increase in the tobacco tax. He also said it's ludicrous, and it certainly is. We talk about good government and good leadership. With all of the important things that we have to talk about in the province of British Columbia today, we're talking about whether or not we should delay discussion of the most inconsequential bill on the order paper, perhaps — an increase in the tobacco tax. If there is anything of any importance that the government has to discuss, why don't they bring that forward? Mr. Speaker, how can we object to the lack of leadership, the lack of good government, other than to say we want to put things like this aside for six months and get to dealing with the things that have some importance? It is ridiculous to delay this. It is ridiculous to be talking about this.

The second member for Surrey, in urging upon us that we pass this legislation immediately, rather than delaying it, talked about the contribution toward health costs. He must have been here when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) told us that this is going to raise an extra $18 million that already is being raised since the act came into effect the day that the bill was introduced. So postponing the delay doesn't make any difference. If the second member for Surrey were to look again at some of the material presented to him he would realize that $18 million is going to have very little impact on a health care budget that is almost $4 billion. Less than half of one percent is all that is being contributed.

MR. REID: Every little bit helps, and $18 million is no little bit.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, he says every little bit helps and $18 million is important. The government has cut other programs where this money might be better directed that would cost much less than this. Nevertheless, that is not the discussion right now. The discussion is whether or not we should delay discussion of this legislation and delay it to consider the total impact, if there is any impact, of this legislation on the community. The second member for Surrey suggested that it is important to pass this legislation right away because it is going to influence people not to smoke. If it's going to do that it has already done it. But one has to wonder whether governments really do want to persuade people not to smoke.

There is a very interesting book that the second member for Surrey might want to take a look at sometime. It is in the legislative library. Public Policy and the Smoking Controversy, by Kenneth Michael Friedman. I believe it was published in 1975. This book raises the question of whether governments really want to cut back on smoking. It talks about governments in England, in the States and also in Canada. The Tobacco Tax Act is a very easy way of getting more revenue. It's very easy politically. The legislation before us now has not attracted any great deal of attention in the community that I know of, and yet the government can, almost at the stroke of a pen and with little debate.... Had this legislation been debated late in the order paper rather than early, I'm satisfied it would have passed with little debate, but coming as it does, we object to discussing it at this time until other business has been dealt with, and that is why we're proposing the hoist. But this legislation suggests that because tobacco taxes are so easily increased, and as long as

[ Page 1327 ]

you don't do it too much at any one time — as long as it's progressive and gradual — you can keep on increasing the rate of tax without decreasing the amount of cigarettes and tobacco being bought, and actually the government can go on steadily increasing its revenue as long as it doesn't go to the point where it actually has some impact on the smokers. So the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) might want to look at this and consider whether the legislation in its present form is really going to achieve what he wants, which is one more reason for hoisting it and for taking six months to consider whether, indeed, we want to deal with the legislation in its present form.

I suggested when I spoke in this debate....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm being asked to show some leadership. I wish the government would show some leadership. There are some extremely important bills sitting on the order paper that we should be discussing. There are the estimates. I've said previously on many occasions, as each bill comes up: let us talk about how the government is going to be spending the money before we vote in favour of more ways of raising money. Even an $18 million item — what is the government going to do with that extra money? The estimates are before us, but not a single minister has had an opportunity to stand up in this House and tell us why this $18 million is needed at this time because he or she has plans for spending it.

All of the bills having anything to do with the total package that minister after minister has talked about, including the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, should be hoisted for six months. We should set these bills aside until we have had an opportunity to examine the spending plans of the government, minister by minister. I can appreciate that there are some bills that don't fall into that category, that were not part of the package — a couple of resolutions were dealt with yesterday and passed by the House yesterday. When the business does come before us in an orderly manner it does get dealt with in an orderly manner. But the government is determined to deal with things like this, which the member for Surrey himself described as a ridiculous and ludicrous situation — for us to be sitting here two and a half months after we were called to do the people's business, and to be talking about, of all things, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act.

There may be a time to talk about that, Mr. Speaker, but it should be much later. Six months may not be long enough for us to do the rest of the business on the order paper. But certainly, at this point in time, the opposition believes very strongly that this particular bill should be set aside and left until we've dealt with the people's business: the important legislative program. Certainly the government must feel it's important. We feel it's important. We believe it's disastrous on the whole, but nevertheless we want to discuss those important bills in this House. We want to discuss the spending estimates of the ministers before we deal with ridiculous, ludicrous situations such as whether or not tobacco tax should be increased by $18 million — and to be talking about it two months and one week after it came into effect.

Mr. Speaker, the government is not showing leadership in bringing this bill forward this morning; it is being ridiculous. The only way we can express our displeasure, the only way we can point out to anyone who is listening that it is completely ridiculous and that we are not getting any leadership from the present administration, is to say that this particular bill should be hoisted for a six-month period in the hope that the government, in that period, will get its act together, will start being reasonable, will start showing some leadership, and will start dealing with the spending estimates of the ministers and the important legislation that is sitting on the order paper, and perhaps other important legislation not yet on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is of that opinion, and will vote in favour of a six-month hoist.

[10:30]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I too was somewhat intrigued by the earlier argument of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) with respect to the time consumed on this particular subject matter. I want to point out that if there is fault — and I'm not saying there is or was . If the second member for Surrey finds fault in what has taken place with respect to this particular bill, then he should bear the full brunt of that fault that he complains about.

Let's have a brief recitation of where we went on this particular bill. It was introduced on July 28 by the Minister of Finance. On that day it was dealt with in both the morning and afternoon sittings, and again on the following day, July 29. Then we saw neither hide nor hair — if one can say that of tobacco — of the bill until August 12. According to Votes and Proceedings the bill was under debate on August 12, and the second member for Surrey rose to take part in that debate on the hoist motion, but all he did was move adjournment of the debate, to postpone it; then, under the guidance of the House Leader, the government moved to deal with another piece of legislation, Bill 30. It's my opinion that the second member for Surrey would have had an interest in seeing that bill proceeded with on August 12 — and it might well have; I don't know what events might have unfolded on that day — and that he shouldn't have moved the adjournment of the debate at that time. We might have concluded the bill by now, and he would not be in the position he is in today, complaining bitterly about his own activities. If there is fault, it lies solely and completely, in this instance, on the doorstep of the second member for Surrey. He's the person who moved the motion to adjourn the debate on August 12, after having said not a single word about the bill itself. Then he resumes it today and natters about it.

Yes, I think it's kind of ridiculous to be spending our time talking about something that isn't of tremendous political interest to the body politic out there. Probably all preceding governments have not looked upon the tobacco tax in any social way or healthily helpful way, but rather as a reasonably easy means of raising money. Governments probably recognize that the use of tobacco is an addiction; those people who smoke or chew tobacco — or whatever form they use it in — are addicted to it. Being addicted to tobacco, they are not going to be deterred from its continued use by the simple process of raising its price by way of a tax.

As the Minister of Finance said, the tax was increased in 1981. In his 1981 budget — just a couple of years ago now — I believe he anticipated raising an additional $26.9 million by way of the tobacco tax increase; in round figures, some $27 million a year for 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, plus the increase that is before us at the moment. The tobacco tax is any easy way to raise revenue, and it exploits the weakness —

[ Page 1328 ]

if it is a weakness — of individuals who use tobacco and are addicted to it: let's exploit that weakness, that addiction, and force these people to pay a tax if they want to smoke. Therefore it's not a matter of tremendous social consequence, apart from the injury to health that arises from the use of tobacco.

A moment ago somebody said that the use of tobacco was a sinful activity — I think it was the second member for Surrey. He may well be right. My colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who sits right behind me, complained that, no, it wasn't a sin in that sense; it was a distasteful and disgusting habit, but not a sin. I think that's probably correct. As one who smokes from time to time, I think I have to fall down on the side of its not being a sinful thing.

But this government and preceding governments have considered tobacco to be a rather dangerous substance. Just to give an idea of what governments and this Legislature have felt about tobacco and the dangers in it in the statutes, we have an act called the Tobacco Product Act. It's germane to the question of taxation, because the taxation in the bill before us relates to tobacco. The Tobacco Product Act, indicating the danger that's involved in this sort of thing, says: "A person shall not, in the Province, deal in, sell, distribute, advertise or promote the use of tobacco for the purposes of (a) preventing a consumer or purchaser of tobacco from being deceived or misled as to its character, toxicity, composition, merit or safety.... As long as the advertising is done for these enumerated purposes it's illegal and can't be done.

We all know that up until the time that tobacco products were an advertisable item on television, and even in the glossy magazines that exist right now, those who advertise tobacco.... They have a disclaimer in there that says that as far as the United States is concerned, the surgeon-general figures that this is injurious to your health. But they're not advertising and selling tobacco. They are selling some sort of social acceptance. They are selling pleasure. I submit that that is misleading, because this act says that you shouldn't do that. It's deception to advertise a pleasurable event, to advertise tobacco in a subtle way — maybe not so subtle in some of the advertisements — tobacco as an activity sexually acceptable, and that's what they do.

The Tobacco Product Act also says that if you contravene this act.... It's such a serious matter, simply advertising tobacco with respect to its character, toxicity, composition, merit or safety, that you can be fined up to $500 or three months in jail for a first offence, and $1,000 or six months in jail for subsequent offences. In addition to those penalties, the Attorney-General can, if he wants to, proceed in the Supreme Court for an injunction against any person for infractions of the Tobacco Product Act, preventing and enjoining that person from continuing to do what it is or was that he should not have been doing under this particular act. It is a serious question.

There was a statement some years ago in the United States that what the country needed was a good five-cent cigar. It seems that the government of the day here still feels that that's a possibility and that there is a five-cent cigar around. I don't know whether there is or not; I haven't been able to find any.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No, the Tobacco Tax Act. The very act that we are seeking to amend, Mr. Speaker, says that there is such a thing as a five-cent cigar. The tax on the consumer is an amount of two cents on every cigar purchased by him at a retail price of five cents or less. How long ago was it that we had a five-cent cigar? Cigars for the retail price of five cents or less are contemplated as being available under the Tobacco Tax Act. What sort of obsolescence do we have in the legislation that we are amending?

If the government wanted to embark upon a course of dealing with the health difficulties that arise from the use of tobacco, then it would have an overall revamping of the Tobacco Product Act and the Tobacco Tax Act to give the general public some understanding of the dangers involved. But no, all the government seeks to do is to raise money by way of taxing, according to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), a sinful activity and — by way of other declarations including mine; I'm partial to the addiction aspect of it — by taxing an addiction and by hitting a person in the purse or pocketbook because of a weakness that he may have with respect to being unable to stop smoking.

If this were a deterrent aspect to a tax on tobacco, then this isn't sufficient. Is the government trying to find that fine line between acceptability of a tax, given that the person is addicted to tobacco, and not raising the tax high enough to prevent people from smoking in order to hit them in the pocketbook or purse? Is that what the government is trying to do? Are they just trying to run down the middle and say: "Let's exploit the weaknesses of these individuals who are addicted to tobacco. Let's raise the tax for them, but we won't make the tax high enough to stop them from smoking." In other words, the government doesn't care about the health effects of the use of tobacco. It has no conscience about that at all. The government is just selecting an arbitrary figure, saying: "If we raise the tax on tobacco by X amount, then we hope it won't deter anybody from smoking. We want them to continue to smoke, because we want the money." I submit that is a shameful way to try to deal with a budgetary matter, but it seems to be precisely what is the case.

As I mentioned earlier, the 1981 budget raised the tax on cigarettes to 34 cents for a package of 25 from 24 cents. And the other feature of this is that the tax rate on cigarettes and tobacco products was indexed so that it automatically changed — usually increased — as the price went up. The minister pointed out in his opening remarks on this particular bill that B.C.'s tax on cigarettes and tobacco products has been adjusted every six months by the change in the Vancouver consumer price index subcomponent for tobacco products. So every six months the tax goes up, and now there's another increase on top of that.

I suppose the government's approach with respect to indexing a tax of this nature was predicated again on the hope that people wouldn't stop smoking and that they wouldn't notice a slight change of a few pennies — because the cost of living does go up from time to time — or whatever the tax might have been on cigarettes and tobacco products every six months. Other things went up. Why not tobacco? It became painless and went almost unnoticed by the average consumer and purchaser of tobacco that he was paying more and more tax to the provincial government.

[10:45]

In the fiscal year of 1980-81 the minister anticipated receiving $26.9 million in that tax. I suppose one would have to go back to Public Accounts for that year to find out whether that was realized or not, but that was the prediction of the minister. This year he said that this bill before us is expected

[ Page 1329 ]

to raise the province's revenues by $18 million — that's in the balance of this fiscal year — and by $25 million in the full fiscal year of 1984-85. When we add the estimated revenues of $26.9 million in 1981 to the $25 million now estimated, we're talking in terms of an awful lot of money, something in the neighbourhood of a $50 million increase in revenue from the tobacco tax itself, without any connected or concomitant declaration or interest shown on the part of the government about engaging in preventive measures with respect to health care.

Are you counting a quorum, Mr. Speaker? I see that you are. Have you obtained a quorum, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member, I have.

MR. HOWARD: It is interesting to know. I know that the subject matter before us is not of great interest to many members. If the government had not been playing hop, skip and jump with the legislative program — on again, off again, and moving from one bill to another, to resolutions and the budget, in and out and off again, and so on.... They might very well have had this bill passed by this time if they had not continued to postpone consideration of it.

In fact, I mentioned earlier that the second member for Surrey himself is the prime person responsible for delaying the bill on the 12th day of August until today, about a month ago. He felt constrained at that time to adjourn the debate, and I think one should look at the record in that regard without casting reflections upon a vote of this House. I'm not doing that; I'm just referring to a factual situation. As the record in Hansard shows, all of the government members voted to support the adjournment of the debate on August 12 and those of us in the opposition voted against it. We wanted Bill 13 to be proceeded with on August 12 and not postponed.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you give me some direction? If that was not a reflection on a vote of this House, what is?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good question. That was a reflection on a vote. However, the member did not get into the merits of that particular vote at the time — or I presume he's not going to — and we can just carry on with the amendment. But the point is well taken.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, with respect, it is under stood that "A member shall not reflect upon a vote...."  refers to expressing opinions about the vote itself and why people voted a certain way. That's what a reflection means. I was not doing that; I was simply reading from the record of votes and proceedings as to which group of people voted which way on a simple motion to adjourn the debate. In other words, on August 12 the second member for Surrey....

Actually, this is what happened: he moved a motion that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House, and we had a division upon it. He sought to postpone — that was the purpose of moving the adjournment of the debate — further consideration. He didn't want it dealt with that day.

MR. REID: What time of the day was it? Six o'clock.

MR. HOWARD: Did the member for Surrey say it was six o'clock? If the member for Surrey doesn't remember what happened on that day when he moved the motion — if he was just acting under orders from the government to do what he was told — perhaps I should draw his attention to this fact. After that motion to adjourn the debate to the next sitting of the House was passed, on a division, Mr. Speaker made a statement, the Leader of the Opposition made a statement — I'm reading from Votes and Proceedings for that day — then the House resumed adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 30 and the debate continued. There was activity in between the time the second member for Surrey moved to adjourn the debate.... That's all I'm saying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, hon. members, we've had enough discussion of what is already public knowledge, and if we could return to the principle of the hoist on Bill 13 the Legislature would be well served.

MR. REID: Let's get back to good leadership and good government.

MR. HOWARD: The member for Surrey is finished, with that outburst, I suppose.

For a period of time it was probably a most acceptable course of action socially for women, particularly, not to smoke in public. It was deemed improper at one time, so my reading tells me. It was an unrefined thing to do in public. That gradually altered and women began smoking in public as well as in private, as, I imagine, they did earlier. It became a socially acceptable course of action for women to smoke in public. By this invasion of what was presumably regarded — by those who took part in it — as a predominantly male activity.... Women gradually invaded that, and now that women smoke more, they are risking their lives.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, unless I'm mistaken, the Chair earlier today ruled that it is not so much the merits of smoking or not smoking but rather a motion to delay the imposition of the tax for six months that is before this House. I may be mistaken, but that was my understanding of the Chair's earlier view.

MR. HOWARD: That was mine as well, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken, and if all members in addressing this debate could address themselves to the principle of the hoist motion before us, the Legislature I'm sure the member was arriving at that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: That's what I'm getting to, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be hoisted. I think it should be postponed so that the minister can consider whether or not the tax that he is seeking to impose by the bill itself is at a sufficient level. That is part of my argument, and in support of that I want to make reference to an article in the Vancouver Sun of, as a matter of fact, the day before the member for Surrey sought the support of his colleagues in this House to postpone this debate further. On August 11 there was an article, the headline of which says: "Women Smoke More, Risk Lives." It's a new research study, so it says, in Public Health Reports, a journal published by the U.S. federal Department of Health and Human Services. The study concluded that the "overwhelming reason" — and overwhelming is in quotation marks, saying that

[ Page 1330 ]

came directly from the study — for the difference in longevity between men and women is cigarette smoking. So the more people smoke, the more we don't take the positive course of trying to deter smoking, the more we are allowing the tobacco companies to engage in their advertising, attracting people to smoke, and thus attracting people to lessen their lifespan. And the more women who smoke, the more women there are who get into the workplace, get into positions of prominence in society — and they should have done that a long time ago, in terms of activity — the more that gap between the lifespan of men and women is going to be narrowed. If the government really was interested in preventive health care, and not simply in providing medical facilities to deal with a problem after it happens, then they would have another look at what they were doing with respect to the tobacco tax.

If, for argument's sake, a package of cigarettes costs $1.50 now.... A voice whispers to me out of the ether someplace, Mr. Speaker, that a package of cigarettes now costs $1.50....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One seventy-five in the machines.

MR. HOWARD: What is this, an auction? Whatever it is, I haven't bought a package of cigarettes for a long time. This is what the government should be looking at. If in the normal course of consideration money plays a very important role in the capitalist system and in the activities of human beings, if the government will take the time to examine the level of tax that should be put in place and move towards using that tax as a deterrent and using the income derived from that tax for preventive purposes, for public relations purposes, for advertising purposes, for identification purposes to the general public that smoking is injurious to one's health, then we would be going in the proper direction. That's why I think the bill should be hoisted for six months.

It's an undeniable fact — I suppose it has been so for a long period of time — that the use of tobacco injures a person's health. This recent research study that I looked at says that the "overwhelming" reason for the gap between the longevity between men and women is the difference in smoking. More men smoke than women. But as more women smoke, that's what's going to happen: their life expectancy is going to be reduced. The incidence of lung cancer or throat cancer or emphysema is going to increase. Then the government comes into play and says: after this injury to health has taken place, then we'll put up the public funds to provide the medical facilities — the hospitals, doctors and the like — to assist the person once the damage has been done.

I'm arguing that we must place our emphasis in this society on preventive health care, and not just simply on dealing with the ailment after it happens, saying that it was inevitable. That's the fallacy as to what we're dealing with here. It is simply a bill designed exclusively and purely to raise money — no other purpose. There's no social purpose in it, no preventive health purpose in it, no recognition of the possibility that a heavy tax might deter some people from smoking. It might assist some people in their desire to quit. smoking, and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat.

[11:00]

MRS. WALLACE: I would draw the speaker's attention to the fact that this is the second Tuesday in September, and across this province concerned citizens are joining together in a pause for peace. I would ask leave of this Legislature that we now join with those citizens in a two-moment silence in the cause of peace. I would ask leave, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm asking leave, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Are they meeting at this hour?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, 11 o'clock on the second Tuesday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your point is well taken, but I'm sorry, you did rise on a point of order and gained the floor. There really was no point of order, so I am sorry, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: I am asking leave, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, whether or not that was a point of order, it was certainly tremendously important subject matter. 1, having the floor in conjunction with the member for Cowichan-Malahat, would ask the House to proceed with a two-minute silence period out of respect for those things we are trying to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Shall leave be granted? Leave granted.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There were some noes. I would advise hon. members that it is really not proper that such a motion should be brought forward at this particular juncture of the business of the House. There were some nays that I heard, so perhaps bearing the motion in mind as being a very good one, we could ask the hon. member to continue with his speech.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, in view of the fact that leave was denied, what the member for Cowichan-Malahat has agreed to do is this: if those people who are interested in observing two minutes for peace would like to leave the chamber at this time, we can stand outside and observe our two minutes of silence for peace.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Would the hon. member for Skeena like to continue, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member has concluded his remarks or not, with respect to a bill which is before the House and a motion to hoist that bill for six months.

[ Page 1331 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you hon. member. I did ask the member for Skeena if he would continue the debate, please.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, actually what I was doing was maintaining two minutes of silence and that two minutes has been reached.

MR. REID: It may sound good, but that is not the purpose of the Legislature.

MR. HOWARD: These chatterboxes at the end of the chamber, Mr. Speaker, have little regard for what's proper and decent in this nation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Can we continue with the debate, please.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, without interruptions from those people whose sole activity is to disrupt proceedings in this House, like the member for Surrey and his colleague sitting with him. He had an opportunity to speak in the debate and he took it; good for him.

What I was arguing is that the minister is simply looking upon an addiction of people in order to exploit that addiction for money. He wants to impose a tax, and I am sure that he and his colleagues in the Ministry of Finance, with their computerized operation, were able to sit down and come up with some arbitrary level of tax that wouldn't be high enough to attract people to stop smoking because it hit them in the pocketbook or the purse, but would be high enough to raise the maximum amount of money.

That's a pretty cynical way to approach, I submit, a question — namely the use of tobacco — that has such potential injury and damage to human beings and that does cause damage. I am not arguing the aesthetic aspects of smoking, as to whether one should smoke in the presence of others, in a closed car, or in public places, or anything of that sort. That is a different question. I am talking about a rather cynical government that only has the intention of raiding the purses, pocketbooks and bank accounts of the people in this province to the maximum extent possible, without doing a single solitary thing in the preventive health care field, which is what should happen.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If tobacco were not considered to be such an injurious substance, then why has the Legislature in time past — and this is still maintained on the statute books — determined that it was not proper for a person to "deal in, sell, distribute, advertise or promote the use of tobacco, for the purposes of (a) preventing a consumer or purchaser of tobacco from being deceived or misled as to its character, toxicity, composition, merit or safety; (b) preventing injury to the health of a consumer or purchaser of tobacco; (c) restraining the use and consumption...."? If the Legislature has determined that tobacco is such a substance that it requires to have all of these compressions in place with respect to its use — compressions that relate to safety, merit, toxicity, the character of tobacco and so on.... If it were not such a dangerous substance, why do we have legislation like that on the statute books? The very fact that it is there is tacit recognition that tobacco is injurious to one's health. We know that it is. I suppose there are dozens upon dozens of medical studies that claim and prove that the use of tobacco, in addition to promoting or causing or contributing to cancer, in addition to contributing to emphysema, is also the greatest single contributing factor to heart disease and to heart ailments.

The lives of citizens in this province are being injured every day, and the government, not caring about the injury that accrues to the general public from using a substance, not caring about using the substance itself, simply says: "There is a weakness in humanity with respect to tobacco. We think that that weakness is sufficient that we can exploit it. We care nothing about the health of people in this province. We only care that we can tax that weakness, that we can exploit an addiction." I submit that that is a very improper way for a government to approach tax questions in this province. Far better, if there is any level at which the tax would deter people from smoking, to put this bill to one side and try to determine what that level is. Do some public opinion polls and find out what we have to do to try to assist people in coming to the conclusion that they should not injure their health by continuing to use tobacco. But the government simply says: "We are going to tax the addiction, tax the weakness, and see how much money we can raise from the weakness and from this tradition. We don't care that the lifespan of human beings is going to be lessened by continued smoking. We don't care that people are going to suffer heart ailments and die of heart attacks and heart disease through the use of tobacco. We don't care that people are going to get cancer from the use of tobacco. We only care about the opportunity to reach into their bank accounts and extract $18 million for the balance of this fiscal year, and in a full fiscal year something in the neighbourhood of $25 million — tax income on top of the $26.9 million projected as income in the 1980-81 fiscal year." Surely, Mr. Speaker, it merits more examination than simply saying: "Let's impose a tax and not care about the illness and the difficulties and the injury that comes to citizens in this particular province and in other provinces as well." We note that the minister has a great tendency to look at other provinces and predicate part of his decision on what happens in other provinces, instead of simply looking here.

I appreciate very much the opportunity of having had these few moments. Maybe I'll have another few moments later on, under another portion of consideration of this bill, to expand further upon these opening remarks.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, it is a nice quiet Tuesday morning. I should point out that I have spoken at some length on this bill and I don't want to repeat myself too often during the motion to hoist. I did want to make a comment, though, about the matter raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), requesting leave of the House for two minutes of silence to observe the vigil for peace taking place across this nation today....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I am out of order, but I wanted to point out for the record, Mr. Speaker, that I do believe it was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who said no, in spite of the fact that most of his members did agree, I am a bit disappointed.

[ Page 1332 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are reflecting on a previous decision of the House. We are on an amendment. Would you please remain in order and speak to the amendment to Bill 13.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My reason for standing in my place on the motion to hoist is that this is, once again, a regressive tax. Basically that is why I'm supporting this motion to hoist. A regressive tax means that the very poorest people in our society pay the same rate of tax as the very richest. That, in a nutshell, is what a regressive tax is. When you have this kind of tax on this kind of activity, which in this case happens to be smoking, what we're doing, in effect, is taxing the poor and the middle-income people as much as the rich people.

To people making $100,000 a year in salaries, as some people in this House may be, an extra 15, 20 or 25 cents per pack really doesn't bother them. But what we're talking about here is a regressive tax. We have a large number of unemployed people in our province today. A lot of people are receiving welfare benefits, because they have no choice, and it's harder for them to purchase a pack of cigarettes or a can of tobacco. A lot of people are now rolling their own cigarettes. I see more and more of that, particularly as I travel around my riding. It's one of the few little pleasures they have, particularly if they are not employed.

[11:15]

I'm not sure, but I'd like to think that I've never voted for a regressive tax in this House. I may have, as I just can't remember the many hundreds of motions and bills I've voted for in this House, but at least I've tried not to vote for regressive taxation. I am philosophically opposed to that kind of taxation.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you've been allowing some leeway on the hazards of smoking in this debate, and I think I went into that in some detail in my previous speech. I'd like it on record here this morning that I do not condone the use of tobacco, for all the reasons put forward in this House on the numerous occasions over the past month. Coming from members like myself, because there are several heavy smokers in this House....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you ruled earlier that the debate relates to this hoisting of the bill for six months, not the merits or lack thereof of smoking, nor, in fact, of the harmful effects associated with it. That was and surely is a matter for the main motion with respect to the tax, not this motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken, and I will advise the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), as I have advised other members, that if he can speak to the principle of the hoist for Bill 13, then parliament will be well served. I am sure the member can do that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I can do that quite easily, and I promise you that I will not exceed the scope of debate that has been allowed every other speaker on this motion to hoist. I will not exceed those bounds; it gives me quite a bit of latitude.

The second member for Surrey was allowed a great deal of latitude. I know he is a new member and he has to get his bearings in this House and learn the rules. I might occasionally break the rules of the House, but I don't do it consciously.

1 just wanted to have the hazards of smoking on record, Mr. Speaker. The point I was trying to make before I was interrupted was that those of us who are considered heavy smokers know well the effects of such heavy smoking. I was leading up to how the increased taxes gathered from this product should be put to other uses, rather than going into general revenue. I wanted to say that the hazards are well known, particularly by heavy smokers, and this is the point I was trying to make. No heavy smoker, that I'm aware of, condones the smoking of cigarettes, cigars or all these other tobacco products for health reasons.

I guess I was trying to say that there definitely is a lack of education — it's much better now — about the hazards of smoking. I think the tobacco companies, for starters, should emphasize more the hazards of smoking. I think that part of their profits, and they make very good profits, as you will see if you read the financial pages every year, should go to advertising the hazards of cigarette smoking rather than going into the merits of smoking. I've been a heavy smoker for quite a number of years, and I understand and feel the hazards.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, while it may be appropriate to hear at some other time the member's views regarding the hazards of smoking, I wonder how that relates to a motion to delay the passage of this bill for six months. It's a tax measure bill and a hoist motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order, as raised previously, has been well taken. I'm sure the hon. member, as other hon. members have, can speak totally in order with respect to what he wishes to say, and also make it relevant to this hoist motion.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order the minister raises, the member is using the information that he has now as a reason to discuss the hoist. The minister knows that and is just trying his very best to have this debate protracted as long as possible. He obviously loves sitting in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You've made your point of order. Thank you, that's sufficient. If the member for Mackenzie can continue on the principle of a hoist.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was speaking on the principle, because once again I was leading up to several reasons why I feel the bill should be hoisted for six months. I was trying to outline to the minister why he and the government should consider hoisting the bill for six months.

One of the things the government could consider during that period of time is how the government could get involved in a public education program, utilizing the taxes that they are now gathering, and have been for some months — even though the bill has not passed this House — on how the government should spend this extra $18 million they're going to raise with this increased tobacco tax. The minister might consider, during that six-month period, entering into a public education program dealing with the hazards of smoking. The Ministry of Health and doctors across this province should be directly involved in this program. Mr. Speaker, I think you're old enough to remember the radio programs where the doctors used to get on during the commercials and advertise a certain brand of cigarettes. For example, they would say

[ Page 1333 ]

they'd been smoking Winstons or Camels for 30 years and they were good for you. Well, that's all a thing of the past. You will not hear a doctor nowadays condoning the use of tobacco, even if he smokes. The Ministry of Education should be involved in such a program. The six-month hoist would give the minister time to get together with his colleague the Minister of Education and launch a program in our schools, particularly in the lower grades. I've found, in my own family, that while individual teachers deal with this topic in the schools.... My children used to come home and lecture me on why I shouldn't be smoking — and they were right, but a little too late for me.

But what I'm saying is that these kinds of programs work. Some of this tax money now being gathered by the provincial government would be better spent on a public education program, rather than the government spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fly around in jet planes paid for by taxpayers' money.... Is this where my tax dollar is going when I buy a pack of cigarettes? Are my tax dollars going to fly cabinet ministers all over this province in jet planes, particularly back and forth to Vancouver, to fly over to Europe and stay in the most lavish accommodation?

I'm suggesting to you the reason for the six-month hoist would be for the government to consider spending some of this money on public education programs. That's the main point of my discussion this morning. Now, you know, I could spend the rest of my speech talking about the hazards and having the minister leap to his feet on points of order. That was not my intention at all. The only reason I dwelt on it as long as I did was because.... It really wasn't necessary. If the minister had been listening he would have understood exactly what my remarks were leading up to and it would have saved him the problem of jumping to his feet every few minutes.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's the main point I wanted to make this morning. I don't know how much longer we'll be discussing this tax. The other main point I wanted to make, though, which was important to me was that.... I know I'm repeating myself, but I think this is the most important point to people who actually buy cigarettes, cigars or tobacco of any kind on a daily basis. This is a regressive tax, a tax that affects the low-income people much more severely than those people who are fortunate enough to have a steady job, be making good money, be at the executive level or be sitting on the treasury benches in government. They don't really feel it with their incomes; they don't feel the pressure on them. But particularly for those people who aren't working, or are looking for work, one of the few little pleasures they may have is to roll a cigarette and have a cup of coffee. Many of these people can't even afford to buy a case of beer any more, quite frankly, or the few other little pleasures in life which many of us take for granted. In principle I am opposed to regressive taxation. I'm not condoning the use of cigarettes, but there are, to me, two very important reasons why I got up this morning — and we will presumably be voting on this hoist — the regressive tax issue and the public education angle.

Public education could reduce the incidence of the use of tobacco of any kind in this province, I would guess, by 25 percent in one year and possibly 35 percent over a two-year period — if people really knew. The most important thing we're talking about, and why some of these tax dollars should be used for that purpose, is our young people. We all know — and you're the age, Mr. Speaker, as I am — that after you've been smoking for some time you understand the addictive aspects of smoking and the health hazards. It's very difficult for us to quit, but one of my own children, who started to smoke, I would guess — well, when I found out about it — probably around 17, quit when she was 21. She wasn't a very heavy smoker, but she quit because of the health hazards of smoking. I'm sure I wasn't a very good example to her in that regard. But in any event, I believe that the type of public education system required in our school systems is important, and I hope the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) will think about these remarks.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is that this legislation be hoisted for six months, and the reason that we on this side of the House would like to do that is that we would like to give the government time to reconsider this legislation. Because of the hoist we're asking for and the reconsideration we're asking for, we think it's only incumbent upon us to give reasons to the Legislature which we want the minister to think about during that hoist, so that the minister is better able to make up his own mind as to whether he thinks this is a motion that he can support. I know that when the minister opened the debate he didn't have a closed mind. We're hoping that no cabinet minister has a closed mind, that they will listen to arguments from the opposition and then either accept or dismiss them based on their own analysis and common sense.

[11:30]

We've pointed out that in many aspects this legislation is really much like a sales tax, that the proportion of a person's wage he spends on cigarettes or tobacco products depends on how much money he makes; that any time you have this kind of a taxation it weighs more heavily on those who are either poor and on welfare or some sort of social assistance, or who are the working poor. Any time you have this kind of tax, it does prey more heavily on them.

I was interested to note that a new report has come out of the congressional bureau of economics within the Congress of the United States, where a recent study done by that rather independent body — independent, at least, from the administration of the United States — has found out that the tax measures of the Reagan administration have hurt the poor and have been no noticeable impediment to the ever-increasing amount of money that the nation is spending. It is also interesting that one of the reasons there isn't the lobby in this country to promote cigarette smoking and tobacco usage.... There isn't a noticeable lobby in this country like there is in the United States, primarily I think because we are not a big tobacco producer and we don't have one area of the country that is a big tobacco producer. In Ontario we have tobacco production around Tillsonburg in southern Ontario and in that general area; but I don't think even Ontario sees it as one of their major economic producers. Therefore we as politicians in this country don't have the kind of pressure on us that the American politicians have to satisfy the lobbyists for the tobacco interests. So we know there isn't that kind of pressure on the provincial government or on us as legislators. We are relatively free of lobbying, which does allow us to take a more objective look at tobacco taxation.

Why would we want this bill hoisted? Why would we want the minister to think about it? Number one, we feel it is an unfair tax in that it does tax the poor more than the

[ Page 1334 ]

wealthy; number two, we don't believe that when you are addicted to a drug such as tobacco, that the cost of that drug is any real incentive as to whether or not you are going to carry on with that addiction. The addiction seems to override economic considerations of whether they are going to continue with that addiction or whether they are going to stop.

Mr. Speaker, we would be much more prone to considering this bill if the government would at the same time lay before us the measures of how they were going to spend this tax from tobacco in an educational program in the schools and a general education program throughout the province. Obviously there's only one way for a civilized democratic society to persuade people not to do something that's harmful to them, and that is through the educational process, not through attacking their pocketbook, especially when it attacks one segment of society more than another.

In this country it wasn't until 1963 that a federal government — the first one to do so — took any real notice of whether cigarette smoking or tobacco usage was harmful to our health. I would like to read into the record what Judy LaMarsh, the then Minister of Health, had to say about this in the federal House. On June 17, 1963, the late Judy LaMarsh said: "There is scientific evidence that cigarette smoking is a contributory cause of lung cancer and that it may also be associated with chronic bronchitis and coronary heart disease. Health agencies, including my department, have a duty to inform the public about the risk to health connected with cigarette smoking." Even though there has been some movement forward by governments to try to educate people as to the hazards to health, I'm appalled when I took at the young people around us. I can't notice that more young people are not smoking today than they did when I was a young person. It's incredible to me that when people of my age bracket started to smoke — and probably this includes a number of people in this Legislature — the only warning we got was from our parents — it was in a sort of half-hearted way — who said: "It will stunt your growth. Wait until you're old enough, and then you can smoke and it's perfectly okay." We weren't warned. I'm not blaming our parents for that. I'm saying that there just wasn't the knowledge around in those days, that good health warnings were laid at our conscience or at our thinking apparatus. We thought it was a big thing to smoke. We thought it made us one of the gang. It's incredible when I think back. I remember the first cigarette I smoked: it made me so dizzy that I had to lie down. I couldn't stand it; it made me sick to my stomach.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is confirming that he was probably the same way. Yet social pressure was such that even with that disastrous first try, the first few tries of becoming dizzy and ill, and having to lie down to get over the dizziness, we still continued to do it because we wanted to be big shots. We thought that it would give us some sort of prestige with our social peers; we carried on with it.

Today, with all of the information that's out and the talks that I've had with my children, I realize the best advice I could give them would be to set an example by quitting smoking, but I'm hooked. I know that I have to make a decision. I'm just putting it off. I hope I don't put it off until it's too late for me. I wish my children at least wouldn't smoke. I realize that my example is the best; in that case I'm not one of the best of parents, I suppose, because I should make up my mind to quit smoking and set that example. But at the very least in this House, all of us as legislators should be more interested in stopping the usage of tobacco as opposed to taxing it. I think there's every indication that taxation does not act as a deterrent; it only means a bigger hardship on some than on others.

I would like to deal with another addiction for just one moment, because I think it points out the folly of all of us. I've taken some cursory looks at the cost of alcohol to the taxpayers. This year we will have a budget in this province of approximately $8 billion. I think I'm being conservative when I say that $4 billion out of that $8 billion — fifty cents out of every dollar taken in by this provincial government — will go out to pay for the effects of alcohol. It's a staggering confession for anyone in this Legislature to make, but I do believe that it's true. I've taken a look at the health budget and the big costs from drinking and paying for the effects of alcohol that are in that health budget. Add to it cigarettes, and there's no doubt in my mind that at least 75 percent of the health budget is spent on paying for the effects of alcohol majorly and the effects of cigarette smoking minorly — fifty cents out of every dollar; 75 cents out of every dollar is spent in the health care budget.

Now to the Attorney-General's Ministry and the costs associated with courts, incarceration, the educational programs and policing. You take a look at alcohol and you are again seeing another big social cost. Then take a look at the Ministry of Human Resources, and you see drinking and the causes of family breakup and the cost of dislocation. Really, Mr. Speaker, you are looking at a society that is laying it on themselves. We cannot make moral judgments in this Legislature as to what people should or shouldn't do. We can, though, I think, help to educate. We cannot legislate these things away, but we can educate them away. You see this government — this Legislature; I'm not going to put the blame on the government — putting more taxation on tobacco and alcohol when in fact we are spending fifty cents out of every dollar that we take in in revenue to pay for the effects of those two drugs. If someone were looking at us from Mars and doing an assessment of us as a society and a Legislature, they would have to brand us as the craziest nuts that you can ever get — both society and us. It is ridiculous, isn't it? We know that prohibition won't work, either with cigarettes or with drinking. That's not the way to do it under a democracy, but we do have an educational process that is available to us. I think we have an obligation to use that educational process in order to cut down alcohol and on the consumption of drugs, be it tobacco or alcohol.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said that they are going to spend a great pile of money to persuade the people of this province that the budget is a good one and that the restraint program and the way it is being brought in by this government is a good one. I'd suggest that more money could be saved if the Premier and his government were to spend that money to dissuade people from using either alcohol or tobacco and in a six-month hoist maybe this government could decide to forgo the taxes on alcohol and save more money by spending money on an educational program that will persuade people to stop smoking, although I have my doubts as to how effective that will be. I think we have to get people while they are young and educate them to the fact that smoking is harmful to their health. Money would be well spent if we were to spend it on advertising programs of that sort as

[ Page 1335 ]

opposed to trying to persuade people that this budget is a good one.

Mr. Speaker, do you realize that if we were to cut alcohol and tobacco out of society, everybody in this province could be paying half the taxes they are paying today? That money could then be used to actually get our economy going again.

What I am trying to say is that the government needs six months, I think, to consider the arguments being put forward by the opposition. Don't dismiss them out of hand. I think the evidence is in that to add taxes to tobacco does not dissuade people from smoking. The only think that will work is an educational program. So instead of raising more taxes on the backs of people who are addicted, and in many cases ill, let's spend money to try to save a portion of the $4 billion that we are going to spend this year paying for the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption. Doesn't it make more sense? If we can actually spend a few million dollars persuading people not to smoke and not to drink, we are looking at saving $4 billion if we are absolutely effective. I don't think we will be that, but surely, with the proper educational program, in the schools, the health care system and public media, we could save a big proportion of that $4 billion we are going to spend this year to pay for the effects of alcohol and tobacco consumption.

Preventive health care in the long run is the most socially desirable way to go, and it just happens to be the most economical way to go also. What could we ask for as citizens and legislator as a more positive way to go than that? When we can combine social betterment with the saving of taxpayers' dollars and the saving of dollars in the economy itself on bad habits, surely that's the way we should consider going.

[11:45]

1 realize that it's always in vogue to tax sin. Somehow as Canadians we seem to get off on that more than our neighbours to the south: that it's always okay to tax sin, that that's more socially acceptable than taxing anything else. If there was evidence that could convince me that by taxing sin we could wipe it out, then I would be more prone to go along with the government; but there is every indication that it doesn't work. I would rather spend money in preventive health care, and what better place to start than an educational program to dissuade people from smoking and using tobacco in other ways. Surely it's a reasonable request that the government consider it for six months; they would surely look better in the eyes of the public. I think as politicians we tend to make a mistake once in a while. We tend to think that the public looks at politicians and says: "If those politicians change their minds on anything we'll consider them to be weak." I think as politicians we all fall into the trap.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that out there in the province the majority of people would consider it strength to reconsider and to change one's mind when presented with new facts — even when presented with an old argument in a persuasive way. Surely the people of this province see more strength in people being able to think things through and having the intestinal fortitude to change their minds and reach new conclusions. Surely they don't see strength as being intransigent — being rigid and not willing to take that second look. The former Premier, W. A. C. Bennett, built his political career on taking that famous second took. If only the son had inherited that quality and not some of the others, it would be a far better province to live in today.

We implore the government to do this: for six months pull this legislation. I think the Minister of Finance could take a look at the health care system and find out exactly, or as close as we can ascertain, what it's costing us every year to pay for the effects of drugs — talking about tobacco. I think those figures could be isolated from the general health care budget, and then we would have some facts in front of us and decide which way would be the best to go. Would it be better to tax tobacco more? Would it be better to spend money on an education program or on telling people about the hazards of alcohol and tobacco? Or would it be better to spend money to enhance the image of the Social Credit Party?

We all know the answer, but in case there are any doubters as to the direction we should go — preventive health care or taxation of sin and sickness.... Which is the best way for us to go? We're not fooling around here with a political question that we can afford to fool around with. We're talking about the health of our citizens. Surely that's above politics. If it isn't, the people of this province had better take a look at every political party in this province and get rid of all of us, because we don't deserve to be here if we're going to put politics ahead of health care. We don't deserve to be here if we're going to put taxation ahead of health. We don't deserve to be here if we don't take a look at all of the facts before we make up our minds as to the direction we're going to go. I don't think we've had that opportunity in the House. I think that the minister can marshal those facts and come back, either next spring or later in this session, and say: "Okay, we're reasonable people in government. We've listened to the arguments from the opposition. They're worth consideration. We've listened to the request by the opposition to have some facts put on the table." The minister, I believe, can get those facts through his ministry. Surely six months is not asking too much. If the minister is serious, we will see those facts back here. If the minister is serious, we will see the government go along with this hoist. If it's only silly, stubborn pride, then, Mr. Speaker, we've come to a sorry pass in this Legislature. Surely the minister wants to show that he is cooperative. That was used many times in the throne speech: that the government feels that in order for our society to move forward to social and economic security, we must have a society that is cooperating with one another. The government put that in their throne speech. Shouldn't it start right here? If you don't want your children to smoke, the best way is to set an example. If we want people in our society to cooperate with one another to help build a better future, surely there is no better method than an example of us in this House doing it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So in a spirit of cooperation, that this government asked for in the throne speech, I and my colleagues are asking that this legislation be studied for six months. We call it, in parliamentary terms, a hoist. What we're asking for, Mr. Speaker, is a hoist of this legislation so that the son can maybe gain the vision of the father, and take that famous second look. Look at preventive health care as opposed to taxation of sin and sickness.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words in favour of taking a second took at this particular bill. Certainly the member who has just taken his place, my colleague for Prince Rupert, has very clearly outlined some of the reasons we believe the government should be taking a second look.

[ Page 1336 ]

Taxation in the form proposed by this bill is doubly difficult for people on low or limited incomes. During the election campaign we heard promises from the present government that taxation would not be increased. Here we are facing a fairly massive increase on an addictive product, and I'm certainly no supporter of that particular addiction, as you well know. The fact remains that it is an addiction; it is a form of illness, and it certainly causes a great deal of illness. Those points have been raised, and I don't intend to reiterate those. But it is most unfair when people are under the stress and duress that they are under today — many of our members of society who are living on reduced and limited incomes — to add this regressive tax as one more burden that they are forced to contend with. That's why I believe that this particular piece of legislation, along with others that are certainly probably more far-reaching and more demanding upon those same people, is part of the whole package. This is part of a series of regressive taxes that this government is attempting to foist upon the public of British Columbia. Without authority of legislation, they have already foisted retroactive legislation, something else that I certainly am not a proponent of. I think therefore that it is time the government did take a second look at this, along with many other pieces of its proposed legislation. For that reason I believe delaying the reading of this bill for six months would enable the government to re-evaluate what they are doing.

We saw some statistics this morning and last week — two series of statistics. One, relative to unemployment, indicates that here in British Columbia we are facing a much worse level of unemployment, a downturn as opposed to an upturn, and the inference has been drawn by many people that this downturn is part and parcel of the kind of legislation that has been introduced in this Legislature, and this bill is one of them.

This morning we saw the report from the B.C. Central Credit Union's economic analysis branch, which has indicated that in British Columbia things are not looking good, that there will be a continuation of the recession. I think it is high time that this government did take a good look at what is happening in British Columbia and consider, frankly and honestly, whether or not the legislation they are putting before this Legislature and proposing to impose upon the residents of British Columbia is part and parcel of the problem. If you are not part of the solution you are certainly part of the problem, and I believe that that is exactly what is happening here in British Columbia. I believe that this government is a very great part of the problem and that this piece of legislation is part of the problem. They are imposing excessive and regressive taxes upon people who are trying to get by, many of them without jobs, many of them with reduced income, and at the same time reducing hand over fist the number of people who are gainfully employed in this province. It's part of a vicious circle, a cycle that goes down and down: the more curtailment in the economy, the less consumer spending, and the less consumer spending, the more curtailment in the economy. As long as you continue to drain out of the consumer's pocket more and more dollars on more and more taxes, we're going to see this downward cycle.

Mr. Speaker, with that I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.