[ Page 2289 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Railway passenger service. Ms. Sanford –– 2289

Conformity of B.C. statutes to Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ms. Brown –– 2289

Mortgage rates. Mr. Blencoe –– 2289

Northeast coal agreement. Mr. Lea –– 2291

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Mrs. Dailly –– 2291

Mr. Barrett –– 2295

Mr. R. Fraser –– 2299

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2299

Mrs. Wallace –– 2304

Alcohol And Drug Commission Repeal Act (Bill 8). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2304

Mr. Cocke –– 2308

Mr. Lockstead –– 2310

Tabling Documents.

Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services annual report, 1982-83.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2312

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with regret that the Rt. Hon. Bernard Weatherill, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and Mrs. Weatherill are unable to join us today in Victoria. We had extended an invitation to them through your good offices, and I know that all members would have been very happy to have the Speaker of the House of Commons here. They're en route through Vancouver from Japan on their way back to London. But it is with great pleasure that we do have with us Mr. Beaumont, OBE, who is secretary to Mr. Speaker, and Mrs. Beaumont. I'd like all members to bid them a very cordial welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my words of welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Beaumont and ask if they have a current copy of Beauchesne or May that they could leave as a welcome gift to this chamber. We'll send them some of our decisions.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce three people in the members' gallery today. First of all, I'm pleased to have one of my four lovely daughters in attendance today. My daughter Gail is in the members' gallery. They take after their mother. I also take pleasure in introducing two free enterprise people in the members' gallery, both young businessmen from Delta: Mr. Bill Sullivan and Mr. Terry Allen.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce six people to the House today. The first is Mr. Garth Pither and his wife Dorothy. Mr. Pither is one of the few western Canadians who have ever received the lifestyle award from the federal government. He is the former chairman of Premier Cablesystems. With them today are Mr. and Mrs. Norm Delgado from Durban, South Africa and Mr. and Mrs. Bob Moog. Mr. Delgado is an executive with the South African Sugar Association and is touring Canada and the United States. Mr. Moog is chairman of the Canadian Paraplegic Association, British Columbia division, and Bob and Eleanor were celebrating their thirty-fifth wedding anniversary this past weekend in Victoria. I'd ask the House to welcome these six people.

Oral Questions

RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). By announcing last Friday that the government will intervene at the E&N hearings, it has — at the last moment, I might add — recognized the importance of the passenger service on Vancouver Island. Will the government reinstate the policy that it had the last time this issue arose, and offer funding for community groups and individuals who are leading the fight to save passenger service on the railway?

HON. A. FRASER: To the member, the answer is no.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you.

CHARTER OF B.C. STATUTES TO
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

MS. BROWN: My question could have gone to the Attorney-General but he's so elusive that I'm going to ask the.... Ah, here he comes — the Attorney General!

MR. SPEAKER: And the question, hon. member?

MS. BROWN: My question to the Attorney-General has to do with human rights in the province and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — just as he settles himself.

Can you advise, Mr. Attorney-General, whether the government is reviewing B.C. statute law to determine whether it conforms to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Could you have answered that, Garde?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I answered it last year. Read last year's Hansard.

HON. MR. SMITH: Indeed, not only is my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs correct, but the review of our statutes commenced some time ago. They are being examined to see if in fact they do conform with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, I expect that the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia will also undertake some examination as well of our civil law to see if it conforms.

MS. BROWN: Is it the policy, then, of the government to resolve any serious doubt as to potential conflict between provincial action and the Charter in favour of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

MR. SPEAKER: That is a policy statement, hon. member.

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm amazed that that question would be asked, but the hon. member should know that in every province in the country, and indeed in Ottawa, within their own spheres the various levels of government are examining their statutes, going back to Confederation, to see if they conform. If they do not conform, then a judgment will have to be made as to whether those statutes should be repealed or whether some other determination should be made.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm amazed that the Attorney-General is amazed when one looks at the human rights legislation on the books and what's happening to human rights in this province. However, as we share our amazement, my question to the Attorney-General is: is the minister reviewing actions which have been taken by your government to abolish human rights enforcement mechanisms in this province, to determine whether that action contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, under the guise of concern about the Charter of Rights, this member wants to debate a bill that's before this House, a bill which will be debated in due course. She will have her opportunity at that time. If she wants to stick to the Charter, I'd be very glad to do my best to address her questions.

[ Page 2290 ]

MS. BROWN: Well, I want to thank the minister for saying he'd do his best to answer the questions on the Charter and state the question again.

What is the ministry doing in terms of reviewing its actions to see whether the abolition of enforcement mechanisms dealing with human rights in the province do not contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

HON. MR. SMITH: This member knows, if she has read that bill, that what she advances here is preposterous, that there is no violation of the Charter, nor is there a derogation of human rights. There is simply another mechanism being created to deal with human rights in a more efficacious and appropriate form.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think that I'm not making myself clear to the Attorney-General or to his colleagues. I'm talking about the mechanism — the abolition of the Human Rights Commission and the closing of those offices....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: That's not a bill. I want to know whether that mechanism contravenes the protection of rights of British Columbians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is his ministry doing any examination of it?

HON. MR. SMITH: Last week her national leader thought it was violating some international treaties to which Canada wasn't even a signatory. Now, apparently, we are violating some unstated sections in the charter. I challenge her to show me where we would come within a country mile of doing that. The bill that my colleague has introduced in the Legislature better protects human rights than the previous one.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, matters on the bills must be clearly avoided in question period.

MS. BROWN: Precisely, Mr. Speaker. I am not dealing with legislation. I am dealing with an action of the government, and the minister keeps talking about legislation. I want to thank him for pointing out to the House that our national leader is also seeking to protect the rights of all Canadians, even as we are doing here in British Columbia. This is the last time I am going to ask the question so that his tutor, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), can give him the final answer, as he has been giving him all the others today. The question again: is the minister reviewing the actions taken on the part of his government, shutting down the Human Rights Commission, wiping out the mechanisms whereby people in British Columbia had access to the protection of their human rights, to find out whether by that act, not by legislation, his government contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

HON. MR. SMITH: We did not, and I am not.

MS. BROWN: You should have said that in the first place.

MORTGAGE RATES

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Many families in British Columbia continue to be stuck with 18 to 20 percent mortgages which banks refuse to negotiate despite the fact that rates have dropped dramatically. What action has the minister taken to require banks and other lending institutions to reduce the hardship of high mortgage interest rates on these homeowners?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the matter of interest rates charged on mortgages is, of course, between the mortgagee and the mortgagor and a condition of that contract. I haven't taken any action to set aside a contract between two parties, although we have had consultation with the banks. In some instances, I may say, some of the lending institutions have worked with the borrowers in trying to resolve some of the misunderstandings and some of the possible comments that were made by staff whereby the borrower felt that they could renegotiate the mortgage. Some of those things have happened.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not sure we got an answer there, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary. Despite what the minister says, the sharp increase in mortgage foreclosures during 1982 has continued and increased by 28 percent in 1983. There is no question that lending institutions are not prepared to renegotiate, despite the fact that rates have dropped. They continue to make horrendous profits from people while they try to keep hold on their homes. My question to the minister is: what consideration has the minister given to proposals to protect homeowners from threats of foreclosures? Food, clothing and shelter are the prime things in this society. Has the minister considered the problem of foreclosures?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member is aware of the contract between the borrower and the lender. Some mortgages were one year, three years or five years in duration. The determination by the borrower was to accept the rate that they felt was reasonable. When rates fluctuate — if they go up or go down — the borrower has certain rights. The lender, who acquires the money through deposits, in some instances, pays interest on the three- or five-year term, comparable rates to offset those rates that are charged on a mortgage. This minister is not about to get into the business of overruling proper legal contracts made between a borrower and a lender.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary to the minister. Many of those lending practices are highly questionable and due to be looked at by this government. I don't think the obfuscation of responsibility is appropriate to these times that many people are facing. My question to the minister: will he take a look at some of the practices of these lending institutions and make recommendations to cabinet and to this House?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, where we have had complaints by consumers we have looked at them and assisted wherever possible, but if the member opposite has certain specific instances where there has been abuse in the field of lending in this province, I'd be more than pleased to receive those instances from him.

[ Page 2291 ]

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary for the Premier, Mr. Speaker, The Premier is on record in this House as having voted for the establishment of B.C. Savings and Trust, an institution that would be able to give direct mortgages to British Columbians, the money to be retained in this province. Given that the Premier has supported the establishment of B.C. Savings and Trust, can the Premier indicate to the House and to the people of British Columbia that he will be bringing forth proposals to see that this trust company is established so that mortgages can be operated and run properly by the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

NORTHEAST COAL AGREEMENT

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Over the past month we have asked from this side of the House that the minister please table in the House the master agreement surrounding northeast coal. The minister has not ever refused; he said it would be "in due course." We think, of course, it's due. I wonder if the minister has decided at this point whether he would let us and the people of British Columbia have a look and table that document in the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to answer that question by asking the member for Prince Rupert what agreement he's referring to. If he's referring to the comprehensive agreement, I think he'd better go look in the library.

MR. LEA: Does he mean just sort of look at the outside of the library? I realize that's as close as he's gotten in his lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a supplementary of the minister. Does the government of B.C. have any specific guarantee that the Japanese market, and the steel producers and coal buyers — whether there is any preclusion agreement that would mean that there would be some penalty if they either didn't meet the cash per volume of coal or the price of coal. Is there any penalty for that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to answer that question and tell him that if he was really aware of what was going on in the world, he would recognize that a year ago last March we brought in restraint, and what we are doing right now is cutting back so that we can keep our industries in British Columbia competitive in a very competitive world, That's what it is all about, my friend. I understand that in my absence you played a bunch of games over there....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that what this little Social Credit government is doing is leading a world trend so that our industry and this government will not be spending the profits of tomorrow's business people.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer is no, that there is no specific clause in the agreement that would not allow for a negotiation downwards of tonnage or price. The minister didn't want to say that, so he went on a rampage. I would just like to have it confirmed. Is the minister agreeing with me that there is no specific clause that will not allow for a downward tonnage or price? Is there a specific clause that won't allow that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I think that the member for Prince Rupert is trying to get me to negotiate commercial contracts here in the Legislature. I have no intention of doing so.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 15.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are into second reading for, on which the opposition has just started the debate, is a bill well known throughout British Columbia. It is the one that will increase the sales tax for all citizens to 7 percent.

At this time, when the economy is in recession, it seems almost incomprehensible to the members of the opposition and also to many people in British Columbia and probably to some who supported Social Credit during the last election that this government would add to the burdens of the people of British Columbia by increasing the sales tax.

At this time there has been no attempt by the Social Credit government to alleviate the problems faced by many people in the low-income bracket and the senior citizens who are suffering the most in a recession. Nothing has been done to help them through this recessive period. Instead, the Social Credit government seems bound and determined to make sure that it's the poor and the low income who suffer the most. Let's face it, the increase in the sales tax to 7 percent may not have that much of an effect on those people who have a very good income and who are working in a fairly high income bracket today, but those who are not, every time they go to buy anything today, find that this increase in the sales tax is making their standard of living increasingly lower.

[2:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Once again, this is the kind of bill — similar to the one which brought about the elimination of the special tax credit for those in need — which shows that the Social Credit government does not have an empathy with or a sense of compassion for those in our province who will suffer most during a recession. There have been many debates throughout many legislatures, I know, on the pros and cons of the sales tax. The New Democratic Party has always felt very strongly that a sales tax is a regressive tax and does affect primarily those who can least afford to be affected, particularly in a time of recession. I don't think there is any question, putting aside the ones in the low income bracket who are going to find this adding to their burdens, but I think the Minister of Finance, who brought this in, is well aware that many businesses have protested further increases in the sales tax. So it is not just the poor, the low income and the

[ Page 2292 ]

senior citizens who are being affected, but also businesses who find any increase at this time in the sales tax is simply going to increase their problems of trying to run a business in a time of recession, with the result that if the businesses find it more difficult to survive with increased taxes such as the sales tax, in time it means loss of jobs. As a matter of fact, I shouldn't even say "in time," because we know that the job situation in B.C. has worsened ever since the Social Credit government embarked on their so-called "restraint program."

In our opinion the so-called restraint program is actually going to result in the exact opposite to what the Social Credit government is attempting to put across to the people of British Columbia. They are trying to suggest that an increased sales tax is actually necessary at this time so that the government can pull itself out of its operating deficit. But here again we part with the Social Credit government and their policies because we say that their policies of increasing taxes at this time — particularly on those who are having great difficulties in business and in their own personal lives — are going to bring about the opposite. The results show, because I think we're all aware that British Columbia is not coming out of the recession, and compared to other provinces, unfortunately British Columbia shows, instead, more foreclosures, as was mentioned earlier in the question period today, and a worsening unemployment situation, not an improving one. What we are primarily trying to bring to the attention of the government in discussing another increase brought in the Social Credit government for the people of British Columbia is that it is a regressive measure that will not help the economic situation but will worsen it.

I referred to it as a regressive tax, and I understand that many people far more knowledgeable in the study of sales tax and its imposition on citizens have made a number of comments stating very much what I have tried to open up with today in the debate: that it is really not going to help our situation. In a study entitled "The Redistribution of More in Canada," Prof. Irwin Gillespie of Carleton University estimated that the B.C. tax system — for taxes imposed by all levels of government — is second only to Ontario's in regressiveness. But we continue to find that despite a promise by the Premier — I believe he did make this promise, and if he did not, he should refute it — never to increase sales taxes, apparently, out of concern that Ontario should have succeeded in being more regressive, first we find that the Social Credit government of British Columbia is not only following Ontario in bringing their spirit of B.C. with all that that goes with it, bringing people from the Ontario government who have actually worked with Premier Davis there, and who are now here advising the Premier of British Columbia, but along with that is coming this very reactionary, regressive approach to handling the economy. It is too bad that the Social Credit members cannot try to convince the Premier of this province that perhaps it would be better to stop taking advice from people who have recently come from eastern Canada and try to work out the solutions here themselves.

If I may be so modest to say it, I think that if the Social Credit government would not just always close their minds when the members of the opposition speak, but would listen to some of the arguments that are being made against the imposition of a sales tax, perhaps the members would talk to the Premier and get him to take a second look at another regressive measure on the people of British Columbia. Making a bad tax system even worse is reason enough not to adopt a tax measure. But in this case we have other reasons. As I have said, many of us do not believe that the sales tax, to begin with, is a good tax. I suppose the only fair tax we can find is the income tax, because we do know if that is applied fairly, which, unfortunately, it still is not.... We find that the sales tax is not a fair tax, because, as I said in my opening remarks, the sales tax affects those who can least afford to pay.

Most people agree that this province is in a particularly fragile state at the moment as far as the economy improving. We see the problems with housing in the United States, and what we had hoped would be an increase is apparently not coming through, and the province of British Columbia is in a very fragile state because of what is happening in the United States. That is why, at this particular time, we do not see any reason whatsoever for the Premier, his cabinet or the Minister of Finance to bring in further regressive measures which will not help the economy but will hinder its recovery.

Adding 17 percent to the sales tax rate and dramatically extending its incidence — as you know it now applies to commodities that it did not apply to before — discourages consumer spending. It diminishes business revenues, and it frustrates recovery.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: One of the government members said that that statement I just made was wrong. For those who didn't hear it I want to repeat it again: adding 17 percent to the sales tax rate and dramatically extending its incidence discourages consumer spending, diminishes business revenues and frustrates the recovery. I claim, in reply to the person who just called out on the floor of the House, and I hope that they will follow me and elaborate why they said no....

Mr. Speaker, I contend that it has already been proven that this increase in the tax and the increase in the incidence is affecting the economy. When someone from the back bench shouts across the floor that my statement is incorrect, I simply must say to them: have they not been watching what is happening in the province of British Columbia, compared to other jurisdictions? I think that they would have to admit that these unnecessary taxes are not helping to improve the economy. The record speaks for itself.

Over the weekend most of us were certainly concerned and very upset to see the increase in foreclosures of homes in British Columbia. When these things start increasing in our province, more than you see anywhere else, you have to say to yourself: what is wrong with British Columbia? I'm contending in this debate that one of the basic things wrong with the Social Credit policy, which is what makes something wrong in British Columbia, because after all they're the government, is this obsession with imposing taxes which will affect consumer spending and small businesses in the province. That is our contention. I want to repeat that the record shows it, unfortunately.

The matter of foreclosures, I think, is a direct result of people who not only have been caught up in high interest rates but who have lost their jobs because of regressive taxation and are unable to meet their mortgage payments. As I read that article over the weekend, I read about one particular case of a man who had striven so hard and yet had great difficulty for about two years in trying to forestall a foreclosure. It was a most pathetic situation. You could understand how this man felt. For the first time he and his wife had a home. Suddenly

[ Page 2293 ]

the whole world falls apart around them, and this home that they hoped would be theirs for the rest of their lives is suddenly going to be taken away from them by the banks.

As I read through it, I don't think anything symbolized more some of the tragedy that is being inflicted upon people in our province today. Surely one of our main objectives in this Legislature is to alleviate these tragedies, not to increase them. I contend that these regressive taxation policies are creating more hardship, not less. That particular man spent two years trying to avoid the foreclosure. He had to resort to everything he could, hoping that in those two years before he faced the court and had his house taken away from him.... He hoped and hoped that the economy would show signs of improving, as he said, so that somehow or other, magically, he would have a job again and could stay in his own house. But in the last two years — and I want to remind the House — the Social Credit government alone has been charge of the economy. It's their policies that everyone in British Columbia has to suffer from. Under those policies of the Social Credit government, this man obviously had to give up hope at last. He has no job, and he lost his house.

[2:45]

Surely the Social Credit members must be concerned. I'm sure many of them are, because they have constituents who are also suffering the same as mine. We're simply trying to say: "What you've been doing isn't working. Your policies are creating more of a burden." If anything showed it, it is this particular act that we're dealing with today. As someone has said, albeit rather facetiously, administering the sales tax changes will probably turn out to be the government's significant job creation proposal. Maybe that's rather cynical, facetious or whatever, but I'm afraid there's a lot of truth to it. How on earth is this increased taxation going to assist in job recovery in the province? Somehow or other the government does not ever outline in detail to us, when they bring in these regressive tax measures, how they are actually going to turn the economy around or how the measures are going to help the government. You see, the government, in the long run, may bring in more money from those who are wealthy and still go on spending, because let's face it: the rich continue to get richer and the poor poorer under Social Credit policies. You're still going to have a certain amount of extra money coming in, but that's going to be outweighed by the thousands of other B.C. citizens who will simply stop buying.

I know most of us in the Legislature are in a fairly good financial position compared to most people. I know that when I go now, and they ring up that 7 percent, I'm amazed at the extra amount. If I'm amazed and express concern, how on earth is someone who is out of work — or is on welfare, UIC or living on a very low income, or is a senior citizen struggling along — going to feel when that cash register rings up these extra dollars, which means so little to those who are rich but mean so much to those who cannot afford to buy any more? That's why they're not buying. You see, it's a very short-sighted approach to solving an operating deficit, because in the long run the increases will not be that great. There are more and more people who are going to say: "I simply have to put off buying those things that I wanted to buy before, because that increase that I'm going to have to pay through the increased sales tax is going to make a difference to me in just paying for my regular food bill." I think the problem is that we sometimes forget what an increase in the sales tax actually means to someone who is in a very low income bracket.

I've had a number of senior citizens speak to me about it. They say: "You know what we don't understand? We keep getting told that the senior citizens do get their increases in time, but every time we get one small increase from the government" — the federal government has primarily been responsible for the old age pensioners' increases — "we find that the provincial government is imposing extra costs on us, so instead of keeping up with the high cost of living, we're going back."

At the same time that the Social Credit government is increasing the sales tax, they are doing absolutely nothing to curtail some price increases in our province. I know that some of the areas are out of their control, but when we hear that the government is also now planning to lift the lid on the rates for our Crown corporation utilities in this province, you can't help saying to yourself: "What is this government really thinking about? How can they possibly think that they can ever come out of this economic mess that we're in by putting more burdens on the people of the province who are the consumers?" Only when the consumer gets out there and buys and spends money can this province ultimately come out of the mess they're in. Yet we're going to find that people in the low-income brackets, senior citizens and others are all going to be faced with increased utility prices because of this government's policies. They're going to be faced with increased sales taxes. They're going to have tax credits which they had before taken away from them. Members who will follow me will outline many other hardships that our senior citizens and others in the province are faced with by the Social Credit government.

I want to go back specifically to the whole area of the sales tax and how it relates to business. I know that as soon as it was announced in the budget that the sales tax was going to be increased, there was an immediate and strong reaction from people, groups, merchants and businessmen, many of whom, I know, are supporters of the Social Credit government. Here is what Mark Startup, executive director of the B.C. division of the Retail Merchants' Association, said after the announcement of the increase: "At a time when recovery seemed to be falling into place, we're surprised that the government has done this. Six percent was too high. We want to be assured that when things get better, the government rolls back the sales tax." But the problem is that it is a vicious circle. How can things get better, as I tried to point out at the beginning of my speech, if the government, by their very own measures of tax increases, encourage a downgrading of the economy? This is something that not only the NDP but many other people who are citizens of our province and who want to cooperate with the government.... They are willing to make sure that everyone pulls in a little bit to help out. Even those people are saying today: "Well, we're watching those policies of the Social Credit government, but if they continue to impose taxes on those who can least afford to pay them, how on earth are we ever going to get out of this mess?"

I think everyone agrees that if there are abuses in government services, then those abuses should be looked after. We all agree that such abuse imposes excessive cost on government. Let's get that out of the way, Mr. Speaker, because the Social Credit government tries to use this business of abuse of services that aren't needed — of people, school boards and municipal councils not restraining themselves. They use this over and over again to convince the rest of the taxpayers that

[ Page 2294 ]

there have been some terrible excesses going on, and therefore people really must be punished. But the interesting thing is that most of the excesses have taken place within the Social Credit government itself. I don't think anyone can deny that.

As we have said out in this House many times during the debate in the last months, many of the excesses take place within the government's own policies. We see enormous sums of money put aside for Doug Heal and his new coordinated propaganda machine, excessive amounts of money at this time to try to sell the public of British Columbia on the fact that the "restraint" program is indeed working. At the same time, I doubt very much if the Social Credit propaganda machine will be coming out with the actual figures on the state of the economy today, which is a direct result of stupid, regressive tax measures. So we simply cannot agree that to impose a regressive form of taxation — and to increase it, as this bill does — is ever the answer. We cannot agree that overtaxing the poor at any time is the way to go for any government which has an ounce of compassion.

If we want to talk about something constructive, positive — we are always being asked, "What are the answers of the NDP?" — why not increase the income tax surcharge on high-income earners instead? Why not? Why does the Social Credit government always look to those who can least afford to pay? I really question the reasoning behind that. Is it because they are the most helpless when it comes to expressing their concern? Are they the ones who can least organize and speak for themselves? Are they the ones who do not come through during election time to support the Social Credit government? Why is it that the low-income earner and the poor always seem to have to suffer under Social Credit government policies? The NDP says: "Why not look at increasing the income tax surcharge on high-income earners?" Was that ever even discussed? When the Minister of Finance closes this debate I hope he will tell us if any consideration was given to doing that. If the situation is as desperate as we have been told and something had to be done to decrease the present operating budget deficit, could the burden have been put on the high-income earners in our province, instead of on the low?

The House and the people of B.C. should have some answers from the Minister of Finance on that matter. I think most people in British Columbia would agree. They want fairness, and fairness is certainly not imposing regressive tax measures on the poor. The people of B.C. deserve an answer from the Social Credit government. Why did you not consider...? Or did you perhaps consider placing a surcharge on high-income earners? Was that ever considered? I think that is something we should know, Mr. Speaker.

When the government allows a system to remain which takes a greater proportion of income from the poor than the rich, when a system exists which imposes greater hardship on some in our society than others, the government becomes almost indecent. A government without compassion, a government that does not show fairness, is indeed an indecent government. When the government makes conscious attempts to increase the proportion of income extracted from the unemployed, when it raises fees to the sick and imposes more hardship on low income families, it indeed does show a lack of concern for the poor of our province. In the area of increased taxation, when you think of user fees.... I know this is getting into the health area, which we will discuss later, but it falls in the whole area of increased taxation, because user fees are a form of taxation. Here again it is the same thing; it is still a regressive tax. And who does it affect the most? The user fee affects those who have the least.

For a government that came from the so-called grass roots and was supposed to have sprung up years ago out of the motivation — as I'm sure most governments originally start off — to raise the standard of living of all the people; to be fair; to bring about policies that would particularly always remain loyal to the fact that the poor of our province must be looked after — and I don't mean in a benevolent, patronizing way — I think that is shameful.

[3:00]

What I'm saying is that I believe the people of British Columbia who find themselves in a low-income situation, most of them through no fault of their own, don't want to be treated in a benevolent manner. They don't want this business of: "We'll look after you." They want what is their right, and the right of all people in this province is to be treated fairly. When we hear cabinet ministers saying, "Well, the people who can't manage can always go to the Salvation Army; the volunteer agencies will help them out," it's insulting to those who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in a situation that is very difficult to manage today in this economy. A government that implies that the only way these people can be helped is by increased tax measures, and if they can't manage to survive then they must turn to the Salvation Army or to volunteer agencies, is turning back the clock in British Columbia. You measure the strength of a society by how it treats its weakest members. By "weak," I do not mean through the fault of those people alone; I mean because of their present financial situation. Most of the senior citizens of this province are in need of proper living standards. The majority of them worked hard all their lives, but most of them found themselves in the position where their pensions were inadequate for a good standard of living when they retired. They do not want to be treated with handouts, and of course that was the basis for creating the old-age pension, when it became accepted that every senior citizen in this province deserved an old-age pension. Prior to that time they were sent, if they had no family, to the poorhouse. We've all read Dickens. I may sound somewhat extreme and maybe exaggerating, but when you have a government that doesn't seem to care any more about imposing further hardships on the poor and the senior citizens, then you have to ask if this government really wants to turn the clock back to the days when people had to put out their hands to government and hope some volunteer agency would look after them.

The NDP has always supported any legitimate effort by this government to reduce unnecessary expenditures, but there is no way the NDP can ever support a regressive tax measure in order to try to meet some of the problems which by and large the Social Credit government have brought on themselves — not in all cases, but in many. When we look at the United States and the kind of things that have been done there, exactly the same policies are spilling over into our province. The Premier and his cabinet obviously seem to be getting advice from the Tories in eastern Canada, who seem to have the same idea of imposing taxes on the poor and not the rich. Then they seem to be looking at what is happening under Reagan in the United States. It's very clear that most of the moves there are for the benefit of the privileged and not the underprivileged. We see the results of that. Suddenly, here in British Columbia, where we have an opportunity to stand out as a very strong province when it comes to commitment to its citizens.... A province that does not look

[ Page 2295 ]

after, with great care and humanity, the poor and the low income cannot be called a province that is really meeting its commitment to the people of British Columbia.

At a time when the cost of living is going up and many of the reasons for the cost of living going up are because of the government's policies.... We in the NDP cannot understand why the Social Credit government wants to continue to add to the cost of living for the people of British Columbia. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, underlying this tax increase is the basic philosophical difference between the Social Credit philosophy and that of the New Democratic Party. For once, I hope the Social Credit government will not continue to be stubborn and obstinate, and say that anything the NDP is pointing out must obviously be fallacious. I wish they would just say for once that perhaps the NDP, in their concern for what is going to happen to the people who can least afford it in this province by this increase in sales tax.... Perhaps just for once they will withdraw a bill that we consider absolutely regressive.

I see the light is on. I had volumes more to discuss with you today, Mr. Speaker, but I thank you for your attention.

MR. BARRETT: I want to raise my small — and I hope significant — voice against this increase in taxation at a time when the government is talking about restraint. What this particular bill does is prove that the government has a number of policies, all of them intended for politics, and having very little to do with economics. At the same time that the government has embarked upon a series of so-called cutback measures, there is no measuring of the fact that the government itself is one of the biggest spenders and essentially has shown no control, in terms of tax collection around how much they take out of consumers' pockets and inhibit the natural return to some stabler economic development.

Mr. Speaker, a government that is bent on fuelling the private sector as the engine for the recovery of the economy would not bring in this kind of legislation. The government has embarked upon a hodgepodge of cliché policies, a hodgepodge of economic porridge, in an attempt to give the impression that somehow they are restraining themselves, at the same time increasing the burden of taxation on the citizens of British Columbia; and concurrent with this it's taking the limits off the increase that the public utilities can charge. There is no restraint on the Crown corporations any more. That has been lifted by the minister. Along with this bill and concurrent with this bill is an increase in taxation on essential services as well, such as an increase in taxation on the use of the telephone.

How can the government sell the argument that they intend to cut back government involvement in the economy when they indeed have exploded their involvement in the economy in an unprecedented manner? How do they expect to convince the citizens of this province that they are showing some modicum of restraint when they indeed have gone wild both in taxation policies and charges on service policies? The minister has given no public explanation. On the one hand he is saying to people in the community: "You can't have this" and "you can't have that." On the other, he's taken the position: "We can have everything we want as government." Where are those hard choices that the minister spoke about which are so difficult to sell to the people of British Columbia? When it comes to government making money, there are no hard choices; it's easy to increase taxes. Just ask the Minister of Finance. He's doing it.

1 want to examine a number of sectors of the economy that have been affected already by this, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry the minister stepped out, but I'm sure it'll be for just a few brief moments. I know the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) will make notes and add his voice against this particular increase in taxation, as it affects consumer matters. Would we not expect that minister to protect the consumers of British Columbia? Or would he just go along endorsing the government, forcing him to be embarrassed publicly as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for not protecting consumer interests? For example — and I want to spend a few moments on one area, Mr. Speaker — the 7 percent taxation on meals over $7. How much money does the government expect to gamer from that new tax? Would it not be useful, Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate on the subject, to have some idea of the economic gain — i.e. hard cash for the government — that causes this much dislocation in an important part of the economic life of British Columbia: the tourist industry.

Have there been any studies at all by the government as to the adverse — or otherwise — impact of the imposition of this 7 percent on meals costing over $7? To my knowledge there has been no research whatsoever, no economic analysis whatsoever, no in-depth study whatsoever of the impact of this 7 percent charge on the whole tourist industry?

Far be it from me to repeat the comments of Mr. Bellamy, an alderman in Vancouver who is also the representative for the Restaurant Association, and a well-known Social Credit supporter. What were his comments, which I am uncomfortable repeating? He says he's been betrayed by this government. I don't know what kind of deal he may or may not have had with the government, but the words "been betrayed" indicate to me that he, as a representative of the Restaurant Association, had no idea whatsoever that the government was planning to implement this increased tax burden on restaurant customers. Should that indeed be the case — and I suspect that it is; that Mr. Bellamy and the tourist industry were not consulted in this matter — then of course we have a government that is operating essentially on an ad hoc basis, with no long-term economic strategy, no fiscal accountability as to why they're moving in this direction. It's purely a government acting out in knee-jerk response to the situation they find themselves in; hardly a fitting way to lead the province out of the mess they created.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

They have created the mess, Mr. Speaker. They've increased the debt in British Columbia from some S4.8 billion in 1976 to just under $12 billion in 1983. A tripling of the provincial debt in eight years, under a government that has been completely out of control in terms of fiscal accountability; a government that has seen fit to wallow in personal luxury when it comes to the travel of cabinet ministers, both singularly and in groups. We have seen public funds expended, these tax funds.... For instance, Mr. Speaker, one minister, because he was an hour's drive away from home, spent 100 nights in a hotel in downtown Vancouver, eating his meals, collecting his per diem, and then travelling back to Victoria the next day in a government jet. Then we have to pay for it out of increased taxes.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, would that the citizens of British Columbia fully appreciate the impact of the fact that the government is

[ Page 2296 ]

increasing taxes here, and at the same time is telling citizens, particularly the handicapped, that they must do without an additional $50 a month. They're putting the people of this province into massive debt from unjustified projects such as northeast coal, when the minister today couldn't even answer a question as to whether or not there is pressure to downsize the amount of money that is being paid per tonne of coal, or the amount that is being shipped, and at the same time burden small businesses in this province through the restaurant industry with a 7 percent tax on a $7 meal.

Perhaps we should be thankful for small mercies. Perhaps the ministers who are eating those meals at public expense have to return some of that money through an additional tax. Perhaps the benefit of this meal is that rather than chastising ministers for running up huge bills and living in luxury, the best way is to charge a tax so that we pay ourselves some of the money back. Or maybe it's an invidious attempt to stimulate the economy by having cabinet ministers lead the way. Maybe indeed it is a mysterious anti-Friedman approach to the economy: wild spending to prime the pump. Maybe these cabinet ministers are sacrificing their bodies in the name of economic restraint. Maybe we should not criticize this approach, because if they are waxing fat — and I use that term literally, not figuratively — at the public trough, they are sacrificing their bodies to spend more tax money to eat well, so that the money is returned to the people of British Columbia. Why else would we have a minister spending 100 nights in the Hotel Vancouver, lapping up food that is served to him on a pushtray at the taxpayers' expense, with no explanation of why this money is being spent? Perhaps it's an attempt to recover from that minister the 7 percent tax. He could pay it out of his per diem.

Maybe what we are witnessing, Mr. Speaker, is a massive personal sacrifice by the cabinet to personally go out there and stimulate the restaurant industry. Maybe there is indeed a master plan. Maybe they have been told not to go home at night and sit down and eat their pork and beans, like any other family in British Columbia. Instead, they must sacrifice to stimulate the economy to accumulate more taxation through this approach, staying at hotels at a cost of $80 or $90 a night in B.C., or $300 to $400 a night outside of B.C. As a matter of fact, we'll have to raise the taxes; the Premier has a habit of staying in hotel rooms that cost $600 a night in Ottawa. Six hundred dollars a night in Ottawa! I wouldn't give you $100 to travel there. What kind of person would spend $600 a night for four rooms and a carpeted floor? That's the kind of bills they run up, Mr. Speaker. Somebody's got to pay for it. So who's going to pay for it? The citizens. How are we going to get the money out of the citizens? We're going to charge them on their telephone calls. We're going to charge them on their restaurant meals.

We don't have any explanation of this policy. One minister has just come back from Yugoslavia — we saw some evidence of his Adriatic antics today — but we don't know how much he spent over there. We don't know what these fellows are doing with public money.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Learning about stable government in Yugoslavia and Albania? Perhaps. But, my friend, I'd like to see the hotel bills. Do they pay in rubles? How do they pay, and who is paying the tax there? This government has gone on junkets. Two of them are going to India. Maybe they're going to talk to some financial guru over there. Maybe the remnants of the raj in India will give them an example of how they too can travel in potentate style.

Speaking of rajahs, let us not forget, as an aside, that a certain cabinet minister spent 100 nights — Arabian nights — in a hotel room. That same cabinet minister appeared at an election rally on the back of an elephant, so maybe he does have the rajah syndrome after all. In the 1979 election campaign that same minister showed up on an elephant and left behind his campaign promises. In examining those droppings of wisdom, we discover that that minister was suggesting that his lifestyle be upgraded, as only that of a cabinet minister in Social Credit should be, while the rest of the peons pay money to support this lifestyle.

Where does the money come from? A 12 percent increase in expenditures this year alone. A tripling of the public debt in eight years alone. An increase to now of $180 million a year, just on interest payments of Crown corporations of the new borrowings by this government. The shovelling out of $45 million cash in the last week of fiscal year 1981-82 into the pockets of B.C. Rail, without any explanation to this House — an additional debt on the taxpayers. It took us 18 months to discover that that $45 million was handed in cash to B.C. Rail on the basis of an advance that is no longer accountable as a debt. And then they have the cheek and the nerve to announce to the public, after they gave $45 million to B.C. Rail, that B.C. Rail made a profit that year. Is there a citizen in this province who would not like to have his mortgage paid for so they could announce they saved money on accommodation? That is Social Credit financing. Give the money out one door, increase the expenditures at an unprecedented rate, eliminate the Crown Corporations Committee, do away with public accounting — but bring in this kind of legislation for financial increase and gain to the government, without any explanation.

Most normal people would be embarrassed by what has gone on fiscally in this province. Most normal people would show some signs of frugal behaviour and some timidity in checking into hotel rooms that cost $600 a night in a time of restraint. Most people would show some caution in not buying wine that cost $37.50 a pop to sit around and talk politics over. But we're not talking about a normal government with normal restraint. There is no restraint when it comes to this government spending money on itself.

We have an example of how this pious government in this legislation, in terms of fiscal goals, is going to take just a little more money out of the pockets of British Columbians. If I were the Minister of Finance, I'd run out of the House too. Why should I deign to listen to this lowly opposition criticize how they spend money? After all, we're just socialists. They're capitalists. When it comes to wasting money, they know how to better than anyone else. Who else would increase the debt by three times without public explanation and tell the people of this province that they're actually saving the money by borrowing their way into this mess? Who else would spend public money to subsidize a coal deal that guarantees massive profits to the private sector and guarantees the subsidy of an energy supply to our Japanese customers, other than a capitalist government that wants to rush to give away the treasures of this province and put us in debt at the same time, and have the taxpayer subsidize it by this legislation? Who else would sit up at night to figure out a way of deregulating the price of natural gas so that the international oil companies will make more money in the sale of our

[ Page 2297 ]

gas, so that we, the taxpayers of British Columbia, have to make it up with taxes of our own? After all, if the citizens of this province have access to those God-given resources and continue to make money from those resources, such as the petroleum corporations have done, they might become sloth-like. They might want to become dependent on the state for a good meal, and only cabinet ministers depend on the state for a good meal.

Mr. Speaker, can you share with this House what the cabinet does when they're on these luxuriating tours? Can you tell me what 100 Arabian nights in the Hotel Vancouver have produced on behalf of the taxpayers of this province? Can you tell me what staying in a $600-a-night hotel room in downtown Ottawa does to titillate the recovery of the economy of British Columbia? Can the government tell me how it will look people in the face on television and say: "Well, we've got to gouge a few extra bucks out of you because it costs money to go to Broadway shows"? We're paying for this. The taxpayers of this province are paying for it. The old, the poor, the retired, the low-income earners, all are paying for this. I know I would be out of order if I made reference to Bill 4, which takes $72 million out of the pockets of the handicapped, the low-income earners and the elderly of British Columbia, so I won't refer to it. But if I were able to refer to it, I would make a comparison between that money gouged out of the pockets of the low-income people to build on taxes such as this that make the rich wax fatter.

Let us take our minds to the expenditure of these tax funds. Here is a restaurant called Toby's. I don't know if it's frequented by cabinet ministers; it's not close to the Hotel Vancouver. It's at 620 Trounce Alley, here in Victoria. The telephone number is 604-382-2923. "Dear Sir or Madam, Social Services Tax on Food." This is an ad taken out in the newspapers. I will not comment on the cynicism that prompts such ads from small business. I'll leave it to the imagination of citizens to do their own examination.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'll quote directly from this ad, the particular part on restaurant meals:

"In order to avoid any confusion (usually done deliberately by government?) which inevitably follows a tax introduction, we wish to clarify the recent tax levied on food served in restaurants in British Columbia. The intention of the new tax is to gain 7 percent from any unfortunate individual who dares to consume food in excess of $7. Alcoholic beverages are not affected — the addition of another hike would drive everyone to drink anyway!"

Now this is a citizen of the community, a small businessman, whom this government purports to speak for. This government's entire raison d'etre is to serve that small business community — and this is their reaction.

"If the total amount of food, coffee or tea or pop on your individual bill exceeds $7, a tax of 7 percent will be added to that bill. If two or more customers share a bill, providing no person's individual bill exceeds the magic figure, the total bill cannot be taxed. In other words, no matter what the total comes to, that bill will not enjoy(!) tax. Our staff have been briefed on this issue, so please assist us by not asking for separate cheques unless it is clear you intend to purchase more than $7 of food. If you do, then please ask your table attendant to give a separate cheque for yourself, and the others at your table can combine their expenses."

Can you see this, Mr. Speaker? What the government has done is engage in a whole new enterprise when it comes to public entertaining. This is a new form of trivial pursuit. It's trivial tax pursuit. Can you not see the games in the coffeehouses, the inns, the restaurants here in British Columbia, calling this whole thing a tax pursuit — a trivial tax pursuit? Maybe we could incorporate this game. Can you not see citizens who are not at the level of cabinet ministers actually comforting themselves over a $7 meal, knowing they have a night's entertainment to figure out who's going to pay the bill to avoid the tax? I think it could be a great social event. Bring along a cabinet minister. Buy him a meal and he'll tell you how to beat the tax. Just get on the public dole. This is a public ad, and I've seen no response by the minister. They're fiddling with your tax formula, Mr. Minister. Have you chastised them publicly? Have you said naughty, naughty? In the military service they call it dumb insolence. I just call it silence.

The last paragraph says:

"We shall be pleased to assist our valued customers should they have any questions regarding this tax. We cannot guarantee we can explain the sanity or logic of the minister who introduced it."

Mr. Minister, do you hear what they're saying about you out there? This has been a matter for court cases before, vis-à-vis the famous "com flakes in the morning" case. But there has never been a direct assault in the public media as to the sanity or.... What is the other word here? "We cannot guarantee we can explain the sanity or logic of the minister...." This is obviously a public attempt to besmirch the reputation of the minister, and I want to know if the minister is going to sue them for libel or for telling the truth.

[3:30]

Now I want to go on further to quote the rest of this paragraph. It says: "We do, however, recommend that you watch what you consume, and if you dare to enjoy our food and spend more than $7, not only will you be taxed but you could run the risk of having the Ministry of Health taking some punitive action against you for overeating!" This is signed: "Yours sincerely, Toby's Restaurant." It's an advertisement that appeared in Monday Magazine on the twenty-first day of the seventh month in the year of our Lord 1983. I ask the minister: does he intend to take legal action against the slanderous statements against him personally by the manager of this restaurant? That's one issue we have to deal with. Does the minister intend to initiate libel action against these people for questioning his sanity? We need to know, because if the minister's not prepared to defend his sanity, what are we dealing with here? It is a puzzle and a conundrum, Mr. Speaker: if the House is asked to debate legislation about the introduction of which citizens are questioning the sanity of the minister, we are entitled to know whether or not that minister claims sanity or any defence against libel.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, at this point we are engaging in personal reflections on another hon. member of this House. Perhaps if we could avoid that type of reflection and stick to the principle of the bill, the parliament would be well served.

[ Page 2298 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not I, sir, who am raising these questions. I am bringing to the attention of the House — which indeed, sir, since you've raised this, may be a matter of privilege.... Do citizens have the right to call ministers of the Crown crazy? Do they? Not me; I know what the rules of this House are, but here we have citizens in a paid for advertisement in the newspaper questioning the sanity of a minister of the Crown.

MS. BROWN: It's not for the first time.

MR. BARRETT: It's not the first time, but it's unique nonetheless. I am not a psychiatrist, but I am a student of human behaviour.

MR. KEMPF: You badly need one; there's no doubt about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That's also a personal reference.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, that is a personal reference; it's not a newspaper ad.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A device such as a newspaper ad may not be used to make unparliamentary references to another hon. member in this House.

The member for Omineca on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'd certainly be very willing to withdraw that remark if the hon. Leader of the Opposition would do so as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that point's well taken. If we can stick to the principle of this bill and not use devices to bring unparliamentary references to the House, then the Legislative Assembly will be well served.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge withdrawals are not conditional on bargaining. The rules have to be adhered to in this chamber. However, if the member for Omineca is concerned about the question of sanity, the ad does not refer to that member. As unfortunate as that may be, the ad does not refer to that member; therefore my private opinions of that member cannot be changed. I have the highest respect for his mental capacity and his emotional stability; not so much his political judgment, but that's a separate matter.

Having said that, I want to know whether the House will initiate action against the owner of this restaurant for daring to question the sanity of a minister of the Crown. That, sir, is in order. Will there be a matter of privilege initiated by the government against this restaurant that has placed this ad calling into question the sanity of the minister? Now, sir, I ask you to rule on this: will you initiate proceedings in this chamber on privilege against this restaurant for daring to question the minister's sanity?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will rule on it right now. Questions of privilege are entirely in order when they're introduced at the earliest convenience. However, they would not be in order during debate on Bill 15, and I would therefore ask the member now taking his place in debate to relate his remarks to Bill 15 or to discontinue his speech.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not make any further reference to this, but I was so moved, sir, by your argument of privilege that I was forced to embark upon some straying from my otherwise confined notes on this subject — the fact that the minister was being besmirched by this ad. Perhaps, sir, with your advice, I will bring in a matter of privilege to have this restaurant owner called to the bar, sans alcohol, to explain why he's questioning the sanity of one of the members of this chamber — not as a group, but as an individual. It's threatening. However, we'll leave that to another day.

Nonetheless there is such disrespect flowing throughout this land because of the lack of logic of this legislation that there are murmurrings from the unwashed out there about the sanity of the government — not the minister, because that would be incorrect for me to suggest. But the sanity of the government collectively is something that is a matter of great dispute amongst the population. Why have they driven small businesses to write such ads? Why have they driven supporters of their own party — albeit without too much faith — publicly to call the government collectively "dumb-bells," as reported of the assessments of Mr. Don Bellamy, the alderman in Vancouver? I would not call the government "dumb-bells," but it took a member of their party to call them "dumb-bells" around this legislation.

There is no logic to this legislation. There is no financial accountability to this legislation. This is a government that is squeezing pennies out of the ordinary citizens of British Columbia, making a mockery of some sense of responsibility in spending money, while at the same time luxuriating in expenditures on their creature comforts.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, not you, Mr. Member. You're being cut out of the picture. You were almost up to the trough until they shut off the Crown Corporations Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To Bill 15, please.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you're quite right, but I wanted to point out to that member that he has been relegated to the dense-pack. These taxes will go to pay for the accounts of the ministers and of Crown Corporations Committee chairmen who will no longer have the opportunity of tasting the benefits of office. I know I am stretching it, so I'll leave it at that point.

Somebody pays. Somebody has to pay for those hotel rooms. Somebody has to pay for the meals. Somebody has to pay for the $12 billion debt that this government has piled up, an increase of $8 billion in eight years — a billion dollars of debt a year. Who is it they are asking to pay? They're asking the citizens of British Columbia to pay, pay, pay. Restraint? In a pig's eye it's restraint! This is a move to gouge the public of British Columbia. That gouging pays for, albeit a small amount, the spending habits of the cabinet and this government.

There is a tremendous flood of statistics and studies and examinations of the import of the increase in sales tax. But let me quote to you a brief analysis from the Vancouver Province of Wednesday, August 24, 1983. I want to quote the headline: "B.C. Budget Pushes Up Cost of Living." Is that restraint? Is that caution? Is that a government demonstrating that we must bring the cost of living down? This is big government on the

[ Page 2299 ]

backs of little people in the name of restraint. Who's kidding whom? The Vancouver Province is a known free-enterprise newspaper. It even supports this government. That stretches anybody's credibility, but they are willing to risk their own credibility. Nonetheless, this is what they say: "The Bennett budget has driven up consumer prices in B.C. In its latest consumer prices report, Statistics Canada says the cost of living in Vancouver in July jumped 1.1 percent from June." The government did that, not the private sector and not the trade unions. The government alone, in initiating action through this budget, drove up the cost of living 1.1 percent in 30 days. That's the second highest in the country, according to the article, after Regina, and compares with just 0.02 percent in Calgary and Toronto, the lowest in the nation. The annual inflation rate in B.C. in July was 5.8 percent, up from 5.1 in June. In one month, seven tenths of a percent increase in the rate of inflation in the province of British Columbia, and it is directly related to these increases in taxes, all in the name of so-called restraint or masqueraded in a program that wasn't fully explained to the citizens of British Columbia.

"The report says the escalating cost of living here is due to tax hikes in the Bennett budget, plus higher telephone and cablevision rates. B.C.'s tax rate on all goods and services subject to the social services tax was raised to 7 percent in the budget and extended to cover more items.

"Nationally, the annual inflation rate eased slightly to 5.5 percent in July, down from 5.6 percent in June."

Even the hated Liberals — and Lord knows there are no adherents to that particular government's philosophy, except a few malcontents who joined the present administration.... I think about four of them were Liberals before they saw the light and sang "Hallelujah!" and adopted Social Credit colours and have gone on to rewards ever since. Far be it from me to invoke the name of the Prime Minister, but even the federal Liberal government could take some comfort from the fact that they actually dropped the rate of inflation by one-tenth of one percent in the month of July, and British Columbia bucked the trend and went up seven tenths of a percentage point.

"The annual inflation rate is now almost half the 10.9 percent recorded in July 1982. However, the rate is up from 5.4 percent in May, which represents the lowest increase in more than ten years. Food prices rose 0.6 percent in July, compared with an increase of 0.2 percent between May and June, leaving them 2 percent higher than a year earlier."

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about food as a required commodity. When we see a significant increase in the price of food, the price of clothing, the price of housing, that is the one time we have an opportunity to measure wage-earners, pensioners and millionaires. If one is a super-wealthy person and a multi-millionaire, does a 0.2 percent increase in the cost of food or a 0.7 percent increase in the cost of living affect them very much? The answer is no. But if one is a marginal income-earner such as an MLA — as compared to a cabinet minister — that 0.7 percent could be very threatening. Now I don't see a caucus revolt, but those poor lowly back-bench MLAs, Mr. Speaker, who live on such timid wages and can't live the way cabinet ministers are living, have to pay the same increase. So if it's unfair for them, it's unfair for other citizens.

Mr. Speaker, as I come to the end of my participation in debate, I want you to know that 1, sir, am considering a personal move on a matter of privilege attacking this ad for questioning the minister's sanity. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that luxuriating cabinet ministers cannot expect the public to be unconcerned about their spending habits out of the pockets of the taxpayers. So I suggest: why increase the taxes? Just pay some of the bills yourself. We're not in the business of providing high-style living for politicians, and that's what's happening with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to support this legislation.

[3:45]

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to add some remarks to this debate, and would point out that it's my observation that when the government spends money on programs, some people complain they're not spending enough, and when they don't spend money, complain they are not cutting back enough. If the ministers go out on a sales junket on behalf of the province, they complain, and if they don't go out on behalf of the province, they complain. I also note that some of the debates on other bills — namely, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, where we had some 15 hours plus of debate deciding whether or not the government should raise the tax on a package of cigarettes by a dime.... I suggest to you that some of those arguments were far from serious when it came to content; in fact, they were more interested in time. And the fact that the two recent speakers on this bill spoke for the full term indicates to the public the kind of problems we have, the problems the government has in getting some of the legislation passed.

With respect to this particular bill, I'd like to point out a few of the things that are exempt from this tax: food products for human consumption, school supplies, children's clothing, printed and bound books that contain no advertising and are published for educational purposes, some medical supplies, fire-alarm devices, yard goods sold for making clothing, work-related safety equipment, wood when used as a fuel, and draft beer — Mr. Speaker, a very important one indeed. A 1 percent increase in the sales tax will make no difference whatsoever, and I would suggest to you — to the buying public at least — that if you want to put it into perspective, if a merchant had a sale, you would hardly expect people to come charging into the store if you said you would cut the price by 1 percent. In fact, if you want to get a sale going, you have to go 20, 30, 50 and sometimes higher. So the significance of 1 percent is lost, Mr. Speaker, but it does bring some revenue to the government so that the government can provide those programs that are determined to be essential. That is why I will be supporting this bill.

MR. D'ARCY: It's a delight to be speaking at this time of the day for a change.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: In answer to the shouted comment from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I'm far more experienced at speaking at 3:00 in the morning than 3:00 in the afternoon. I'm looking forward to having that opportunity again, and I hope to hear the member for Omineca speak at that time of day. We haven't heard him yet, and I know we will. We'll have the opportunity.

[ Page 2300 ]

Mr. Speaker, to quickly comment, the member for Vancouver South said that draft beer was not affected by a sales tax. I think the breweries of British Columbia would be delighted to hear that they weren't going to be taxed any more on the beer they produce, if that's what he's trying to say. However, according to what the brewery operators tell me, they pay provincial taxes through the nose — considerably in excess of 7 percent of the selling price. And the beer drinkers of the province are aware of that too.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe I am permitted to correct or enlarge on any statement I've made....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not enlarge; I'm sorry. Standing order 42 allows you to....

MR. R. FRASER: Well, not enlarge. I didn't mean enlarge. What I meant to say is that that is when draft beer is sold on licensed premises — to make it quite clear and easy for the member on the other side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Just to explain standing order 42, and without taking from the member's time, it allows a member to correct a quotation that might have been materially misquoted. I don't believe that happened.

MR. D'ARCY: Getting into the details of the principles of Bill 15, it is different from most of the other bills which have been debated over the last month or so in this House. It definitely is not a restraint bill. It is certainly not a restraint bill, except to the extent that one could argue — as many spokesmen within the business community have argued — that it puts a restraint on the recovery of the economy of this province. However, in no other way is it a restraint bill. Even excepting the government's sometime adoption of the federal government's guidelines — getting into bed with the federal government over 6 and 5, or over less, as they have in the last few years — we find that this bill, taking the sales tax alone, represents a 16 2/3 percent increase in the retail sales tax in this province. It's certainly nothing to do with restraint, nothing to do with federal guidelines, nothing to do with downsizing government, if the government assumes to take this kind of money out of the private sector.

Obviously, when you effect any tax increase, particularly one of this size — nearly 17 percent in one shot — you are not downsizing government. You are not showing restraint on the size of government. You are in fact expanding the role of government as part of the gross provincial product. You're expanding the government's role in the marketplace, and you are restraining the ability of the economy of B.C., which is all the non-governmental persons in business or otherwise, who want, hope and need to see the economy of B.C. restored, and ultimately — hopefully — to expand to provide the jobs and business opportunities which we all desire for the citizens of this province.

Mr. Speaker, once again we find the Finance minister wanting to make sure that low-income people, the elderly, the poor, the working poor, the underemployed and the unemployed pay not only their fair share, but more than their share. As we've commented before in debates in this House, low-income people have no discretionary spending power. They spend all of their income on essentials. As the previous speaker mentioned, a number of essential items, such as food, are exempt from sales taxes in this province, and have been for some time; it's certainly not new under this Finance minister, or even under this government. The fact remains that a low-income person, a senior citizen, a working poor person attempting to raise a family with dignity, must pay sales tax on many of the items they buy, because they are essential. Those people do not have the discretion to not spend their money. People in our situation, MLAs, probably have some discretionary spending power and can make decisions as to how much to invest, how much to spend and how much to save, and in what ways to spend their money. The working poor, the elderly and the underemployed do not have that kind of power, but the minister gives them no choice. He impacts the effect of this bill on those people.

I'm going to get to the effect on the restaurant and tourist industry in a while. One could effectively say that poor and low-income people will not likely be buying meals over $7, and that's true. But a very important part of the impact of this bill — and I don't believe it's been mentioned in detail by previous speakers — is that very often the only way elderly and low-income people have of contacting friends or relatives, even in emergencies, is by placing long-distance calls, and for a change we find the minister is in fact impacting on those people. Many parts of this province are not served the way greater Victoria and greater Vancouver are, by being able to phone through most parts of the region on a basic exchange bill. There are many parts of this province.... For example, in my riding it costs 30 cents to phone a matter of 15 miles between Castlegar and Trail. That may sound like peanuts, but the fact is that it has quite an impact on low-income people who in many cases must make those calls for health purposes or for emergency purposes, or in some cases simply to phone a friend or a relative.

The Social Credit government in B.C. professes to admire the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. They take great glee when a poll shows the Tories doing well. They took great pride in a recent by-election victory in Mission–Port Moody. I'm not sure the Progressive Conservative Party admires the Socreds that much. But one thing has been noted by tax analysts' commentaries across Canada. With these tax changes — the tax changes package, of which this Bill 15 is one of the most significant — the province of B.C. is now perhaps the most regressively taxed province in Canada. I think that the Social Credit government has to have a real look at that. Although it is suggested that the Davis regime in Ontario is perhaps more regressive, we do know there are close ties between that government in Queens Park and this government in Victoria in terms of technical advisers and political advisers.

Even though sales taxes on specific items in some of the Progressive Conservative–governed provinces in Canada are in fact higher than we find in British Columbia, the range of exemptions in all cases, with the possible exception of Ontario, is much wider than we find in British Columbia. Once again, independent tax analysts whom I have no reason to believe have a political axe to grind — that is, they're not coming from the right or left, or even necessarily the centre; they're simply doing a technical analysis — suggest that the taxation system as it impacts on ordinary citizens and consumers in Progressive Conservative–governed provinces in the Atlantic area — all four of them: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — are in fact less regressive than the taxation regime that we have here in British Columbia. It's also true that Tory-governed

[ Page 2301 ]

provinces on the western prairies, Alberta and Saskatchewan — again, by independent analyses — have taxation systems that are less regressive than the system in British Columbia. When we say "less regressive," Mr. Speaker, not only does that mean that those provinces are more human in their approach as far as ordinary or low income people are concerned; it also means that they have a more enlightened view in terms of retail trade and the multiplier effect that retail trade gives to an economy which is trying fitfully to recover from the economic events of 1981-1982.

For all I know, there may be some regressive taxes in the province of Manitoba, but the point is that we have more of a recovery to accomplish in British Columbia than any other province in Canada, because during the depression of the last year and a half we suffered more in British Columbia. That is in part due to world conditions and in part due to the fiscal and resource mismanagement of the Social Credit government. Nonetheless, we have a long way to go before we get into an expansionary phase in British Columbia. At best we may, by the end of this year, recover a quarter of what we lost in real terms in gross provincial product in 1982. We have a long way to go, and this kind of a bill, this kind of sales tax increase....

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the fact that there does not appear to be a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. As is common practice, I will ring the bells and see if we can summon some members.

There we go. Standing order 6 is satisfied. The member continues.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the hours we've been keeping around here, it's always easy to see ten people in here whether they're there or not.

[4:00]

Getting back to my comments about regressive taxation and the effect on recovery, let alone on expansion of the economy, we have known that the real income gap between what are generally referred to as low-income people and the middle classes, or the well-to-do, has been widening in recent years. I feel this sort of bill is not conducive to narrowing that gap.

The minister has talked — and I'm glad to see him back in the House — in this bill and in others about the government's ability to pay. I would like to talk about the government's ability to tax. When you extract $170 million out of what was in the private sector, even in the most difficult year of 1982 and even during the first part of fiscal 1983, it has the opposite effect of the multiplier effect. Depending on which economist one speaks to — and, once again, it doesn't really matter what part of the political spectrum an economist might see himself in — the fact is that most economists think that if you create spending at the retail level, or at the developmental level, you can have a multiplier effect of perhaps as high as 10 to 1, in terms of jobs that are created at the secondary and tertiary level, increased velocity of funds, expansion of retail sales and that sort of thing. If that is true — and, once again, we all know that economic theories are just that — one must make the presumption that extracting $170 million out of the private sector — the retail and service industry sectors — of the province is going to have exactly the opposite effect, that it could have a contracting and dampening effect on economic activity, on gross provincial product in the province, of perhaps as much as 10 to 1. Here we are dealing with no small amount of money — $170 million is no small amount of money. As I've illustrated, if the contracting-effect theory is true, then we have to assume that this could have a dampening effect on economic activity in the province of perhaps in excess of $1.5 billion in fiscal 1983-84.

Mr. Speaker, I really don't see how we can expect the private sector and the people of this province — the business people, the working people and the investment community in this province — given the dismal state of international and Canadian markets for our products, to recover, let alone expand, when the government deliberately has that sort of dampening effect on the economy of B.C.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We on this side of the House.... It's interesting that we're looking at S170 million out of the economy. I'm sure the minister regrets taking that out of the economy. I don't say that casually; I'm sure he genuinely does regret having to bring in this measure. But he brought it in on the grounds that the government had to have the money in an attempt to reduce its deficit. Of course, we know why the government has a deficit. The government has a deficit because it spent far too much when times were good, and has difficulty when times are tough. But the $170 million the minister says he must take out of the economy, and dampen it by a figure of perhaps $1.5 billion in fiscal '83-84, is almost exactly the amount of money that opposition members suggested the government should restrain itself by in spending during the last two fiscal years ending March 31 of this year. We're talking about discretionary cuts. We're talking about downsizing government, such as the minister says he wants to do, although he's certainly not downsizing government or the government portion of the economy with this bill. It's not part of the restraint package in the normal sense of the word. But the people on this side of the House, I'm sure you will recall, argued and moved motions, in the two fiscal years ending March 31, 1983, that the government should indeed downsize itself, or at least restrain its growth. We actually didn't go so far as to say the government should downsize at that time; we said that the government should at least restrain its growth to the extent of $170 million in such discretionary things as ministerial travel, ministerial advertising, new office furniture — we didn't see why the old furniture budget shouldn't be adequate, if not the old furniture itself — and, of course, new charges for rental accommodation. When the government was supposed to be being downsized, or at least not expanding, we couldn't understand why there needed to be these massive increases in allotments for rent and increased borrowing for the B.C. Buildings Corporation and so on. So, Mr. Speaker, while I know this is perhaps an historical aside — but this is very recent history — if the government had listened to even a part of the opposition's efforts to restrain the growth of government spending in the previous two fiscal years, the minister would have had no need to bring in this legislation and dampen the recovery the way he is doing.

Eight years ago in 1976 I did not anticipate getting up here and having to defend the interests of the retail automobile industry in this province. But the fact is that at a time when we were hoping — and by "we" I mean everyone in this House and in the province — to see a consumer-led

[ Page 2302 ]

recovery, we find that, apart from restaurants and the long-distance telephone charges, which I'm going to expand on later, the one retail area that's really been hammered is automobile retail sales. Clearly there was a good rationale and it was supported by this side of the House in having reduced sales tax on small, efficient cars and on automobiles that burned B.C.-produced fuels such as compressed natural gas or propane. With the changes in this bill, we find that not only does the automobile retail industry — the new car industry — see these tax privileges removed, which I think were important and were endorsed by this side of the House, but the whole industry is seeing an increase to 7 percent.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this is far beyond restraint and far beyond any federal or provincial guidelines — a general 16 2/3 percent increase in sales tax. For the automobile retail industry and for consumers who would be contemplating buying a car in '83-84, it's an increase far in excess of that.

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is very, very bad to bring in any legislation which may discourage those people with savings — those people who may need to buy consumer goods and services — from spending that money, by any overt action of government. Lord knows, that government, being the clumsy organization that it is, is going to do a number of things accidentally that could dampen recovery. It seems very strange for government to want to do something overtly which is clearly going to discourage people from using their regular income or even any of their savings. Study after study in this country have shown that if we are to have a recovery, it's going to have to be consumer led, and that much of that consumer-led recovery is going to have to come from people using savings, perhaps taking advantage of profit-taking from investment. Hopefully it won't be profit-taking from the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I don't think there's too much profit to take there, but perhaps if they've invested money on other stock exchanges they will have an ability to cash in some of their well-earned profits over the past year and perhaps inject that money into the economy of B.C. and help our recovery along in that way.

But certainly, with this kind of legislation, that is not what people would be encouraged to do — shall we say reinvest their savings or earnings in the provincial economy. They are more likely to leave it in something blue chip or even speculative, but outside the province. That's not something that we on this side of the House want to see; we want to see people encouraged to turn their money over in the B.C. economy in some way.

Mr. Speaker, we know that this bill, by having a major effect on consumers, has a major effect on business. Certainly we know that the area where we have seen the largest growth in employment and where most people feel the greatest hope for new employment and recovery in British Columbia, certainly in the short run, lies in the tertiary sector of the economy, especially commercial operations. We read in the business pages of the newspapers that one of the few areas that are bright right now is the commercial operations and the amount of office space taken up by them, especially in the city of Vancouver.

The tertiary or service sector, in general, depends tremendously on the use of the telephone. I spoke earlier about the regressive effect on low-income people and the working poor of the extra tax on long-distance charges. The application of this 7 percent increase on long-distance calls impacts tremendously heavily on the commercial sector of the economy and on the tertiary industry. It impacts on all business and all consumers, but far more, I think, on the tertiary and commercial sectors than on the primary industry sector in terms of percentage of cash flow or gross operations. I would hope that the minister will consider this area of taxation. Whether or not he will make a change this year, I certainly hope that he will consider it at a future time. Once again, if we are to look to recovery, let alone expansion of the economy in B.C., we must look to those areas which are and have been healthy, and not apply sudden new taxes to them.

Mr. Speaker, government spokesmen — apologists on the government side and ministers — have spent a great deal of time talking, both within and outside this chamber, justifying their legislation because of the need for restraint in the province. Well, Mr. Speaker, there has not been a single person on this side of the House, and I know of no one outside this chamber, who has not qualified all their criticisms of government policy by saying that they agree with restraint. I think that, philosophically, everyone in the province agrees with restraint. But there's an old saying about justice and courts....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: I know you're going to be delighted to speak in a little while, member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet). You're going to get up and justify your position on this bill.

[4:15]

Mr. Speaker, a saying in the courts is that not only must justice be done, but it must appear to be done. The same thing is true of Social Credit's restraint; not only must Social Credit and the Minister of Finance, when they approve expenditures, be committed to and practise restraint, but they must appear to practise restraint. There is a lot of skepticism among the tax-paying public towards politicians and governments of all parties out there. When they see legislation such as this, which takes $170 million out of the marketplace — out of the private sector — or they read of expanding the government's operations for advertising and travel or of people making trips to the Adriatic, Korea or India, even though there may be some value out of some of those trips, the fact is that the tax-paying public's belief in restraint, as practised by the government, or their faith in government, becomes somewhat strained.

Mr. Speaker, this sort of unrestrained junketing — when you're talking about downsizing government, an idea we endorse — makes the government's efforts or rhetoric in this regard simply lack credibility. I would hope that when the speakers on the government side get up to defend this bill and justify taking the $170 million out of the marketplace, the private sector, as part of a restraint measure — as I've said earlier, the only restraint aspect of Bill 15 is that it restrains recovery — they will attempt to put some credibility back in the government's promises to make a sincere effort to downsize government and get certain aspects of government out of the marketplace, because this bill puts the government into the marketplace in a much larger way — to the tune of $170 million in this fiscal year alone. And there is no question about it, it has a dampening effect on recovery in this province to the amount of perhaps $1.5 to $1.7 billion in terms of economic activity.

We still do have some inflation in this country and in this province. One would think that with the general level of

[ Page 2303 ]

economic activity and growth there would be little or no inflation. A few years ago — I believe it was in '73-74 — when inflation hit 5 percent, and that was when times were booming along, it was considered to be a crisis by political spokesmen of both the provincial and federal governments. Now we get down to 5.5 or nearly 6 percent in the province of B.C. and it's considered to be good. Well, I don't consider it to be good, but we heard all throughout the sixties, seventies and early eighties, when inflation went into double-digit figures and people saw their savings and retirement benefits eaten up by inflation, and senior citizens in particular got very disturbed and distraught at huge wage and salary settlements, that the terrible thing was that wage and salary increases were causing inflation and crippling the economy.

All those things were only theories, but one thing we know for sure is that in 1983 — I think the Employers' Council will probably talk in greater detail on this when they issue their next economic review — wage settlements in the province of British Columbia have been either zero or very near it. Certainly they have been a a good deal less than the 5.8 or 5.9 percent inflation rate that we have in the province of British Columbia. So whether or not wage and salary settlements contributed to inflation or merely followed it back in the sixties and seventies and early eighties, the fact is that, hopefully, wage and salary settlements are certainly not contributing to inflation now. One of the major components — and certainly a leading component in the sense of being very influential in the B.C. economy — is the smelting and refining and mining operations in Trail and Kimberley, where there was a zero wage settlement this year. There are some clauses which could kick in if metal prices rise substantially and some clauses which could kick in a year or six months from now, but the fact is that during the first year of that contract, May 1 to April 30, there is no increase payable. So one can certainly argue that with little or no increases having been paid in many other contracts, both public and private, we certainly cannot assume that wage and salary settlements have contributed to inflation in British Columbia during 1983, certainly not to the 5.8 percent that we've had most recently.

However, I think it can be argued quite strenuously that because the government, through bills like Bill 15, is expanding its role in the marketplace, taking money out of the retail trade sector of the province, the government itself is contributing to inflation in the province of B.C., not just through this bill but also through the recent application of an ad valorem tax increase on petroleum fuels in the province of British Columbia — and through other bills which have been considered by this chamber.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

We note, for instance, that the inflation rate in the province of British Columbia is half a percentage point higher than the inflation rate in the rest of Canada. This is significant when you consider that for the last 18 months or so, and ending this June or July, the inflation rate in British Columbia was usually less than the inflation rate in the rest of Canada. Hopefully, we were moving towards a situation where it did not cost more to live in British Columbia than in most of the rest of Canada and, perhaps more importantly, did not cost more to do business in British Columbia than in the rest of Canada. Now we find, in July and August, that once again B.C. is leading all of Canada in cost-of-living increases and cost-of-doing-business increases. The major significant thing which has happened over the summer, which has not been to do with the private sector, wage and salary settlements or profit-taking in the marketplace, has been Bill 15 and its companion legislation surrounding the budget.

We can only come to the inescapable conclusion — as many people within the business community as well as many independent analysts have — that the one major inflationary factor in British Columbia, apart from certain structural things which are common all across Canada, which is peculiar to British Columbia is legislation such as Bill 15. I don't think there's any question that the sales tax measure will cost jobs in the economy — not only jobs which are not going to be created, but jobs that will have been lost.

Let's just take the restaurant industry in particular for a moment. We know that they have said some rather uncomplimentary things about this particular piece of legislation. I know the previous speaker from Vancouver East spoke at length about a paid commercial advertisement surrounding the sales tax as it applies to meals. I want to give that company credit, because many of the complaints that I, and I'm sure the minister and others in this House, have heard from individual restaurateurs and from the industry in general certainly were not printable; they certainly weren't the kind of thing that you could put in an advertisement.

I'm not going to go into the detail of this particular advertisement, but at least they took a light-hearted approach in filing their objections to the tax. Sometimes the most effective opposition is showing the silliness in a sort of a Monty Python style of certain things that politicians and governments do. And there's no question that this is a silly application; it is silly not only to apply it to the restaurant industry, but also to apply it only on meals over $7. We know that when the tax came in there was an incredible amount of confusion, which to some degree still exists out there, as to how it should be applied — whether you issued separate checques, whether it was to be averaged or whether everybody should pay it. Obviously, the application and administration of the tax had not been well thought out. But we know the minister and the government have a lot of pride and so they didn't see fit to pull back on it. Mr. Speaker, we're hoping — and I know that the general public, let alone the restaurant industry, would have a tremendous amount of respect for the minister and others in the government if they would say, the way W.A.C. Bennett used to say: "We made a mistake not only in the philosophy of applying this tax to restaurant meals but in the way that it is to be applied and brought in." It would be a major breakthrough in the public's respect for government and the credibility of government if a public admission of failure and lack of planning could be made.

I see the minister returned at the same time my green light came on. I have a number of other things to say; I have no idea whether the opposition is going to desire to give the minister six months to consider this piece of legislation. But I want to talk just for a second, before the red light goes on, about the restaurant industry in general terms, because we are speaking on the principle of the bill here.

We know that in British Columbia over the last couple of years on a per capita business basis we have been unfortunate enough to lose more businesses than other provinces of Canada. I think that's been indicative that our gross provincial product has drawn back more; we've lost more economic activity than other provinces. One of the sectors of the private

[ Page 2304 ]

sector that has suffered the most and had the most bankruptcies — and I think this is true in greater Victoria; it's no doubt true in your area and it's certainly true in mine — has been the restaurant business. It has been the area which has been most heavily hit. There may have been one or two others hit harder, but I think it has been the area that has been the most heavily hit.

Along with many people struggling, many restaurateurs and their — employees are working very long hours, families are working very long hours — six and seven days a week — to stay afloat. Then along comes the government and not only hits them with a new tax, which they must expend employee time and wage cost in collecting a complicated tax, but at the same time discourages individuals with a limited amount of consumer dollars from eating out because anything more than $7 is going to hit the consumer with a 7 percent sales tax. Once again, this is an incredible imposition in terms of the size of the bill. It's far more than any restraint program of 6 and 5 or zero. It's a huge impact and has had a dampening effect not only on what British Columbians spend but on what tourists spend.

I hope to have the opportunity to speak at greater length on some of these things when we get into committee stage, or perhaps if an hon. member brings in an amendment to the bill.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill while the Premier's in the House — oh, don't tell me he's going to leave — because I was quite intrigued hearing him on the media over the weekend talking about the fact that the only papers he liked to read any more were the weeklies. I thought it would be very interesting if I read to him some of the clippings that I have out of a couple of the weeklies that deal with the sales tax bill. I thought that I would be very happy to do this while the Premier was in the House, and I hope he remains while I do this.

The two papers that I want to read from are the Cowichan Leader — an editorial in that one — and the Ladysmith-Chemainus Chronicle — just a news release in that one. Both of these deal with the sales tax on meals.

I think I will start with the editorial from the Cowichan Leader, which I would like to read into the record. This was July 14, 1983:

"We fail to see the logic in Thursday's B.C. budget, which has slapped a 7 percent sales tax on restaurant meals over $7. The measure is a shortsighted one which is uncalled for. In an apparent attempt to gain a measly $15 million in revenue, Finance Minister Hugh Curtis has further increased an already heavy burden on the restaurateur. The last 18 months of recession have been anything but kind to the operators of eating establishments, and those in the Cowichan valley are no exception.

"Now, with some reason to believe that recovery is nearing — and with it a partial return to a better business climate — restaurants are being told to implement a tax which is sure to cut into business. Just how deep the cut will be is unclear. In these times, eating out has become a rarity for most families. Over a year, the 7 percent tax on a family of five could easily amount to more than $100 — and how many dinners would that buy? We can foresee some diners forgoing a meal out because of that. And that's plain bad for business.

[4:30]

"The owners are not the only unfortunate ones. Consider the plight of the waiters, waitresses and busboys. They normally draw minimum wage; tips are counted on to supplement their income. But with this new tax we would wager that the consumer is going to cut down on monetary acknowledgments for good service. The tax can be seen as a tip for the government. Hardly a thought to whet your appetite.

"There is also the chaos caused by uncertainty over how the tax is to be applied. Some restaurants are levying it on the total bill; others are dividing the total by the number of diners and then setting the tax if applicable. Others still aren't even bothering with Victoria's bidding at all. If the Finance minister isn't careful, he could face a full-scale rebellion. If he has to hire more staff to ensure that his regulation is enforced, then the whole process has been defeated."

HON. MR. CURTIS: What date is that?

MRS. WALLACE: It's from the Cowichan Leader, July 14.

"With that in mind, we strongly urge Curtis to reconsider. He may lose a little face, but he will win the gratitude of restaurateurs. And if he really wants to make that $15 million, we suggest a 1 or 2 percent tax on liquor, the government's most profitable product. Booze has to rate as more of a luxury."

Well, that was the editorial from the Leader, and I think I will carry on and read the comments from the Ladysmith-Chemainus Chronicle. It was on August 17, 1983. It says: "Owners Perplexed by Meal Tax. They're Unanimous — It Stinks." This particular article is done by one of the reporters. There's no byline under it.

"It's confusing, unfair, discriminatory. expensive to implement and another drain on the economy. The new 7 percent provincial tax on restaurant meals over $7 is the target of the dislike of all the restaurant owners contacted by the Chronicle last week. Some owners say the tax has already hurt business, while others say it is too early to tell. They all agree it is time-consuming and expensive to calculate.

"Announced in the provincial budget speech, July 7, the tax does not pertain to take-out food. A consumer taxation branch memo says the cost of food served to a group of people can be averaged among the eaters if the items ordered by each are not easily identified. However, an example of a sales cheque for two indicates that the cost of the items has been allocated individually to the customers.

"Managers of the Omega, Inn of the Sea and Napoli's say the tax has already hurt business. Owners of Mariana Lodge in the Ladysmith area and El Meson in Chemainus report that it's too early to judge the effect of the tax. The staff at Napoli's was interviewed prior to the business being sold to" another owner — it had just changed hands at this particular time. "The Esplanace business is now called Northbrook Restaurant."

Interjection.

[ Page 2305 ]

MRS. WALLACE: This is not a magazine, Mr. Minister; this is a news report in a weekly paper — the weekly papers that your Premier said he liked to read over the weekend. I felt it was worthwhile reading this. It's in my constituency and these are concerns of my constituents.

"Tony Monco of both the El Meson and the Chemainus Coffee House says his coffee house business remains stable since menu items are under the $7 mark." A cup of coffee hasn't quite reached the $7 mark yet. "Monco thinks that in general the tax helps to scare tourists away. 'The government isn't cooperating with working people like us. They don't give us a break. We are so pressed by the government in so many ways,' he says."

"Says Omega manager Jim Giannakos: 'We could use a full-time accountant to do this.' He has some examples of confusing situations and says that ministry officials haven't answered his questions. Maybe four people sit down to a dinner and order meals costing $6.95 each. No tax. Then they finish the meal with coffee. Now each meal costs over $7, and all meals must be taxed. But what if one person pays for all four coffees? Does that mean that only his meal must be taxed?

"'Today the restaurant business in general is dead,' says Mr. Giannakes. 'This has cut into business.' Manana Lodge co-owner Thelma Sickle also would rather see an across-the-board tax on meals of all prices — if there has to be a tax at all. She finds the tax discriminatory, since lower-price restaurants and take-out outlets aren't affected at all. Her $4,000 cash register doesn't have a food tax key — she paid $4,000 for a cash register, and it still doesn't have a food tax key — "and is not capable of discriminating between meals under and meals over $7. '1 don't even have a column in my ledger where I can put this damn tax,' she says.

"Napoli's owner William Golf recently sold his business, but if he had remained the owner he says he would have billed the government for the time it is taking to calculate and collect each tax. 'We are cheap employees of the government. It's a hassle. Food is an essential part of our livelihood and should never be taxed,' he contends. 'Next you'll be going to Safeway and paying a tax to feed your family.'

"Inn of the Sea manager Bashi El-Khalafawi calls the tax 'a blow below the belt. It's an added cost to the customer which we don't need,' he says. Although Inn of the Sea revenues usually pick up in the summer, El-Khalafawi" — we have some exotic cooks in the Cowichan-Malahat area — "says...the tax is time-consuming to calculate because the food and bar totals must be separated manually, and meals over $7 separated as well. And he thinks the tax is discriminatory."

So just as a beginner, there are a couple of articles from local papers which indicate the feeling that greeted the introduction of this particular tax on the part of the people who operate food outlets in the Cowichan Valley. In fact, there were some comments that were stronger than that, and I don't intend to read those into the record, but there were some....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No, they were not very nice as far as the Minister of Finance goes, and I don't intend to read those into the record. But I had several calls from operators of eating establishments. I had one the day after the budget was introduced from the operator of York Town Inn in Duncan. He was just fuming. He said: "I've just been taken over the coals by a family that came in here and ordered dinner." The husband's meal came to $7.50, the wife's order was $5.75, and the 12-year-old son's came to $8.95. The husband's meal was taxable. The wife's at $5.75 was not taxable. The 12-year-old's meal was taxable. The mother had been most loud in her condemnation of the manager and owner of York Town Inn because he was charging tax on food for someone 12 or under, someone who would not pay tax on clothing, for example. She was extremely upset about that, and as a result he was dressed down for charging this tax and felt he had to talk to somebody, so he phoned me. He was very upset at having to take this kind of abuse from a customer when he is involved in applying a tax which this government has introduced — a tax, incidentally, without authority of legislation. As is the way with sales tax, we always find that they become effective at midnight the day following the introduction of the budget, and that of course was July 7. Here we are, almost three months down the road, and we are still just beginning to discuss second reading of this particular bill. I think we've had it up once before for discussion. So without any legislative authority, these people in the restaurant business have been asked to collect this tax. As the local owners from the clippings I read from indicated, they felt they should be reimbursed for collecting the tax — that they were being asked to be cheap employees, in fact almost slaves working for nothing for the government, in collecting this tax.

I think one of the points that was made too in one of those clippings that I read was the fact that the people involved in serving the food — the waiters and the waitresses — do work in nearly every instance for minimum wage, $3.65 an hour. That works out to something like $540 a month, a pretty minimal standard of living if you're trying to support a family on that amount of money. It's impossible to do it, really. So they depend upon gratuities. What is happening and what the restaurateurs are suggesting will happen is that people who have to pay that extra money for tax will consider that as a portion of their tip and there will be less money being left in the form of gratuities because the government is taking its little bit. So once again, this government is following its usual trend of hitting at the people least able to pay. Certainly I would agree that there will be less funding left for gratuities. People will just not leave as much money to assist those people who are working for that minimum wage at a level that is far, far below even the poverty level.

As I've indicated, $3.65 an hour works out to $584 a month. That's for 20 working days. The urban poverty level, as defined by the National Council of Welfare back in 1982, came to $1,520 a month. Now here we are, asking someone who is living, or attempting to live, on $540 a month.... I think a family of four is what we were talking about in this particular article. The poverty level for a family of four is $1,520. Gratuities become a very important part. I don't agree with this necessarily; I think that those people should be paid at least the poverty level. But the way our system works, that doesn't happen. So the only thing that they have to depend upon is their gratuities. And they try to give good service and to be extra pleasant in order to get some extra money. It's an unfortunate part of our social structure that

[ Page 2306 ]

people have to do that — that they don't have a living wage as a salary. But that's the way it is. Now this particular tax is going to take away some of those gratuities.

[4:45]

The B.C. Restaurant Association was also upset about the same things the restaurant owners in Cowichan-Malahat were upset about. The president of the association — he's from Okanagan South, incidentally, the premier's constituency — met with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). He said that extra staff would have to be hired in many restaurants to ensure that the complicated tax system is handled properly. He said the association would take the matter to court if necessary. This is a direct quote from Ed Gowe of the South Okanagan Restaurant Association: "No judge in the land would deny me my labour costs for money I spent during the collection of those taxes."

So certainly there has been a lot of antagonism raised by this government in introducing sales tax on meals on the part of people involved in the food industry in British Columbia. And certainly because of its retroactive nature.... It's retroactive from the point in time that the legislation will finally.... I don't have any doubts that it will finally become law, but certainly it's not the fault of the opposition that this has not already become law. It hasn't been called by the government for discussion. So in the meantime, restaurant owners and others — small businesses required to up the tax already in existence to 7 percent — have been obliged to move ahead with collecting this money without any legislative authority and without too much in the way of guidelines, certainly from what the restaurant people are saying. I wonder if those guidelines were in place at the time the budget was presented. Or were they made up hit and miss, after that happened? Certainly we found all kinds of situations occurring where people didn't know how they were to apply this. Was it to be on the total bill divided by the number of diners? Was it to be on each individual meal? If you all had meals that were $6.95 and then somebody decided to order coffee for everybody, did that put all the meals up above the $7 or only the meal of the person who ordered the coffee? I think this is another case of the government jumping into something without really looking at where they were going or having the regulations in place to be able to provide the operators with some specific rules to follow as to how these things were to be calculated.

We had some restaurants advertising a main course at $6.95 and then, as a separate item, dessert and coffee. We had people going into a restaurant, ordering their main course, eating it at $6.95, getting the bill for that and then moving to another table and having the coffee and dessert. That certainly caused some concerns to the ministry officials, because some of the people who were doing this were told it was illegal. Now certainly if you went into another restaurant and ordered your coffee and dessert, there would be nothing illegal about that. But I think that the minister, in introducing this particular piece of legislation, which includes this section in it, didn't really take into consideration a fair and just treatment of the people involved in the restaurant business.

I want to talk a little bit about the telephone tax. When that tax was removed back in 1980, the Minister of Finance said at that time that since many people were dependent upon telephones, especially the elderly, this was an opportune time to exempt residential telephone rental charges from the social service tax. And then he went on to say that long distance calls are already exempt in British Columbia, although taxed in other places. Well, now we're right back into this again under this bill. We are putting this tax back into place. If it was true that people were being adversely affected in 1980 by having to pay that tax, then they're certainly just as adversely effected in 1983 by having to pay this tax — perhaps more so.

We have seen a history in this province of continuing increases in the tax burden. Unfortunately, when we have a flat increase in a fee or a percentage increase in sales tax, it's of course termed a regressive tax — and we've heard that expression used many times in this Legislature. But what it really does is cause a lot more difficulty for the lower-income groups in trying to meet those taxes. It's much more difficult for a waiter or waitress who is working for $584 a month than it is for someone who has ample income to meet those increases. And we have seen a series of increases in taxes and user fees in the last few months and years in this province. We've seen a drastic increase in our hydro rates primarily because of the increase in water licence fees. And there was the increase in capital costs that Hydro was experiencing, with the blessing of this government, for overbuilding its facilities. Now if your hydro bill goes up and you're taking in an income of $30,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year, an increase in your hydro bill is not going to be a worrisome thing. But if you're earning $584 a month and you find that your hydro bill goes up by two or three dollars, that's critical. When you're earning $584 a month, and you find that when you go out to purchase a meal it's going to cost you more.... When you go out to purchase a car — if you're forced to replace your car — that's a major tax item. You know, we had a varied tax in our sales tax on automobiles, so the people who bought the smaller, cheaper car got a lower tax rate. That's gone now with this bill. Again, that works a greater hardship on the low-income people. That becomes the difference between being able to own a car and not being able to own a car for the person who is earning $584 a month.

These are regressive taxes, Mr. Speaker, and when you couple them with so many increases that have been faced by the people of British Columbia over the past few years....

The sales tax is just one of many that has made it almost impossible for people to continue to function — to be able to live, to be able to have a well-balanced meal on the table, to be able to have shelter. We've seen shelter costs skyrocketing in this province. The high cost of interest, not just in this province but everywhere.... Those costs have been going up, up, up. Nothing has been done to limit them. People are being forced out of their homes. I'm very concerned about rental costs. We have had some degree of control on rental costs, and now that is going by the board. When I hear figures like $600 a month for a low-cost apartment being built today, one that would have to rent for a minimum of $600 a month.... People who are earning $584 a month certainly can't afford $600 rent. I don't know where those people are going to go. When you keep adding more and more of a burden on the backs of people like that, it becomes impossible. Sales tax is certainly the thing that we're talking about in this act. This is the thing that is going to be one more burden. It could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Our tax system is certainly not to be applauded, as we look across Canada. We're probably second only to Ontario in the regressive nature of our taxes here in B.C. We had a promise from the Premier a few years ago that he would never again increase the sales tax, but we have had a couple of increases since then.

[ Page 2307 ]

When you increase these kinds of taxes that work the greatest hardship on the low-income people — and I've said this many times in connection with many other bills, but I can't help but repeat it because I'm convinced it's the wrong way to go — you take out of the consumer's pocket the money that he would have normally spent on consumer goods, and you siphon that off into the government's coffers. When there is a limited income, that means that those consumer goods are not purchased. That has a stagnating effect on the economy. If you take those taxes out of the pockets of people with adequate incomes, they're still going to be able to afford those consumer goods; but when you take it out of the pockets of people on an extremely limited income, that cuts into consumer purchasing. It has a bad effect on the economy. It puts small businesses into difficulty. It certainly puts the restaurant business into difficulty. There are only so many dollars.

We are getting increased unemployment. It's a bit shocking to find that B.C. is the one province that has experienced an increase in its unemployment rate, while the rest of Canada has been going in the other direction. I would hope that the government would recognize that. By continuing to pressure the low-income people and siphon dollars out of their pockets by creating more and more unemployment — that's what they are doing.... It doesn't matter whether you're in the public sector or in the private sector, if you're unemployed, you're unemployed. There is no stimulant there, nothing to create an active economy and nothing to help the "fragile recovery" we keep talking about. In fact, it's breaking that fragile recovery. We have to look in a different direction. We have to stimulate the economy, not downgrade it and lessen the consumer's power to buy.

[5:00]

That's what this tax is doing. It is creating a hardship, and it's not fair. Fairness is something that people look for. If the government were fair, and people saw it as fair and just, and if the low-income people could really believe that the sacrifices they were being asked to make were no greater than the sacrifices of large corporations, of government members themselves, I think people would accept it. But people will not accept it when they recognize that it is not fair. Fairness has to be an ingredient in any taxation policy. To tax people who are earning the minimum wage through sales tax and through taxes on their telephone bill, hydro, meals — if they happen to be so lucky as to have a meal in a restaurant — and at the same time to realize that the expenditures of government are not being curtailed, that we are still presenting a budget that is well above the inflation rate — a 12 percent increase as opposed to about a 5 percent increase in our economic growth.... I think people realize that they're not prepared to sit still for these kinds of taxes. We've seen and heard a great deal of confrontation over the last many months. It's because they perceive — and rightly so, I believe — that these taxes are not fair and just, and that they working more hardship on low-income families. It shows a lack of concern for the poor.

Toward the end of last week and today we heard words from the Premier and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that they wanted to get away from the confrontation, that they wanted cooperation. I had hoped that the Premier would have a statement to make to the House today, but unfortunately that didn't happen. Certainly, if there is to be cooperation and consultation, then the first principle the government has to recognize is that the introduction of their restraint program has to be fair, that you don't build restraint on the backs of those least able to pay, that you look toward other sources and ways, that you don't create wholesale unemployment, and that you don't levy more and more fees and taxes which work a hardship on low-income people and really have no effect on people with adequate incomes.

There have been many editorials and articles that point out just how concerned.... I see I have only three minutes left. In those three minutes I think I shall deal with this article which was in the Province in July. This deals with retail merchants — I've talked about the restaurateurs. They said they were angered by the increase in the provincial sales tax from 6 to 7 percent. They went on to say that the people this hurts most are the consumers, and they are going to lose faith in spending. "Generally speaking, we're supportive of the provincial government in its efforts to balance the budget. But if they start wasting that money, we're going to be pretty upset.'" I think that's what we've seen happening. We've seen waste in government. We've talked about it in this House — the $176 million for office furniture, travel expenses and so on.

This is Dominic Watson, who is a consultant to small business groups. He went on to say that the $170 million in revenues from the sales tax and other taxes is "'a substantial increase in the funds the government is taking out of the economy.'" That's the point I was making. "'I hate to be critical of these guys — I'm supposed to be in the same league with them — but they're increasing expenditures by 12.6 percent.'" He said a decrease in sales tax would have been a more logical complement to business incentives introduced recently.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly am opposed to this bill. More particularly am I opposed to the fact that here in October we're debating something that came into being back in July. This retroactive type of legislation is not in the best interests of the smooth operation of the business community in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 8.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG COMMISSION REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Speaking to Bill 8, it's basically a one-line bill which repeals the Alcohol and Drug, Commission Act. To explain it very briefly, the Alcohol and Drug Commission had been operating for a number of years in conjunction with the Ministry of Health. For the past two years, the Alcohol and Drug Commission and the program it was responsible for has been an integrated part of the Ministry of Health. The commission staff have been completely absorbed by alcohol and drug programs during that time. The services have continued to be performed effectively.

During this time the Alcohol and Drug Commission has served in an advisory capacity to the executive director of the alcohol programs. An advisory body will continue to provide such advice to the Health ministry's alcohol and drug program as is required. The advisory role has expanded to include representatives from the Ministry of Transportation

[ Page 2308 ]

and Communications and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, as well as the Ministries of Labour, Human Resources, Education, Attorney-General and Health. The programs for which the Alcohol and Drug Commission has been responsible will continue, and there will be no modification in service to the public.

By rescinding the commission and the act, we are eliminating a very slight amount of bureaucracy with a relatively small amount of cost attached to it. In rescinding the act we reflect the reality of what has been occurring over the past couple of years. Again I mention that there will be no diminishing of service to the public who are served by the Alcohol and Drug people. I move second reading.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we can't understand the objective of this bill. It's a very short bill with one aspect that says what it wants to do, and then the other just tells us when it will be brought into force by regulation.

It's a problem in that the Alcohol and Drug Commission had a function of education that the minister hasn't suggested will be filled by the alternative that he's raised. It hasn't been very effective, I must confess, of recent years. The commission was set up, as you may or may not recall, in that period of light between 1972 and 1975. As I recall, it was in 1974. The reason it was brought in was to have a commission charged with the responsibility of looking into the problem of drug abuse, charged with the responsibility also of assisting in modifying that problem within our community by education, by assisting with planning, funding coordinating agencies, services and facilities — those kinds of things. When you take that back and put it directly in the government's back yard, when the commission is taken away from the arm's-length situation and put into a situation where they're directly under the auspices of the Health department, it tends to reduce the kind of flexibility that they have.

I can understand why there is an antipathy for any of these areas. In 1976, maybe early 1977, the heroin treatment program was brought in as an adjunct to this particular commission. The government was warned at the time that it was an adjunct that would not pay off, and they were warned that it would be a terrible waste of money because they were pursuing the wrong drug in our society.

One of the responsibilities of the Alcohol and Drug Commission has been to decide where the problems are with respect to drug abuse. One of the things they did very early on was to urge roadside breathalyser tests. That went forward, as a matter of fact, under the Socreds, with the vehicles that went around the province. For some time under the then Attorney-General, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the roadside testing was quite an effective procedure. I believe these are the kinds of things that the commission had suggested very strongly, and they were followed to some extent. Then there was a reduction in the utilization of that roadside testing. I believe it's increasing again now, and hopefully as a result of that there's going to be some reduction in drinking-and-driving abuse.

[5:15]

The commission was to be absorbed in 1976 by the Health department, and it was as such. So what we're doing here is saying that it no longer exists, because to some extent it has not existed. We would like to express to the government our dissatisfaction with that. The advisory body that Mr. Mair suggested would be set up to advise the government was of little significance, I must suggest. Then along came the present minister, who announced an expansion of the commission to provide reps for six ministries concerned with alcohol and drugs. He said then that since it was established eight years ago the commission has greatly expanded treatment services. Those treatment services are detox centres and other services related to drug control that I think have helped us. Then he went on to say that now the commission will focus on coordinating these services with other governmental programs. That is what we had suggested was the commission's responsibility in the first place. So we then had a feeling that the present minister would be going along with the original concept. It had been modified in the time of the first two Ministers of Health. But when the new minister took over, he indicated that there would be an expansion of the commission's role. Now suddenly the commission's role is gone altogether.

There is no question that the whole province has been warned of the carnage on the highways. There is no question that there has been insufficient response. I was delighted when the former Attorney-General brought in a bill that would make blood testing mandatory for people suspected of drinking and driving. I think what we are seeing before us now is a de-emphasis — maybe not in spirit, but certainly as it's seen — in the control of drug abuse in B.C. I feel very strongly that the government should telegraph its shots loud and clear to everyone out there that they not only want to stop drug abuse as it relates to accidents, to death and carnage, but also to telegraph the fact and the idea that they want to help people get back to a normal way of life, help people restrain themselves from drug abuse, and educate people — particularly young people — about the dangers of drug abuse.

For a while there was a good school program. That program, while sometimes a little unfortunate in its way of giving the message — a little too heavy, in my view — at the same time had the right idea. There have been and there are jurisdictions in North America where drug abuse programs are very successful indeed. We cannot say here in B.C. that we have very much to hold up our heads about because of the fact that drug abuse in this province goes on — and it goes on mainly in that area of the most widely distributed drug of all, and that drug is distributed and sold by the provincial government: alcohol.

So, Mr. Speaker, that, in and of itself, I think should give the government a sense of responsibility that this is a bill that must be looked upon as one that would worry everybody, not because of what's happening — because really what's happening is a case that comes after the fact.... We know that the work of the commission has been reduced to pretty well zero. I wish when the minister had introduced the bill he had talked about the value in this particular situation of further centralization — centralization around this question of taking care of drug abuse. In 1973 the Foulkes report, which sometimes is a matter of some jests from the government side but which is probably one of the best treatises on health care in our province's history — certainly since 1948, when the only other report that I can recall that dealt with this subject was made.... But, Mr. Speaker, the Foulkes report said:

"The abuse of alcohol and other drugs is a socially and economically important subject in the province. In view of the establishment of the Alcohol and Drug Commission while this report was being prepared, and because of the recent publication of the findings of

[ Page 2309 ]

the federal Royal Commission on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, we did not carry out specific studies relating to drugs other than alcohol. We have reviewed the availability of facilities for the treatment of alcoholism in British Columbia. We found them to be inadequate and fragmented. In addition, we found that the alcoholic is discriminated against even by the public hospital system."

I guess that's our problem. Our problem is one that we have not been seen to have given enough cognizance to even to this very day, because the criticisms that the Foulkes report made then are criticisms that are being made today. Inadequacy of treatment is still a problem, taking a person to a hospital and having to diagnose a peripheral symptom when everybody knows full well that the real cause is abuse of alcohol. While everybody knows that, we're still doing end runs around the system to placate the whole medical and health care fraternity.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that while this is a situation in which there's not much room for argument, other than to say that we think that it's going down the wrong track, we think that there could have been some modification. We think that the minister's earlier suggestion that the responsibilities of the commission be expanded would have been a far better way to go than the way we've gone here.

Is it to save money? If it is, I suggest that it would be a saving at the expense of a far greater expenditure later down the road. We know that in our hospitals something in the order of, depending on where you are, 25 percent to 40 percent of the people treated have some side effects from drug abuse. Most of that drug abuse is alcohol. Wouldn't it be wise, in light of that, rather than disbanding the commission, to find appropriate people with tremendous community concerns and put them to work out there assisting in dealing with this problem? You can tell me that it's a monumental problem and that nobody can deal with it. I agree that nobody can deal with it to the extent that we'd like to see it dealt with, but certainly a great deal more emphasis placed upon the problem would give us, in my view, some respite.

The number of motor vehicle accidents directly attributed to juvenile drinking and driving right now is atrocious.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And older.

MR. COCKE: Of course. But the record of juvenile alcohol abusers at the present time is absolutely atrocious. Now that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is back, I'll once again say that when he set up the Counterattack — and that program at that time was going full bore — I think it did a super job. Then for some unknown reason, that program started to be de-emphasized. Naturally, as a result of that, people grew confident — particularly young people — that they could drive without being picked up for driving with an impaired level of alcohol.

Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is reinforce those programs. There wasn't one word of dissent in this House when the Attorney-General brought in the bill on blood-testing for people who were suspected of being impaired — not one word from either side of the House. We certainly supported it. As a matter of fact, I had a great deal of discussion with the Attorney-General, because when we had the second reading on a bill before that, we said at that time that we felt it should be expanded to encompass that aspect. It took a long time, but that bill is now law. It hasn't been tested, to my knowledge, in any court of the land. When it is I'm sure that it's going to stand up to be accepted. I know a great many people with tremendous civil rights backgrounds who are still much in favour of that particular piece of legislation.

We are living in an age when at once the government has permitted companies selling beer and wine to advertise in the electronic media....

MRS. WALLACE: For the first time.

[5:30]

MR. COCKE: Yes, for the first time — courtesy of the Socreds — in this province for years and years and years. To do that on the one hand, and on the other hand to withdraw the commission that should have been reinforced instead of having been taken away.... We say all these things in the name of restraint, but it's not restraint when lives are lost, property is abused and our health care system suffers the consequences of drug abuse in the people that are going into hospitals and being treated by doctors. That's not a saving. I think it would have been in the best interest of the government, rather than to do what they have done here.... Even if it's appearances that I'm talking about, it's important that the public have a perception that government is very interested in the welfare of the public and is certainly standing in the way of drug abuse.

This government has received letters from people like Dr. Leroux and others, letters that have given a tremendous amount of support for this whole question of standing fast in terms of putting up programs in opposition to drug abuse. Some of these people, of course, have been mightily offended by the change in the advertising program and laws and regulations of our province. They feel that what we have done is become more permissive. Person after person has been affected by the abuse of these drugs — some are more sophisticated in terms of their use. The users are more sophisticated. But the users of alcohol are not the least bit, and they're very easy to spot. The problem is that it is often after the fact that you spot them. I think that most people know that our family has been affected very deeply by this problem. But we're not the only family in the province. Family after family have suffered the consequences of the abuse of alcohol. We don't know how many have suffered the consequences of the abuse of other drugs, because they're harder to detect.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What we do need is an absolute priority for an education program here. If you wished to eliminate from the commission's responsibility the running of "health facilities"....

If the minister is taking the position that a detox centre is part of the whole health delivery system, I would agree with that. The health delivery system, as it is presently constituted, can't do the proper job that it should be doing in terms of education. That's where we're really remiss. That's where we are really not serving the children, the young people of our province. The warnings are not out there — a little advertising here and there, but nothing concerted. There's very little in the schools any more. I know that we have headline after headline. Let me give you a couple: "Grad Party Wrecks Hotel": "Mayor to Tackle Beach Rowdies." They go on and on. We get them every year. I believe the travesty can best be

[ Page 2310 ]

handled in a preventive way. It is far better to prevent the abuse than it is to treat the consequences of that abuse. Wouldn't it be better if we saved a life by prevention than to have to bear the consequences of the loss of that person? Wouldn't it be better if we saved the health care system the costs of the abuse? I think everybody would agree with that.

What I would like at the present time is to give as much applause as I can to the group that set up Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. I remember when they first set that program up, the person who was contemplating it suffered a tragic loss, and she talked to me, among other people — I'm sure she talked to people on both sides of the House. I wondered whether or not it would be an idea to affiliate with the group in California who had then set up MADD. Everybody agreed with her. Do it. To begin with, it was an uphill drive. I watched them in the courts, sitting there court case after court case involving drunkenness, and doing what I considered to be a splendid job of keeping track of what was happening in the court system. That kind of work that they did, day in and day out, has had a tremendous influence in our province. I could see where if, in fact, the commission, instead of being snuffed out of existence, had people of that perspective — not dominating — and others with professional, ability and backgrounds in the subject.... I can see them giving tremendous impetus to this whole question. Instead of that, what we're doing here is saying it's gone.

It's not enough to let it go without a lot more input. I think that the input can only come when you have people from the outside — to the extent that they're not directly in control of the ministry. Why do I say that? It's easy enough for me to say, because I believe that the tendency for employees of a department or ministry is to do the bidding of the master, particularly in times like these when everybody is stretched to the extent of their ability trying to keep things going. The government has pulled in its horns in terms of the expenditure of dollars. It would be advisable to have a relatively free commission — free of these kinds of roadblocks to be doing that work. You can set the constraints. You don't have to give them a boundless budget. We've seen this government give a boundless budget to the heroin treatment program. We don't want to see that revisited.

What we want to see here is a government that shows that it has some flexibility by setting up or expanding, as the minister once said he would, the commission to do a job. I honestly feel that the minister should rethink this thing. I don't know where the advice came from. If he would rethink this thing, we could get along a lot better. We would again see the kind of program that we've seen in the past. Again we would see a little more attention paid. Who pays a lot of attention when a government employee says: "Thou shalt do this, and thou shalt do that"? It's not good enough. Now you can say to me: "Okay, we've eliminated the commission, but we still have the non-profit societies such as Pacifica." We've seen some mistakes in those private societies, and we've seen some that have gone relatively well, but wouldn't it be better if they related to a commission that is outside the direct purview of the minister, a commission that can relate not only to the Ministry of Health but also to the Ministries of Human Resources and Attorney-General, which, it seems to me, have a vested interest in the subject — and to a number of other ministries beyond Health. But instead of that we're not only centralizing in government but we're centralizing departmentally.

One of the reasons we set up the responsibility of the Alcohol and Drug Commission to the Ministry of Human Resources, when it was originally set up, was to actually have it at arm's length from Health. Health is too tied up in treatment and those kinds of things to do a job of educating and putting imaginative programs together. We know that the original commission did some very imaginative programs. Some were not agreed with; some were, and very much so. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that commission should be in its place today, and expanded. I want to ask the minister, when he makes his closing remarks, why he changed his mind. Because it wasn't long after he was appointed — and let me refer to it — that he suggested, when he announced the expansion of the commission, that it was to provide reps to the six ministries concerned with drug problems.

[5:45]

Why has there suddenly been a change of heart? It must be that there was no support for his original idea. Either that, or he's had some — in my judgment — very bad advice, which is easily taken, because what happens in a situation like this is that you say: "Well, we could reduce the amount of money expended." But that's only looking at the amount of money that's expended on the commission, not at the cost benefit of the commission. Was it not cost beneficial? If not, why not? Did it not have the input from different ministries? Was it not a coordinating body, giving an outlet and an opportunity for all the ministries to work on this horrendous program? If it did not, then it should have been re-peopled, because it could do the job. We all know that.

There are one or two of my colleagues who want to say a few words about this bill. We know that it's a fact accomplished, and certainly we're not going to spend the rest of our lives howling about it. I do wish that the government would rethink the matter and would focus more attention on this area. Having said that, I will not be supporting it, but I do hope that we get some kind of an undertaking that the government's going to place a lot more emphasis on the educational aspect of this whole area.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I consider this particular bill to be quite an important bill. It may not be on one of the major lists that I've seen floating around the buildings and in the newspapers, but it's an important bill, and I'm going to tell the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I won't be supporting it.

The previous speaker, the member for New Westminster, I think spoke very well and eloquently, and probably said all of the things that the rest of us are going to say. However, I did want to get up and speak on this bill because of a particular problem we have in one of the communities that I represent. It happens to be the community I live in. Before I get into that particular problem, which, by the way, has now been finally solved.... But the fact was that it took us a year and a half, and I must have had at least six or seven letters from the ministry, and two or three from the minister himself — nice, pleasant letters — in response to my requests and phone calls and things. But the fact is that for a year and a half we had no drug and alcohol counsellor in my community.

I guess one of the points I'm trying to make is that in the smaller communities around the province, perhaps alcoholism particularly is more noticeable amongst all of the population, and it's more noticeable because people tend to know each other and each other's business a bit more than they do in large communities and cities like Vancouver or Victoria. So

[ Page 2311 ]

when someone has an alcohol problem, you can see that the problem is quite noticeable, people will tend to talk about it, and those kinds of things.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's certainly busy in here, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just keep talking.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I'm going to keep talking, because I'm really talking for the record. But I feel quite deeply about this particular bill before us, and I know the government members obviously don't. They've got the big majority over there, and they're just going to abolish the commission. I don't remember the Premier telling the people of this province in the last provincial election: "If you vote for me we will abolish the Drug and Alcohol Commission." I don't remember that as a plank in the Social Credit campaign. I'm not going to dwell on that aspect of it, Mr. Speaker, but I was just attempting to get the Premier's attention — and yours; thank you. But I do feel very deeply about this bill, although as I said I don't want to dwell on it all afternoon — although I guess I could. We could all discuss cases and cases that we've worked with over the years, particularly as MLAs.

I mentioned small communities, and I wanted to say something else. Most of the smaller communities have a weekly or biweekly newspaper, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell you that every week they print the court news — convictions. At least half, and I would say in some issues two thirds.... I would bet you that two-thirds of the convictions that were printed in last week's Powell River News dealt with alcoholism.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not necessarily. Yes, a lot were driver suspensions, and in our case the local court has sometimes ordered people to go for treatment as part of their sentence. When you go for a year and a half or longer without a counsellor in a small community, where do you go for treatment, particularly if you're lucky enough to have a job? Do you have to leave the job? You lose your pay; you've got to quit your job to go for treatment if you have no facilities in your community. What do you do if that's the court order or if that's the person's will, what a person desires — to go for treatment voluntarily? How do you do that when you have no counsellor in a smaller community, an area — in terms of Powell River — with a total population of about 22,000 people, which is quite a large area?

Even the company, MacMillan Bloedel, that operates the large pulp mill in that particular community, had a system for some time working with the local drug and alcohol counsellor to assist employees who voluntarily recognized that they had a problem. This was prior to that counsellor leaving and not being replaced. As far as I'm aware, that program, which was greatly assisted by a large private company in this case — and I commend them for it — went down the tube, because the government, for some reason or other.... It wasn't lack of personnel, as I recall — I haven't had time to go through the correspondence — but a lack of funding.

You know, the work that the Drug and Alcohol Commission is doing.... And I'm really serious about this. It's a really serious problem in British Columbia, and I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, in my view this is very short-sighted thinking by the government. There will be no saving in dollars to the taxpayer or the the Treasury Board. It will make no difference to the budget of this province. We have ministers travelling around the world at taxpayers' expense, accomplishing nothing and coming back to this House from these extended trips to Europe without even reporting back.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. House Leader for the government, it happens to be absolutely true. You cut a commission like this, which is serving some useful purpose for literally thousands and thousands of British Columbians, and you guys spend money like it's going out of style while you're talking restraint. What has doing away with the Drug and Alcohol Commission got to do with restraint?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What has that got to do with the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: I was just about to remind the member that....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's a one-line bill. You should be able to understand it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All it takes to wipe out democracy in this province is one line, if they want to go that way. They're going to get me mad. I was only going to go five minutes, but I'll go....

I won't talk about the $18 million the government has put in their advertising budget for this fiscal year so they can tell people what a great job they're doing, while the Alcohol and Drug Commission and the handicapped go begging for money. There will be no savings to the taxpayer whatsoever in the long run, I guarantee you, if you do away with that commission.

I am going to echo the words of my colleague who spoke just before me. I think prevention and education is the proper way to go in the long run — recognizing the problem. I am sure that most people in this House do recognize the problem. I can only suggest. I can demand, write letters, do anything I want, but the government is the government, and I'm afraid they've made up their mind. However, I'm going to ask the minister to seriously consider, please, at least taking this bill before the Legislative Standing Committee on Health and Human Resources and invite doctors, people who have worked with AA, people from Human Resources, from the courts and people who have had to deal with this problem. Find out if you're really doing the right thing. The member over there said that by doing away with this commission the taxpayers are going to save $2 million. I don't believe that. That Drug and Alcohol Commission was performing a very useful function for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of families in British Columbia. They were keeping families together. I really do wish the minister, in closing this debate, will take my suggestion seriously and not cast it aside. Take this bill before the legislative Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources.

Do you want to adjourn?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought you were finished.

[ Page 2312 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am finished.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Then he'll close.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, he won't.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members will not discuss House business across the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It was just a friendly question to the House Leader. I've made my points and I hope the minister has paid serious attention. I don't believe that part about saving $2 million.

MRS. WALLACE: I move adjournment of this debate until later today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the 1982-83 annual report of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.