[ Page 2365 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Private hospitals. Mrs. Dailly –– 2365

Creation of special accountability team. Mr. Skelly –– 2365

Universities minister's scheduled address. Mr. Nicolson –– 2365

Financial aid for post-secondary students. Mr. Nicolson 2366

Agriculture minister's office expenses. Ms. Sanford –– 2366

Funding cuts to Legal Services Society. Ms. Brown –– 2366

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

On the amendment

Mr. Hanson –– 2368

Mr. Skelly _ 2371

Mr. Passarell –– 2376

Ms. Sanford –– 2381

Mr. Reynolds –– 2385

Division –– 2385

Mr. Lauk –– 2386

Mr. Howard –– 2389

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I have guests in the members' gallery today, very good friends from the central Fraser Valley, a retired businessman and his wife from Abbotsford, Mr. and Mrs. Jacobson. Would the House please welcome them.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Hille from North Burnaby. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. MOWAT: Today we have in the gallery the president of Everest and Jennings Canadian, the largest manufacturer of wheelchairs and medical aids in Canada, Mr. John Cowan. He's out in the west looking for a plant expansion program. Will the House welcome Mr. Cowan.

MR. VEITCH: In the galleries is Mr. Mike Rizothanassis, chartered accountant from Burnaby. I'd ask the House to welcome him.

Oral Questions

PRIVATE HOSPITALS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. In a speech last Friday to the B.C. independent care association, the Minister of Health told the private operators that private hospitals will play a bigger role in the future of B.C. health care. Will the minister explain what role the government has decided on for private profit-making facilities in our health care system?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's very close to a policy question. Nonetheless, an open-ended question invites an open-ended response.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Pricare people are responsible for the operation of intermediate care facilities in the province. Many of them do it in an exemplary and cost-efficient manner. I advised the people from Pricare that unlike under a former government they will not be encouraged to get out of business. Rather, they will be encouraged to stay in the business, and the private sector will be asked to assist the government in providing services in the intermediate care area. They will not be discriminated against, but will be encouraged to be involved in that field, saving the government money not only in capital expenditure but frequently in operation costs as well. They are a very welcome partner in the field of intermediate care in B.C.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Health aware that making the private sector responsible for the provision of health care increases the overall costs of service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not aware of it because I don't believe her statement is correct.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have taken those statistics from a speech made by a well-known Canadian, Mr. Justice Hall, whom I think we are all aware of, and his background in the whole matter of studying health care. It was through reading his statement on the increased costs.... I know I'm not supposed to be answering the questions, but I would like to follow on and say that a number of statistics do show that health care costs are increased. An examination of United States health care, where most of the hospitals are private, shows that the administration costs definitely increase. Will the minister assure this House that before he attempts to privatize our health system in British Columbia he will study in great detail the effects of the increased costs of privatization of hospitals?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry the member seems to be as confused as she is today. In speaking to the Pricare people in Vernon last Friday, I told them they could expect to play a major role in their area of intermediate care. The private operators in the intermediate-care area are welcome in British Columbia. They perform a good service to the people, frequently at considerably lower operating costs than so-called non-profit organizations. They have a role to play; they will be invited to play that role. Mr. Speaker, that is not privatizing — whatever that rude word means — the health care system.

MRS. DAILLY: A further supplementary. I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister — unfortunately for the people of British Columbia — is very confused about the basic principles of medicare.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's not under medicare.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned....

We know it is not under medicare, but my question to the minister is: if he has to this date allowed private profit-making institutions to continue in British Columbia, will he now assure the House that he has no intention of allowing the privatization at any time of our present public general hospitals?

MR. SPEAKER: Future action, hon. member.

CREATION OF SPECIAL ACCOUNTABILITY TEAM

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. A source close to the provincial government has revealed that the minister will create a special accountability team to check regional district operations. Will the minister advise whether he has selected former Municipal Affairs minister Dan Campbell to head this team?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm sorry, but I really don't wish to comment on speculation.

UNIVERSITIES MINISTER'S

SCHEDULED ADDRESS

MR. NICOLSON: A question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. This is Universities Week, and it's my understanding that the minister was scheduled to give an address at the University of Victoria today. Why did the minister cancel?

HON. MR. McGEER: Standing order 8 states that every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless

[ Page 2366 ]

leave of absence has been given him by the House. I recognize that the members of the opposition, having consumed days of debate in this House, frequently do not feel obliged to attend the House even to record their vote on a bill, particularly with the opposition, in its infinite capacity for leisure...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...having to appear for these recorded votes after the hour of 6 in the evening.

MR. SPEAKER: The scope of the answer must not exceed the question.

FINANCIAL AID FOR POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS

MR. NICOLSON: A new question. I assume that the minister is a member of the Council of Ministers of Education. I would ask, then, whether he was party to an agreement referred to in a letter of July 29, 1983, from the Secretary of State, Serge Joyal, in which he said that provincial aid will not be reduced as a consequence of increased federal aid to students. That was a letter in connection with the almost 100 percent increase in the federal student aid program.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: The minister may wish to answer, but I would remind all members that the reading of telegrams, letters or extracts from newspapers in oral question period is an abuse of the rules of the House, as is clearly pointed out in Beauchesne.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if the member consults his estimate book and the budget just this once — I recognize that this is a rare and difficult matter for the members opposite — he will see that the allocation for student aid last year and this year is the same, thereby answering his question.

MR. NICOLSON: I would ask the minister to then explain why federal aid has been increased by 50 percent but provincial distribution has been decreased by 16 percent.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member's statement is incorrect. Again, I refer the member and all hon. members to the estimate book for accurate information in that regard. I must confess that I am indignant and distressed by the remarks made by the Hon. Serge Joyal. If he is correctly quoted in the Times-Colonist of this afternoon — which he may not be, because hon. members are not always accurately quoted — then he is not telling the truth to the Canadian people.

AGRICULTURE MINISTER'S OFFICE EXPENSES

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister advise why spending in his office, for office salaries, has increased by 23 percent compared with last year?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that perhaps ought better to be addressed during estimates. However, I can bring the detailed answer to the House.

I don't have it with me at this moment. I will do that; I'll bring it to the House.

MS. SANFORD: When the minister is bringing the answer back, I wonder if he would also give the House the reason why the minister has decided to spend these additional funds this year, when the government is firing employees and eliminating services allegedly for reasons of restraint.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I'll bring that answer. I'm sure the hon. member will be satisfied.

FUNDING CUTS TO LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General. The Legal Services Society is being taken to court; it is being sued as a direct result of the cutback visited on that society by this minister's government. Can the Attorney-General tell the House whether he will abide by the court's decision, and that if the Legal Services Society is found guilty he will restore their funding so they will be able to carry through their tasks?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I believe that implicit in that question somewhere was a legal opinion.

MS. BROWN: No, I would never ask the Attorney-General for a legal opinion. Never!

HON. MR. SMITH: I once gave her advice as to how to defend a case under the noxious weed act.

I find it hard to give you an answer to a question in which you allege a legal action against the Legal Services Society, without telling me what the action is. I assume it is not a criminal prosecution and that the Legal Services Society would not be found guilty. If somebody is suing the Legal Services Society — as I take the question to imply — for some service that was rendered, and that is being defended, I think she should give us the details and maybe I could respond more fully.

MS. BROWN: A supplemental to the Attorney-General. The Legal Services Society is being sued for refusing to give service to someone who needs to be defended, and the Legal Services Society is saying they cannot afford to do that because their funding has been cut. If the courts decide that that person should have had the services of a lawyer from the Legal Services Society, will the Attorney-General restore the funding of the Legal Services Society to a level that would make it possible for them to carry out their task?

HON. MR. SMITH: Unlike the questioner, Mr. Speaker, I will not prejudge the decision of the courts, but I will honour and respect the result.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that it does my heart good to know that the Attorney-General will respect and honour the decision of the court. What I was asking the Attorney-General, however, was whether he was prepared to restore the funding of the Legal Services Society to a level that would make it possible for them to defend the people in this province who need their services.

[ Page 2367 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: That is precisely what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. People who most need legal services in this province are those charged with serious criminal offences and are before the courts for the first time. They receive full legal aid, and they are the ones most in need.

MS. BROWN: The Legal Services Society is saying that it lacks the means to meet its statutory obligations, They, apparently, have a different opinion than the Attorney-General as to who the people in need are. What has the Attorney-General decided to do in order to see that the statutory obligations are met by the Legal Services Society?

HON. MR. SMITH: By introducing estimates which in a time of major reductions and stringencies in spending provide for the same amount of money for legal services as last year, save and except the deficit that was picked up last year — the same operating money which will be fully debated in the estimates. I also have announced in this House, in response to the member's question, that I am going to constitute a full task force on legal aid composed of members of the bar, the judiciary and laymen to look at and to recommend future long-term legal aid priorities and funding.

I and this government take our legal aid responsibilities very seriously. But the public of this province expect good return for legal aid. They expect priorities to be set. They do not expect legal aid to be on demand, and they do not expect government to respond to every case and every demand on legal services, but only on the basis of priorities and reasonable policy.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period. The member for Skeena has advised the Chair that he has a matter of privilege, which takes precedence.

MR. HOWARD: As I indicated to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, I do rise on a question of privilege, this being the first opportunity for me so to do.

My question of privilege is that specific action has been taken which tends to obstruct and in fact does obstruct members in the discharge of their duties and which also constitutes a form of molestation. In regard to molestation, I need to refer to May's Parliamentary Practice, nineteenth edition, page 148, under the subheading "Molestation of Members While in the Execution of Their Duties." Thereunder is cited a resolution of the House of Commons at Westminster, namely that: "The assaulting, insulting or menacing any member of this House in his coming to or going from the House or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and a high crime and misdemeanor."

Part of my complaint regarding the breach of privilege relates to the menacing of members as far as their behavior in parliament, or the Legislature, is concerned. In short, members are being menaced or threatened with a certain course of action unless they behave in a certain fashion. With regard to obstructing members in the discharge of their duties, the very acts of menacing, threatening or molesting — not in a physical sense — result in obstruction.

It may be that Your Honour will not find a specific case in May's Parliamentary Practice to parallel what I am about to identify, for you are faced here with a situation which appears not to have occurred in the Mother of Parliaments, nor indeed even to have been contemplated.

I have been informed. and have every reason to believe that information to be accurate, that there exists a timetable for the passage of legislation through this House, and that the manner in which House business is being called for consideration, the hours of sitting, the use of closure, and the actions of certain members who occupy the Chair from time to time are all for the purpose of serving that timetable, all of which constitutes a breach of privilege of this House. If Your Honor finds that there is a prima facie case for breach of privilege, I have a motion founded on such a finding, which I intend to move at the appropriate time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, without prejudice to any claim that the member may have, will review the matter and bring a response back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I didn't want to interrupt the question period, but it seems that more and more during question period the members of the opposition are making mini-speeches which they claim serve as preambles to their questions. I think perhaps it might be the appropriate time to reinstruct the House on the nature of question period and the types of preambles permitted.

MR. NICOLSON: I wish to give notice on a matter of privilege involving statements made just now by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is aware of no such proceedings by which a member may gain the floor. However, I would ask the member to bear with me one moment while I consult on the matter.

Hon. member, please proceed if it is in fact notice of information the member's not yet fully in possession of.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. Partially because Hansard is running behind, and it would be necessary to examine the exact statements made, I would give notice of intent to raise a question of privilege. I have seen, in reading the authorities, that such a practice has been allowed in certain instances, in Erksine May. I would undertake to reapprise myself of that information and bring it to your attention as well, Mr. Speaker. The statement was made by the minister that if I would look at the estimates for this year — I assume he was talking about Vote 24 — I would see that the same amount had been allocated as in the previous fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, I have before me the estimates for the fiscal year 1983-84, which definitely show a decrease.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly at this stage the member is engaged....

MR. NICOLSON: This is a matter I would bring up at a future time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That's understandable, hon. member. At this time the member is pursuing the matter which in fact he is advising the Chair he wishes to study further. On studying it further he may or may not wish to pursue the matter formally, having accordingly preserved his position.

[ Page 2368 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on Bill 15.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

HON. MR. SMITH: With leave, may I introduce a group of students who have just arrived in the gallery?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have a very pleasant duty in introducing to the House a number of grade 5 students from Fairburn Elementary School whom I had the pleasure of lunching with. It's a school in my riding. They are on a gifted program and they are a delightful group of students, very knowledgeable and up to date on parliamentary practice, and would, I'm sure, if they were now to sit on the floor of this chamber, be an adornment. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Rita Randle, and two parents, Vinnie Chadwick and Sharon Patton. They are Giles Bodley-Scott, Miles Cane, Anna Chadwick, Jennifer Foreman, Megan Griffin, Julie Halket, Melanie Johnstone, Jennifer Lewthwaite, Allison Patton, Sheila Shoja and Heather Teichrob. I would ask you to make welcome this group of future parliamentarians.

[2:30]

On the amendment.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our motion to set aside the sales tax increase, which covers a number of very important components, for a period of six months. Our argument is that the increase is ill advised, it will do damage to the economy and will inhibit the fragile recovery that seems to be lingering somewhere in the future.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

Just prior to the break, I was pointing out that the increase in sales tax from 2 percent to 7 percent for energy-efficient automobiles is a retrograde step. Our argument is that the government, pursuant to the rules of this House, should appoint a standing committee to travel throughout this province and take into account the economic conditions prevailing in different regions. I know, for example, the introduction of a 7 percent tax on restaurant meals is causing great hardship in the restaurant community in my own electoral district of Victoria, but it is clearly something that is inhibiting financial recovery in the small business sector all across the province. If a committee was established in this House and was to travel, I am sure we would receive briefs and suggestions of a constructive nature from the small business community in the retail food trade. Clearly a 7 percent sales tax makes restaurants tax collectors, which they have not been in the past.

It also is an inhibiting force in the economy. A committee, over a six-month period, to hear suggestions on whether it is wise....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe a Speaker earlier in the day pointed out that reference to a committee is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct. If the first member for Victoria was alluding to a committee, then it is out of order. I would ask him to restrict his remarks to debating the hoist.

Hon. member, do you wish me to clarify the ruling?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification, because I didn't understand what the member was alluding to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Very simply if in your debate you were suggesting that it would be appropriate to argue a matter that would be better argued or discussed in committee, that naturally is out of order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, my argument is that.... The reason I'm supporting a hoist motion to set the bill aside for six months is that a committee of this House would then gather information on the merits of a levy such as is proposed in this bill. It has nothing to do with the committee stage of the legislation at all. This would be a hoist motion to set the bill aside and establish a standing committee of this House that would then travel to various regions of the province and gather information with respect to the various provisions of this bill.

For example, a surcharge of 7 percent on telephone calls. The 1980 budget report stated very clearly that a tax on telephone calls was a hardship for the elderly, because the telephone is much more of an essential service for the elderly. As a group in our society they rely upon it, and it is a particular hardship because they're often on fixed incomes, with relatively little disposable income. In other words, the committee of this House would then hear arguments from Silver Threads organizations, old-age pension organizations, various seniors advocacy groups such as the Grey Panthers and others who are advocates on behalf of the rights of seniors, and who protect them against injurious action by their government. I think a committee would take that 1980 budget report into account in its reconsideration of this measure; they would be looking....

MR. R. FRASER: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since your ruling about two minutes ago that the member could not talk about a proposed committee, he has mentioned the word at least six times. The suggestion is that he should be talking about the hoist per se.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In all fairness, hon. member, the example that the first member for Victoria cited as the purpose for the hoist is in order.

MR. HANSON: Implicit in the motion to reconsider and to set aside the bill for six months is an opportunity for the government to gather information to make a different judgment. I think that is the implicit argument that we're making. We know there are indications of a recovery in the United States, slow and fragile as it may be. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a U.S. presidential election in November of next year, and if you analyze the pattern of U.S. presidential elections you will see that there is a gradual

[ Page 2369 ]

increase in the money supply by the party in power to heat the U.S. economy. There could be a gradual increase in inflation, but there will be an artificially induced recovery in the United States next year. We will follow on the tail of that with a time lag of some six months to a year.

We have before us a bill to increase the sales tax to 7 percent, which will take $170 million of capital out of the economy and put it into the coffers of the government. The government may argue that the $170 million is required to offset operating expenditures which are pressing at the moment. However, our argument is that to have a consumer-led recovery — and this is the kind of thing the committee would be looking at — perhaps the stimulus is to not increase rather than increasing the tax to 7 percent over the six-month period, which is a damper on spending and on consumer confidence. Many competent economists argue that the government should reconsider, and if they were in this chamber they would be voting in favour of a six-month reconsideration to see if the recovery that is starting in the United States....

The 7 percent tax, particularly the tax on automobiles, telephone conversations and restaurant meals, directly impairs the recovery and the spending habits of the public of British Columbia. What amount of disposable income is available to the average British Columbian at the moment when they're having great difficulties just meeting their needs and making their rent payments? There are 200,000 unemployed British Columbians operating on lines of credit at the bank to supplement either their UIC income or their social assistance payments. So they're having to rely on lines of credit. They do not have money to spend on that sales tax. They don't have additional money for long-distance telephone calls; and for job-creation opportunities and so on, the telephone often is an essential service, whether you're working or not.

What we are arguing is that a committee of this Legislature could travel the province and look at the real recovery needs of the province. They may in their wisdom determine, after a six-month reconsideration, that an increase of sales tax was in fact the wrong way to go. That is why we are arguing, along with various employer and employee groups, against removing $170 million from circulation in the economy, which could be working over and over. As you know, Mr. Speaker, middle- and lower-income people don't lock their money away in gold, Swiss bank accounts, coupons or large tracts of real estate. Their disposable income goes immediately into the economy. It goes to the small merchant, the dry cleaner, the service station, newspaper and bookshops, on clothing for school children and so on.

My argument is that withdrawing $170 million, that would have a multiplier effect and turn over and over in the economy, will dampen the economy. It will push more small businesses into receivership and there will be more bankruptcies. The committee of the Legislature would hear representation from small business organizations arguing that any increase in the sales tax is a retrograde step. Even Statistics Canada: the committee in its reconsideration might took at the appraisal of Statistics Canada on the impact of a 7 percent sales tax, which was carried in the Province, Wednesday, August 24. It said that a 1 percent increase in the sales tax would just increase the cost of living in British Columbia by 1 percent, so how does that improve the economy? That is the question to the government. If it's just going to be passed on in terms of food, rental and transportation costs, how does that moderate any recessionary...?

[2:45]

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member who is proposing to talk about the hoist in fact is speaking to the bill as if it was in second reading. I would presume that if he wished to do that he would want to get through with the hoist motion. What he's supposed to be talking about is a six-month hoist, not the principle of the bill in second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I concur with the hon. member's point of order. I think it's best to remember that the bill is pertaining to an increase in sales tax, and I think we should restrict our debate to why debate on a bill to increase that sales tax should be deferred.

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point of order, I've been listening intently to the first member for Victoria, and I think he's elucidating very well his reasons why the minister should reconsider this bill for six months. Of course he has to talk about the nature of the bill and the nature of the changes it makes in the sales tax regime in order to show the House and show Your Honour why, in his view. the minister should reconsider for six months. I hope you would take that into consideration in considering the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have clearly taken into consideration not only your comments but all of the comments that the hon. member has made to the House. By and large I do feel his comments were relevant and in order, but during the last few moments he was in my opinion digressing from the sole purpose of the hoist amendment: that is, why this House should or should not defer further debate on this bill for six months.

MR. HANSON: The motion is a motion to reconsider; the motion is a suggestion that the government put this bill aside for six months and establish a standing committee of this House that would travel throughout the province. I pointed out that a recovery will occur in the United States. Any person can chart the U.S. presidential elections over the last 20 times and see a certain pattern. The pattern is that credit is tightened after the election. There is a downturn in the economy which occurs. We saw that some years ago in 1974 and then a modest one in 1980. After the U.S. presidential election in 1980 the U.S. tightened up on the money supply. Interest rates went up, and all of the devastation in the U.S. economy followed. What we are going to see again....

I'm arguing for the reconsideration of this impost because it will withdraw $170 million of recovery dollars from our cash flow. Every week when we see the money supply figures, they are very large. At times it is slightly less than the stock market had anticipated; sometimes it's a bit more, and then there is a subsequent reaction, with either panic selling or panic buying by the large institutional buyers — the pension funds and so on — in the United States. I'm saying that there will be a recovery; it may be artificial in nature, but the cost of borrowing will be kept down for a duration starting probably this winter and through next year. We're going to see mortgage rates drop probably another point or so and be held there until the November election. There will be a lot of

[ Page 2370 ]

borrowing, a lot of information from the U.S. presidential government and all its agencies, so that people take out the large amounts of capital presently locked in banks both in Canada and the United States because people lack confidence in spending. They will be encouraged to take that money out to buy homes, make additions to their homes, buy durable goods, make investments and so on. There will be a heating up, and the unemployment level in the United States will drop by a couple of points in anticipation of that presidential election.

My argument is that we know this is going to take place, it has occurred over the last 20 presidential elections, and to have a provincial government, a small regional government in North America, not anticipate that it is going to take place and so withdraw and dampen any recovery here, will just heighten the time lag. In the United States — certainly in the sun belt, in southern California housing starts and in the northeast lumber market, which is our British Columbia coastal lumber market — we will see a time lag of about a year before we start feeling the benefit in our forest industry. So here is a situation where we have a definable time lag on a recovery, and an impost is being assessed on the people of the province, on the small business sector and on the consumers who will be reinforced in the belief that their money is best kept in the bank rather than circulated throughout the provincial economy.

To add 5 percent to the sales tax on automobiles that are fuel-efficient — in other words, that get more than 33 miles to the gallon — is a regressive move. I give full credit to this government for making that move in 1980 to give some incentive to buy fuel-efficient automobiles. To come in three years later and strip away that provision is a regressive move. I pointed out that it impairs the fuel-efficient automobile manufacturer within our own country. It also discourages the buying of Canadian products, because it makes Japanese and European automobiles more cost-competitive because when you add on that 5 percent it adds up. Clearly, a 17 percent increase in the sales tax from 6 to 7 percent — and that's what it is, a 17 percent increase — is entirely inappropriate.

So we have a motion before us to set the bill aside and to offer an alternative. The alternative is to strike a bipartisan committee of this House to look not only at my own community but at Coquitlam-Maillardville and other parts of this province where the small business community does not want this increase in sales tax. They do not want it and they are feeling the impact of it already. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) indicated that the tax is already being collected. The small business community would be more than happy to have that practice discontinued now by allowing this bill to die on the order paper or by pulling the bill back and supporting the motion of this side of the House that there be a reconsideration.

We know at the outset that the sales tax is a regressive tax, and the committee would be hearing that argument.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about leaving all the material that would properly be placed on second reading, not on the six-month hoist. I really think it's your duty as Speaker to remind the member to talk strictly about the six-month hoist and not about the American elections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your comments, hon. member. If you will refrain from getting into a discussion on the sales tax itself and restrict your comments to the merits of deferring debate on the sales tax increase, you probably will find there are even fewer points of order and hopefully you can finish your allotted time without any other interruptions.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I don't understand the reasoning of that member. He doesn't understand that our economy is linked inextricably with the U.S. economy. Trends and forecasts in the United States clearly are relevant to this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that point has been made. As I understood the point of order, it was with respect to your discussion and debate on the sales tax principle, and nothing to do with the increase in the sales tax. You were getting on to the merits of sales tax as opposed to the merits of the bill itself, which is an increase in sales tax. If you could restrict your comments to why you wish to see this increase of sales tax deferred, I'm sure both sides of the House will see fit to listen quite attentively.

MR. HANSON: I certainly want to see this sales tax increase deferred. We want this bill set aside.

With respect to just one aspect of the bill — and I'm sure a committee travelling this province would hear this argument — we have in this bill a proposal to increase the tax on fuel-efficient automobiles from 2 percent to 7 percent. At the moment there is an oil glut. However, Canada's energy self-sufficiency in terms of oil is a very narrow time period. Oil company executives talk about Canada's self-sufficiency within lifetimes in terms of our oil being depleted. Our oil is being depleted. We had a progressive tax provision....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, correct me if I'm wrong: the latitude in regard to debate on a hoist motion is very narrow, and even if this member were speaking to the bill — and I have it before me — in my estimation he would even then be out of order. I would ask that you bring that member to order, or if not, give serious consideration to standing order 20 of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would suggest that the hon. first member for Victoria was about to draw the point with respect to timing. In his former discussions he was alluding to a comparison of time lines in economic recovery lag and the six-month deferral. I don't think he had the opportunity to complete the development of an argument. I expect that if we give the hon. member a little more time we will hear him hone right in on the relevancy as to why this matter should be hoisted.

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is exactly regarding the limited amount of time of the first member for Victoria to speak on this hoist amendment, which I agree with the Chair has a restricted area of debate. The fact remains, assuming the remarks of the member for Victoria are going to be limited, that it's quite possible and conceivable that by now, or very shortly from now, he may well have finished his remarks on this hoist were it not for these constant interruptions — out of order interruptions, I might point out — from across the way. I'm sure the House

[ Page 2371 ]

has further business or maybe other members who wish to speak on this hoist motion. There may be other business the House wishes to transact, and we're all interested in expediting the business of the House. I would suggest therefore that the Chair allow the member to continue his remarks unobstructed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure your colleague would like to continue his debate, and perhaps we can invite him to.

MR. HANSON: What seems to be happening on the other side of the House is a point of order filibuster. I think that's a point well taken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would not agree with that last comment. I'm sure your time is beginning to run short and perhaps you'd use it best if you restricted your comments to the hoist motion.

[3:00]

MR. HANSON: Before us is a motion to set this bill aside for six months for reconsideration by the government. What would that reconsideration consist of, Mr. Speaker? It would consist of reconsidering the impact of this particular bill on the restaurant industry in British Columbia. They are going to be hammered with the 7 percent tax, which they have indicated is an administrative nightmare for them. There are various ways.... When people enter a restaurant they order different kinds of meals at different prices, beverages and so on; some are taxable, some are not. Some restaurateurs are inventing ways to circumvent the taxation. The government has indicated that they are subject and liable to all kinds of action and so on.

If the government had the opportunity to reconsider, to set it aside, to talk to the restaurateurs.... The restaurateurs have argued that it would be far better to have a small across-the-board tax rather than a tax that has a basement whereby everything under $7 is not taxable and everything above is taxable. Then you've got the liquor part, and so on and so forth. Maybe the Restaurant Association has a good and valid point. In our view, the government has not listened to that association. That association is a major employer. There are literally thousands and thousands of people who work in the food industry and the hospitality industry in British Columbia. They have tried to find the ear of government. They have tried to find an opportunity to alter the government's course and to suggest other proposals. A major organization in Vancouver made the proposal that a blanket tax would be far more suitable, far more administratively feasible, than a kind of tax which creates some administrative checkerboard. Mr. Speaker, the government would have the opportunity, in this reconsideration over the six-month period, to come up with a tax which would be in the best interests of the restaurant industry.

That would be one aspect. That particular standing committee could then hold hearings and talk to the automobile retailers. There are many retailers of automobiles, and this government should know if anybody should that the sale of fuel-efficient Canadian-assembled automobiles that previously were subject to an incentive, with only a 2 percent sales tax rather than a 7 percent tax....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member. I'm sorry; you are clearly becoming fairly repetitious. I know I've heard this argument at least twice.

AN HON. MEMBER: I haven't heard it myself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has heard this argument from this member twice. I would ask the hon. member to go on to something new and still be relevant.

MR. HANSON: I'm glad you reminded me, Mr. Speaker, because my line of thinking was disrupted by the frequent interruptions and points of order. I had been talking about the need in Canada to become energy self-sufficient. Clearly, the less oil we burn for space-heating of our homes, which is a waste, and the less oil we burn in our automobiles, our grandchildren and their grandchildren are going to thank us for that.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I too am very concerned about the amount of oil and the conservation of our resources. I'm probably as concerned about it as the first member for Victoria. But we are debating the hoist to Bill 15, and again I would ask, so as not to inconvenience this House, that you ask the first member for Victoria to be relevant in debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Actually, after the last similar point of order I expected the hon. first member for Victoria to hone in on the comparison of the six-month deferrals. He neglected to consummate that argument and I trust that in the very few moments left, seeing the green light, he will do that for the House.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the government wants to encourage people to buy energy-hog automobiles, which is clearly a part of the bill. In six months they may come to the realization that to put a 5 percent impost on the sale of energy-efficient automobiles is not in the interests of energy conservation in our country. If any member should know, it is that member for Omineca — not because of his own innate abilities, but because he sits beside a former federal Liberal energy minister who must, from time to time by osmosis, extend through to the member for Omineca some of that sense and realization that Canada has finite energy resources.

In summary, we ask that the bill be set aside: that a committee be established in this House to meet with the restaurateurs who are going to be hurt by this bill, with the automobile association and conservationists concerned about energy consumption in Canada, with the small business community directly affected by this increase in sales tax, with economists who are able to project and forecast economic trends in the United States, as we are on the edge of a U.S. presidential election which will have dramatic economic implications for our regional economy.

The 7 percent sales tax is regressive, it is not desirable, it is not wanted. We ask that the government support our hoist.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'll say at the outset that I support the hoist motion for a number of the reasons already enumerated by other members of the opposition. I thought it was rather unfortunate that the Minister of Finance, in addressing the hoist motion, right off the top decided that the

[ Page 2372 ]

government would not support the motion. I thought he would at least give some time to listen to the arguments. Without the government's acceptance of this motion, it becomes a vote of non-confidence. Really, the government — especially the government that has the reputation for taking a second look — should give a hearing to the arguments that are taking place in the Legislature; they should withhold their decision one way or the other until they've heard those arguments, and then possibly sometime during the remaining minutes of the debate make a decision one way or the other as to whether they accept the hoist or not. Otherwise, the hoist becomes a simple motion of non-confidence and of course the government simply cannot accept that from the opposition.

So it is too bad the minister spoke up right off the top and said he was going to refuse to consider any of the arguments that we are currently putting forward. It makes the exercise a little bit frustrating for this side, Mr. Speaker, but there is no less of an obligation on the opposition to put those arguments forward. I hope that I can do so within the next few minutes and make them relevant to the issue of whether and why we should have this hoist. Hopefully there will be an opportunity for the government to reconsider, close to the end of this debate, as to whether or not they will accept the motion. Perhaps the minister will take a second look.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, when discussing the hoist, suggested that we really should be making these representations to the government outside the Legislature. We should be making these representations directly to the minister for incorporation into the next provincial budget which will come down sometime in March. Of course, this year's experience indicates that there's no guarantee we'll have a budget in March. The budget came down this year on July 7, I believe. It's a long time between now and July 7, 1984.

We also have some fairly specific concerns about the tax system in the province of British Columbia, which this bill is indicative of, and we'd like the minister to reconsider that between now and the time of the next budget. The trends that seem to be coming down in current tax legislation will probably be carried on through the next budget as well, and we'd like to make him aware of our concern about the trends in tax legislation.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, once again we're getting into discussion of the principle of the bill, not the hoist. I think we should get right down to the business of the hoist, with your permission and direction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members should be prepared, when taking their place in this debate, to speak to the principle of a hoist motion, and not to engage in second reading debate.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, I was discussing why we had to have a....

HON. A. FRASER: On a point of order....

MR. SKELLY: Can the Minister of Transportation and Highways interrupt a point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's comment is absolutely correct. I'll let the member finish his point of order, then I will entertain the point of order from the minister. I regret that.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I was enumerating the reasons why we need a hoist motion at this time. I was speaking to an issue that was developed by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) during his entirely relevant debate on this hoist motion, and responding to the points that he made: that the reason for a hoist now, rather than going to the minister privately in his office, is that this is the forum where members of the Legislative Assembly are entitled and obligated to present our opinions with respect to tax policy. That's why we're dealing with the hoist motion now, rather than at some time in the future or rather than in the minister's office.

We are entirely within the rules of this Legislature in dealing with a hoist motion at this point.

HON. A. FRASER: My point of order is that that member stood on his feet all the time other points of order were made. He has his own rules. The rules of this House are that only one member stands at one time, and I'd like you to enforce that rule.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order as made by the Minister of Transportation and Highways is extremely well taken. Members are advised that when another member is stating a point of order all other members should take their place.

MR. SKELLY: I most humbly apologize, Mr. Speaker, for standing on my feet while another member was making a point of order. It's a habit I'll probably overcome over the years with your constant reminders, and with the reminders of the short-time member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) as well. I take them to heart and the next time a point of order is brought up the minister will see me sitting in my seat, because it will probably be brought up during another member's speech.

These points of order do cause some confusion. I'm concerned about the number of points of order brought up when a member is attempting to speak on the hoist motion, is attempting to be totally relevant to the motion. You have to wonder why all these points of order are coming down and confusing the member who is on his feet speaking. It reminds me of an experiment that was done to try to teach bears to ride bicycles and obey stoplights....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now we are really straying from the principle.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. While the anecdote the member is about to recite may be of interest in some other debate or elsewhere in this building, I have difficulty relating it to the reason why second reading of this particular bill should be delayed six months. The member has commented on points of order, and I think that straying from the motion before the House has invited and prompted, and indeed demanded, those points of order, if I may say so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. The Chair must observe that the member for Alberni was

[ Page 2373 ]

embarking on debate that was not at all relevant to the hoist motion or even to second reading.

MR. SKELLY. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Perhaps the anecdote was more relevant on a point of order than it was in my speech, but what I'm saying is that rather than interrupting a speaker before he has finished his point and related it to the hoist motion, it seems the government members are standing on their feet and shouting out points of order prematurely.

Why I was attempting to use the ancedote is that in the same way they tried to train bears to obey stoplights, the problem was that if the light turned red when the bear was halfway down the block, he stopped in the middle of the block. What we should do is develop a little intelligence around points of order. Wait until the member on his feet finishes his statement, see if the statement is....

AN HON. MEMBER: It must have been a socialist bear.

[3:15]

MR. SKELLY: Maybe it was a wolf. That would appeal to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

What I am saying is that it's probably advisable for the members of the government back bench, who have been instructed to put up these points of order, to wait until the member on his feet is finished to find out if the statement in its entirety is relative to the discussion at hand, and then launch their points of order. It would make a lot more sense and it would probably speed up the proceedings immeasurably, if that's what they're trying to do. If they're trying to delay, then they're accomplishing that very well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the question is the amendment to....

MR. SKELLY: That was a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Had the member taken his place?

MR. SKELLY: No, it was a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will now return to the motion before us, which is to hoist second reading of Bill 15 for six months.

MR. SKELLY: I was saying it was unfortunate that the minister had rejected a hoist suggestion at the very outset of the debate, and I hope he will reconsider his refusal as the arguments are made during this debate on the hoist.

There should be no concern on the government's part about a loss of revenue that would result from this hoist motion, since the measure in this bill is retroactive to the date of the budget; so there should be no concern whatsoever about any loss of revenue. When the Minister of Industry and Small Business spoke he asked what would happen at the end of this hoist. If you decide against the tax measure that it's hoisting, will you then be forced to refund the money paid in taxes? If it's capable of anything, this government is probably capable of terminating the tax at that point without any refund, and simply say that it was a bad measure which we should terminate when the hoist is terminated. But it does give the government an opportunity over a six-month period, through whatever vehicle it uses to study this measure, to examine the fairness of this new tax measure. The tax measure is unique, and for that reason.... We're not simply increasing a tax measure and applying it to new goods; the sales tax has never been used in this way before. So what we should be doing during this hoist is analyzing how this unique new tax measure is going to impact on the people of the province.

In the first place, it's a foot in the door toward taxing labour, and that's something the sales tax has never applied to before except indirectly. We should take some time — and we're saying six months in this motion — to examine just how this unique new sales tax measure is going to impact on people in society. Also, in the particular aspect of this bill that I'm talking about, it's unique in that it attaches to certain meals in restaurants. We all know that a large component of the meals served in restaurants is labour. I think this requires considerable study, because it appears that we could be discriminating here as between restaurants which provide goods and labour but combine the bill so that you only have one bill, which is taxable in its whole amount, and other organizations such as automobile repair shops, which bill separately for labour and for parts, but only tax on the parts. We're doing precisely the same thing for restaurants and automobile repair shops, but we're taxing them in different ways. That's the unfairness in this legislation. It's something that requires a careful look.

What we must do to gain that careful look is lift the bill from consideration in this House for six months, establish some mechanism to study how we're discriminating against certain people who provide a combination of goods and services, and find out if this unique new tax measure is fair in its application. I say it's not fair. If I went to an automobile repair shop and they said it could cost $150 combined parts and labour to repair my clutch and they taxed the whole amount, that would be unfair. They have a right to break up the bill between parts and labour and only tax me on the parts. But in restaurants they don't break up the parts and labour. They don't itemize in your bill a certain amount for service, a certain charge for cooking and preparation, and then a certain charge for parts which is taxable. They combine all the items in the account and you are taxed on the final amount. But automobile repair shops, furniture repair shops, electronic equipment and household appliance repair shops all separate parts and labour and charge you tax only on the parts section of the account.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

For that reason, this legislation discriminates against restaurants and people who provide prepared food, and discriminates in favour of automobile repair shops and people who are permitted to bill separately for parts and labour. Because of its unfairness in that respect alone, I feel the government should lift the bill. I understand, through previous Speakers' decisions on points of order, that you can't suggest that it be turned over to a committee, but however you deal with consultation on matters such as these, that consultation process should be struck up during the period of the hoist motion: whether it is a committee that goes around the province or whether you call it a task force that deals with the issue — a task force within the ministry or perhaps a task force out of the Legislature; or whether it is an outside group of financial experts, as they are proposing to monitor accountability in the regional districts. Regardless of how it is

[ Page 2374 ]

examined, there should be some consultation between the public and the Ministry of Finance, and between the businesses affected and the Ministry of Finance. So between the consumers and the businesses and the Ministry of Finance there should be some type of consultative process which ensures that this unique new tax measure is going to be fair: that the application of the tax is going to be fair to business and consumers as well as to the general public.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That is why, if the back-bencher for Vancouver South would delay shouting.... They say that politicians have two ears and one mouth for a certain reason, Mr. Speaker, and that's so they can listen twice as often as they speak. I think that would be a good lesson for that member for Vancouver South.

That's what we're concerned about: whatever tax is applied throughout the province, that it be applied fairly. I would say that if anybody should be concerned about this tax measure.... Certainly the restaurateurs are concerned because it increases their cost of doing business, but....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are now entering debate again on the main motion, section 4 of the bill itself. I would ask the member to speak to the hoist.

MR. SKELLY: I am speaking to the hoist, Mr. Speaker. There are others who should be concerned about the unfairness and the uniqueness of this measure, who'd like to be consulted by government and would like to have the opportunity and the time to present their arguments to government. As I said, this is the first kick in the door. By doing it to restaurants we have established a precedent to do it to many other businesses that sell goods and service as separate components. Within the very near future we can see the government, on the basis of this precedent, expanding into other areas and taxing labour as well as goods. I think that would be very damaging to our economy, and something that we would have to take a very close look at. I think a six-month hoist will give us an opportunity to do that.

There is sufficient talent in this province, as I say. The minister, when he was responding to the hoist motion, indicated that sales tax measures are some of the most studied measures handled by the provincial government. In fact, he said they were studied continuously. Yet we very seldom see the results of this study. In science as well as in any other field, no study has any value unless it is subject to the rigorous test of the public arena. He may have done all the studies in the world, but if they haven't been challenged by their peers, if they haven't been tested by their peers, then those studies have no value whatsoever. Over the past few years the Social Credit government, to give them credit, has tabled budget papers in the Legislature explaining their tax measures. They have outlined their tax expenditures and have given the opposition and the general public a great deal of detailed information and background research on why certain fiscal and taxation measures were being embarked upon. But this year, and in particular with this piece of legislation, we don't have the background papers; we don't have the information. The government says it's doing ongoing studies, but those ongoing studies have not been presented to us, to the public, to the restaurant industry. Mr. Speaker, there has to be some time granted — we're suggesting six months — to give the public an opportunity to see these studies if they've been done, and for the government to have those studies done if they have not been done. I don't doubt the minister's word that they have been done, but they're probably not available in the kind of form that people would understand.

I think one of the ways you can make a tax measure successful and acceptable to the public is to give them all the information. Give them the reasons why the revenue is necessary, and why this particular form of taxation is necessary to generate that revenue; give them the reasons why applying this tax to a particular item is necessary and fair; and through that educational process and that process of discussion with the public, a tax measure becomes palatable and acceptable, and will be supported by the general public.

Now that process takes a bit of time, Mr. Speaker, and we're not saying here that you should cancel the tax until that educational process and consultative process has taken place. We're not saying to cancel the revenue because we know the government desperately needs it. We know how this province has been managed in the past few years. What we are saying is that the six-month period will give the government time to do the necessary consultation. I understand that the suggestion to refer it to a committee has been ruled out, but whether you call it a committee, a commission, a task force, a study group or an accountability group — whatever you call it — I think six months would be adequate time for that group to go around the province and consult with those affected, and do the necessary work.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) discussed what I think is a critical issue involving the timing of the approval of this bill, Mr. Speaker. That's the issue of energy conservation.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 43 repetition is not permitted. If it has already been discussed by another member, then it should be finished, I believe.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a most valid point. The Chair has now heard many repetitious arguments: arguments with respect to referring to committee, which is out of order in itself, but is now becoming quite repetitious; and now the debate that the member for Alberni is embarking upon, which has already been advanced by the first member for Victoria. We are aware of standing order 43, but I will also quote from Sir Erskine May.

[3:30]

MR. SKELLY: Do I have to sit down now, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, please, if you wouldn't mind.

Sir Erskine May advises on page 422, nineteenth edition: "Akin to irrelevancy is the tedious repetition of the same arguments, whether those of the member speaking or those of other members; an offence which may be met by the power given to the Chair." I will remind all members that when taking their place in debate we must not embark upon tedious repetition of arguments given by ourselves or other members.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order discussed by yourself and the first member for Vancouver South, I've been listening very carefully to the member for Alberni and I've yet to hear him repeat any of the arguments

[ Page 2375 ]

or discussion used by the first member for Victoria. It's true that he has expanded on and modified certain things that were referred to in passing by the first member for Victoria, but certainly the standing order which you quoted, Mr. Speaker, does not limit a member from going into greater detail and using a further reflection on a particular item relevant to this particular motion before the House simply because it has been referred to in passing by a previous member. The raising of this point of order by the first member for Vancouver South is, in my view, Mr. Speaker, an abuse of the rules of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If there is any abuse to be considered, it will be considered by the Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that you have to deal with this abuse of points of order. I embarked upon a new section of a speech by saying that the first member for Victoria had talked about energy conservation. Something clicked in the mind of the member for Vancouver South, and like the bear who stopped his motorcycle in the middle of the block before he was supposed to — prematurely — he immediately stood up on a point of order, as if he was conditioned to do so by his leader.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think you've made your point of order. Now if you are prepared to advance new information with respect to the bill and the motion, the Legislative Assembly is prepared to hear it.

MR. SKELLY: I was about to do that before I was so prematurely and unfairly interrupted by the member for Vancouver South. There is an important concern about energy and energy revenues in this bill that a six-month hoist would address, to the benefit of all British Columbians. I understand the government is doing away with the energy conservation section of the Ministry of Energy; however, a number of studies are being conducted privately to show how much energy is being used in individual communities in the province, how much of that energy is used in the transportation sector and how much of it could be saved, to the benefit of both those involved in transportation and this country in terms of foreign exchange and foreign trade. Energy conservation is a very important aspect of this bill, and one that is related directly to timing. As the member for Victoria said, while there may be a surplus now, later this may not be the case; and to discourage the purchase of energy-saving cars now may prove to be an absolute disaster six months down the line.

Money leaves this province through a number of conduits. One is that we buy energy from foreign countries or from foreign companies. That is money that leaves the province and the community, and actually causes problems for the Canadian economy. If we can save energy, the disposable income which remains can be invested in local communities to create jobs in those communities. Between now and six months hence we know there are going to be changes in the energy regime in this country and around the world, in the very same way that we know there are going to be changes in the United States economy that will impact on our economy. Eighty-four percent of the amount of money spent on energy by a community leaves that community, whether it is purchased for home heating, industrial use or especially if it is purchased for the private automobile, which is one of the major sectors in which liquid energy fuels are used. For the government to remove that sales tax exemption on energy-efficient cars doesn't make sense. If the people of the province knew that this issue was being studied, if they knew that great care was being taken in the selection of a study committee to find out whether this is or is not a worthwhile tax measure or whether the costs and benefits of this tax measure have been fully studied, then people might continue to purchase those energy-efficient vehicles, knowing that at the end of a six-month period the government could not possibly carry on this tax measure after they had done a sufficient study of the issue.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order. As I recall, we were talking about a six-month hoist, about repetition — thou shalt not participate in repetitious speech-making, which is what that member is doing. I would ask you to get him to talk directly to the hoist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is valid. The member is embarking upon debate that has been brought to the attention of the House already and is becoming repetitious. Please, if you would speak to the principle of the hoist, the Legislature would be well served.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I was doing. This material hadn't been mentioned before by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) or by anybody else in the Legislature. I think the back-bench member for Vancouver South is just responding in a conditioned way. In fact, I was almost finished this section of my speech.

Delaying this bill for six months and doing an extensive study, particularly of that area of taxation, could probably save hundreds of thousands of dollars for the citizens of this province, and also prevent the export of dollars from the province and local communities. It would also make sure that the additional dollars in disposable income are spent in local communities to create jobs, which are desperately needed in this province considering the mismanagement of the economy over the last two or three years. There are a number of valid reasons why this bill should be hoisted for six months and why the tax measures contained within the bill should be carefully studied. I actually don't think that six months is long enough. Given the importance of these measures and given the impact they have on the economy, probably a longer period is required. But I'm sure that given a six-month analysis, a study group or a task force that is assigned to do this analysis could come to those conclusions and perhaps recommend to the Legislature a longer delay in finalizing debate on these bills. And by that time, of course, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development said in his relevant comments on the bill....

MR. D'ARCY: Relevant.

MR. SKELLY: Well, he called them "revelant," but I think they were probably relevant.

As the minister suggested, by that time the next budget year will have rolled around. Many of the suggestions that the study group had made, or many of the points of information that had come out of the consultations between that study group, the general public, the businesses and the consumers impacted, would have become knowledge to the Minister of

[ Page 2376 ]

Finance. At that point he could incorporate the changes into his next budget without affecting this year's revenue and knowing that that revenue is desperately required at this time. But next year's budget could then be a better informed budget. It would impact much more beneficially on the people of this province and burden less harshly those who are in the lower income brackets and less able to pay. It would encourage such responsible measures as energy conservation and encourage such industries as the tourist industry, a large component of which is the restaurant and food sector of the tourist industry. So all of those benefits could come out of that six-month hoist, out of the study and consultation process that would take place within the six-month hoist, and during the next budget period we would have a much larger body of information available to the minister so that he could have his ministry of Finance staff analyze this material, incorporate it into his new budget and possibly after the new budget we would see a much better approach to the taxation system, even without dealing with this bill six months down the line in the Legislature.

So I think a number of good ideas have been presented by the opposition side. A number of valid reasons have been presented as to why this bill should be hoisted for a six-month period. A large volume of useful information could be made available out of the studies that are done during the six-month period, and I would certainly recommend that the minister and the government reconsider their objection to the six-month hoist and, in fact, vote for our amendment.

So thank you very much for your kind attention, Mr. Speaker, and for those members of the Legislature who also have paid kind attention.

MR. PASSARELL: Good day to you, sir, and onto the hoist that's presently before us.

Dealing with the hoist and why the second reading has to be delayed, I'd like to bring a few new arguments into the debate that we're facing today.

The first one I'd like to discuss, Mr. Speaker, is the aspect of the telephone. I don't want to be repetitious, because my hon. friend will be standing up. We were talking about telephones. You in the south have a telephone system, but we in the north have a totally different telephone system.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's why it's a new argument.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, a telephone is a telephone, as indicated in this bill, and we are on a hoist.

MR. PASSARELL: But, Mr. Speaker, the new argument is that it's a different telephone company that we'll be discussing. It's a company that uses the B.C. Tel system, but is basically a telephone company that's operated out of Ottawa. It's a private company also, with a lot of subsistence from the federal government and it's called NorthwesTel. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to show you the telephone book for northern British Columbia.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we're going to have a problem here.

[3:45]

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, others who have taken part in this hoist motion on the opposite side have, after some difficulty and with varying degrees of success, related to the reason why second reading should be delayed. I sense that the member for Atlin is — indeed, it's more than sense; it's clear — really debating in second reading whether a tax should or should not be imposed on long-distance telephone calls. The members who are not here at the present time, but who spoke earlier today, made it quite clear that it's not a question of whether the tax should be imposed, but whether second reading should be delayed. I draw that to the Chair's attention.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to the member for Atlin, and I clearly heard him advance a line of discussion on behalf of his constituents as to why the minister should consider a reasonable six-month delay in finalizing the legislation as it refers to long-distance telephone calls in the Atlin constituency. That is clearly part of the hoist motion and part of the bill, and I think that the member should be allowed to complete his remarks uninterrupted.

MR. PARKS: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that no matter how much I have attempted to give the hon. member for Atlin the benefit of the doubt, thinking that he may well be able to tie in his remarks in some relevant fashion, I am unable to do so. He is attempting, at best, to draw something that may well be relevant on second reading of this bill, and I wonder if it's even relevant to that extent. The resolution before this House is to hoist second reading for six months. There is nothing in his opening remarks, to this juncture, that in any way says why he is in favour of a resolution to defer further consideration of this matter for six months. That is the principle of the resolution, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker. I would ask you to draw his debate to a certain degree of relevancy.

MRS. WALLACE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I might just point out that the member for Atlin has barely begun his remarks, and I think we should give him time to draw the parallel with the hoist motion.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask leave of the House to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE: In the members' gallery today is a young friend of mine, and one who is probably not unknown to some of the older members of the House. He is Ken Strachan, son of Bob Strachan, a member of this House for many years. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Ken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the points of order with respect to the hon. member for Atlin. There were many points of order made, and I think the Chair would have to concur with the remarks that the member was debating the second reading part of the bill. Further, since it is one specific part, section 4(b), that debate, with respect to the argument that the member for Atlin was trying to advance, would be far better done

[ Page 2377 ]

in committee where we debate specific sections and subsections with strictest relevancy. The matter of telephone long-distance charges would best be discussed in committee.

Please proceed on the hoist motion.

MR. PASSARELL: In the five short years that I've been here, that had to be the quickest.... I was speaking for 12 seconds before I had points of order. It's usually when I'm attacking someone that it comes up that quickly.

The point that I'm making is to stress the need for the six-month hoist, and why it is necessary to delay second reading, particularly with the telephone service. Even though a tax has been brought in that's retroactive, and that's something we're aware of, it deals with a telephone company that's involved in the CRTC hearings right now. They are talking about the cost to northern residents who use NorthwesTel through B.C. Tel's system. If it's in hearings of a commission right now, why the need to postpone the second reading of this bill for six months? That was the point that I was trying to make in the first 12 seconds of my speech.

As I was showing, this is the telephone book that we have up in the north, NorthwesTel....

MR. SKELLY: Read it.

MR. PASSARELL: As a matter of fact, I might for the 36 minutes that I have left.

I was just looking in the tariff section here, Mr. Speaker, after the instructions on how to use your local telephone. It says, regarding this commission for northern residents, who have an immense interest in this bill because of the structure that will be placed upon them.... What can they do? Why does this bill have to be held up for six months? It's in French and English here, Mr. Speaker, so I'll try to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has embarked upon an argument that would appear to be relevant to the hoist, but I would hate to see the member get into tedious and repetitious argument about the merits of the phone system itself.

With respect to the timing of another matter that the member mentioned, that is in order.

MR. PASSARELL: It's either in French or in English. I know there won't be any repetition reading page 14 here, the tariff section, which differs with the B.C. Tel tariff system. There are some differences. I want to bring forward why this bill should be postponed for six months to delay second reading. The aspect of the first two sections here, particularly item 101 in these regulations, talks about the "company" meaning "NorthwesTel Inc." Where an individual has a problem with his telephone bill.... It's an increase in the 7 percent tax onto his long distance billing, which most northern residents have to use. The businesses up there have to use long distance when they're doing any kind of calling. The general regulations and the interpretation on page 14, Mr. Speaker, says: " 'person' includes a partnership, firm, body corporate or politic, government or department thereof and the legal representatives of such persons."

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Now that isn't repetitious, is it, Mr. Member for Vancouver South? As the northern constituents....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Northern constituents have raised this to me in the last week, and that's the pressing reason why this second reading has to be delayed for six months. These residents are wondering what they can do about these additional costs to their telephone service — particularly the small business people up there who are wondering about the additional costs to their telephone service and what they can do about it. One of the matters I discussed with them was writing to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission regarding a billing. They could write directly to Ottawa. It gives the address....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The details are interesting, but they're not germane to the hoist motion. The member is advancing an argument — a very good argument — for delay. But getting into the mechanics and details of another commission or the system is not relevant to the bill. The reasons for delay are.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, yes, and that's what I'm explaining, Mr. Speaker. It's not a commission set up, as you said, as a House committee that's been brought forward today; this is a separate commission outside the jurisdiction of the British Columbia Legislature.

MR. LAUK: On the point raised by the Chair, I should point out that although details may not be advancing the broad argument for lifting a bill for six months, details may be persuasive. If you'll check Sir Erskine May, some detail is always allowed in the hope of the speaker that other hon. members will be persuaded by such detail. Therefore I would submit that those details are in order in this kind of a debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the member quote Sir Erskine May?

MR. LAUK: It's in the latest edition, whatever number that is. I'll certainly do the research if you like. I notice the Clerks are away, and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is well aware of Sir Erskine May, and the Chair is also well aware of irrelevancy and tedious repetition.

MR. PASSARELL: The next aspect on this contract comes out in the tariffs that northern residents know, and a reason for the postponement for six months is item 104. It says: " (a) General: The initial contract period for all services and facilities furnished by the company shall be one month...." Now that one month in item 104 is an important aspect. If this bill, say, gets through committee stage and has third reading tomorrow, what are those residents who are talking about item 104 going to say? The small business people feel that the extra tax on the long distance billing from the far north, as well as across the province, is detrimental to their business and are having a hard enough time under the present economy of operating. So what I'm bringing forward here in this new argument hasn't been discussed in this hoist

[ Page 2378 ]

motion yet, and it's the aspect of dealing with a telephone company in British Columbia that's not B.C. Tel, and what residents in the far north can do to facilitate the postponement of Bill 15 for six months.

The other aspect concerning the tariffs here is item 107: "The ownership and use of the equipment, alterations, the use of services and facilities....." That's an important one because NorthwesTel has to operate through B.C. Tel, using the facilities back and forth. The tax measure that's being imposed by Bill 15 hits the small businessman. Do the residents of the far north have a right to ask for the postponement of the tax on their long distance telephone billing because of the matter of dealing with two different companies?

The use of services and facilities is in item 111.

"Use of Subscriber Service: "Subscriber telephone service, as distinguished from public, semipublic and hotel telephone service, shall be furnished only for communications as follows: in the case of business service by the subscriber, the agents and representatives of the subscriber and permanent guests or tenants residing in a club or lodging house."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are now getting into specific detail, which is totally irrelevant not only to the hoist motion and the bill in second reading stage but would almost be irrelevant in committee when we are discussing this specific subsection 4. If the member wishes to deal again with the principle of hoist, then the Chair can accept that argument, but I think we have allowed some latitude to the member now to explain why. He is now getting into tedious repetition on details which are not of interest to this House on this motion.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, how can you say they are not interesting to this House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The rules of relevancy are quite specific.

[4:00]

MR. PASSARELL: Is there a rule that says something that is not interesting to the House shouldn't be said? If there is a section such as that, I doubt if anything the government would ever say would be interesting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The term was not "interesting," hon. member; the term was "not of interest" to the House in this debate.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, uninterested.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: "Not of interest" — in other words, irrelevant.

MR. PASSARELL Well, Mr. Speaker, it might not be interesting to the metropolitan members in this House, but it is important to rural residents in the far north. I would hope that we never get into the distinction of saying that a rural member like myself cannot say something in the metropolitan area that's....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is misunderstanding the Chair. The Chair has asked the member to be relevant to the hoist motion. The Chair has given the member some latitude in describing a certain event of timing that is happening and why this hoist motion might be relevant to that and why his debate might be relevant. Now I think we have really offered as much latitude as we can. If you will get back to the principle of the hoist, the Chair will be well served.

MR. PASSARELL: I understand clearly. It was just that what you said before was pretty difficult to understand. We are stressing that the need for the six-month hoist and the delay of second reading is necessary. It's because of the telephone service. Individuals who want to write have a one-month grace period to write to the CRTC to complain about this. My concern is that residents will write back to me saying: "If it has no bearing, why should we write? If we don't write we will be taxed anyway." They are caught in a catch-22 situation. The argument that I have been bringing forward for the last 14 minutes explains the situation. I'm not attacking the government; I'm just bringing forward the situation of dealing with the northern telephone service, NorthwesTel, and how it is so much different from the B.C. Tel system.

I'd like to move away from telephones....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver South on a point of order.

MR. PASSARELL: I said I was going to move away from telephones now.

MR. R. FRASER: We have heard a lot about the northern telephone company, including the reading of how you get a subscription and all other things which do not relate at all to the bill. I do understand that standing order 43 says you may ask the member to take his place — not in debate but in his chair — if he persists in repeating information, which he has, and not contributing to the debate we are on, which is the six-month hoist. It would be fair to ask him to stay right to the point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has just finished stating that to the member, and I am under the understanding that the member for Atlin is about to embark on new material.

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to the member for Atlin. I think the House has to remember that his constituency represents nearly one-quarter of this province, and sometimes it takes a full six months for news to travel. That member is asking the minister to give consideration to suspension of this bill for six months, and he is elucidating various reasons as to why his constituents — far flung over one-quarter of the province — need that opportunity on this particularly heinous taxation bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Rossland-Trail has, I think, hit an operative note by stating that the member for Atlin is stating "various reasons," and I am sure we are about to hear another one, not repetitious but relevant to the hoist motion.

MR. PASSARELL: That was exactly the point I was making before I was interrupted by the member from Vancouver South. As a matter of fact, the point is on the record.

[ Page 2379 ]

Where are you going? Why leave. You interrupted me a minute and one half ago, and now you're leaving. Where are you going?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, I see.

Okay, Mr. Speaker, back to the hoist. It was exactly the point I was going to make concerning distance in the far north.

When you publish a bill in this province, it often goes into the British Columbia Gazette, which is wide-ranging and goes across this province, usually to libraries. But in the far north, Mr. Speaker — as you can truly appreciate, coming from mid far north, the Prince George area — often there aren't libraries in smaller communities; so when it comes to a bill such as Bill 15, residents are asking that it be hoisted because it takes time to get around. We're dealing with one quarter of the province. There are 17 communities in the Atlin constituency, many of which are not covered by either B.C. Tel or NorthwesTel, as I mentioned earlier when dealing with the CN telephone service.

Some of the communities in the far north have no idea what this bill is about....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: This is the far north. This is something I've been trying to explain. I know my hon. friend from Surrey will appreciate some of the arguments I've been putting forward on why this bill should be hoisted for six months.

One of the communities covered by NorthwesTel is Lower Post, British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With respect to time, that's a relevant argument, but I think we have discussed the telephone system with as much latitude as the Legislative Assembly can allow, bearing in mind that the committee stage under section 4(b) will allow the member much more opportunity to discuss the telephone.

MR. PASSARELL: Dealing with the general aspect of why the hoist for six months, it's for residents in the far north to have an understanding of what the bill is all about. Our transportation system up there isn't as good as in the south. You can't fly around up north on a first-class basis, even if you could get on a commercial aircraft in a lot of places. Some of my hon. friends will understand the travel procedures. You can't go first-class to certain areas in the far north. As a matter of fact, commercial jets don't land in the far north of my constituency. I have to go outside the province of British Columbia to get on a commercial aircraft, and that's Watson Lake or Whitehorse in the Yukon. I know my friend from North Vancouver would appreciate that aspect.

Why the hoist? Because residents in the far north have some criticism of Bill 15 and the tax on their telephone, and they're asking what procedures they have. If they're going to petition the CRTC concerning the bill itself, if they find it's discriminating against northern residents, they have a one-month period, as I read in the earlier section. Let's say this bill proceeds through committee today, third reading tomorrow or the day after; those individuals would then be stymied in their opposition to this bill through the legal recourse that they have with their telephone company.

I might come back to the telephone company later, but I want to go on to another aspect, and that's the meal tax. I know you've never had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to taste our northern cuisine in some of the fine restaurants up north. To be factual there aren't really restaurants up north, but some of the cafes are being taxed the additional money over....

MR. KEMPF: Greasy spoons.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Member for Omineca! Now I know that was a slip of the tongue. To insult the north that way! To call the three cafes that we have in the north greasy spoons. I know it was a slip of the tongue, and I promise I will never tell those restaurant owners up north what you said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I once again advise all hon. members that that reference would best be made in committee.

MR. PASSARELL: To greasy spoons, Mr. Speaker? In committee?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When discussing a specific section of the bill. We are on the hoist motion.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Surely personal attacks on the businessmen in one member's riding by another member must be an abuse of the rules of the House. I would ask that the member for Omineca withdraw any discussion of the gourmet restaurateurs of Atlin constituency as being greasy spoon operators.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is not bound to. Only when a member offends another member, or in fact the Legislative Assembly itself, is a member required to withdraw. But the member may wish to retract.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to withdraw. I only wish to enlighten the member that I owned and operated a greasy spoon in the north for three and a half years, and I know a little more about it than he does.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think that's germane, and the member has already spoken to the amendment. I'll ask the hon. member for Atlin to discontinue his remarks, which would be more appropriate in committee. He'll have every opportunity to speak to specific sections of the bill in committee.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The member for Omineca has cast aspersions on many of us in the constituency of Atlin. I do think he should withdraw. Because he ran a greasy spoon which was singularly responsible for increasing hospital facilities in Omineca, he shouldn't project that on every other entrepreneur operating restaurant facilities in the area.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we've had quite enough of this. It is a committee discussion and I sense no offence to any member of the Legislative Assembly or to parliament itself.

[ Page 2380 ]

MR. PASSARELL: I understand that. I hope we lay to rest this matter regarding the restaurant entrepreneurs.

The reason we have to bring a six-month hoist onto Bill 15 is because it's winter. There was six inches of snow in Atlin last weekend. That's winter.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no. The reason we had the six inches of snow was that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) was supposed to come up and open up the airport which still has this big mound of dirt in the middle of it. But he didn't come, so the people were upset and it snowed six inches.

Why we have to hoist this motion is that we are in the winter period. With the tax over $7, Bill 15 is causing some difficulties in transportation because of winter. Some of the cafes I was talking about.... As I said, we have nothing fancy up there with restaurants. If you can get a bottle of wine, you get what they have there. You don't pay $34 for a bottle of wine. You get what's there, usually seven bucks at the most. Half the time you don't know if it's wine that's been bottled or poured into something. No fancy restaurants, like those big names I can't pronounce which the cabinet ministers go to.

[4:15]

We have to hoist the motion for six months to give these cafe owners an understanding of what Bill 15 is all about. They have to winterize. Why do we have to hoist this bill? I have covered the aspect of how some of these cafes are finding it very difficult to have a meal over $7, but then if they have a special that is over $7, they have to put the extra tax on it, which is difficult at times. It is easier in a restaurant to say one dollar for this, two dollars for that. But some of the aspects of the bill itself, the Social Service Tax Amendment Act, and covering it with the meal tax itself.... An article in the Vancouver Sun dated July 8, 1983 — "Meal Tax Angers Restaurateurs" — talks about how the Finance minister brought forth this bill which we're asking for a hoist on for six months because of the extension of the 7 percent province's tax to restaurant meals over $7. The executive director of the Restaurant and Food Services Association of British Columbia called it "a dirty, low blow" in this article. The gentleman's name is Don Bellamy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind the hon. member that that argument has been advanced in second reading and also in committee. The member is not allowed to repeat his own arguments or arguments advanced by others.

MR. PASSARELL: You didn't mean committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I didn't; pardon me. In the amendment and in second reading.

MR PASSARELL: Going back to why cafe owners in the great far north want the bill hoisted for six months, it's to go back over it and take in some of the special problems. We are surrounded by two territories that have no sales tax on food. The Yukon has no sales tax whatsoever and the state of Alaska has no tax in this regard. Local restaurant and cafes in the great far north are complaining that they are losing business to Yukon Territory or the state of Alaska. Winter is upon them, and that's the time of the year when you make it or break it in a business; your tourist season is over. They are asking that Bill 15 in this regard be set aside for six months until spring comes around, when business is better. The tourists come back to the great far north and business picks up. As of the beginning of October, business is low; the tourist trade up north is completely diminished. Very few people are taking the highway through the far north into Alaska. The cafe owners who feel this new tax is detrimental to their business are doubly affected during the months of winter. Since winter in the north lasts approximately 11 months and two weeks — then we get a week of spring and a week of summer — they are asking that it be postponed until spring, when the tourists come back and the economy picks up. Then they can proceed if the bill passes, which it looks like it will do, and the 7 percent tax can go on to meals, and everything will be rosy.

Another aspect I wanted to talk about on the hoist and why the bill should be postponed for six months deals with retail trade. In the far north we have a few retail businesses. Many residents, because of the new sales tax, are going outside of the province to buy their items. They are going to the Yukon Territory, which has a detrimental effect upon the small business community of Atlin. Or they are travelling to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the hoist, please.

MR. PASSARELL: Why the hoist at this stage? It's back to small business again. Postpone it for six months, delay second reading, because we're into winter again. The small stores are finding — the Atlin General Store, for instance — that it is very difficult to make a profit and have business unless it's the tourist season. The tourists come up and buy small items in the store. They are finding that putting the sales tax up to 7 percent in this province is detrimental to the small businessman up there. They are asking me, as their representative.... I have copies of letters sent to the Minister of Finance by small business retailers up there, the backbone of our economy, asking him to postpone second reading of this bill for six months until the springtime. That is one of the intents, one of the reasons I am asking to postpone this. It's not fair to the retailer to go into winter feeling that this sales tax is another handicap upon his business, which has already been drastically affected by the government-induced legislation that is causing problems in his small business aspects.

On to the last aspect. Why we need the six months and why the official opposition is asking for the six months is for the government to reconsider what is happening. We are dealing with a very fragile part of the economy when we deal with small business, and the hoist is needed to bring about some kind of consultation between small business, large business — the telephone companies, NorthwesTel and CN. Allow the winter to pass, go into springtime and then talk about bringing in a 7 percent tax on meals for the cafe owners or the increased cost on long-distance charges to telephone subscribers. Particularly hard hit are the businesses up north, who do so much of their business by long-distance telephone calling. Their costs will be increased, which are passed on to the consumer.

I know you have found the last 40 minutes probably the most enlightening of your life here. I know members in the House have a little more knowledge of the north and our concerns about why this bill should be postponed for six

[ Page 2381 ]

months. I hope the author of Bill 15 will take into consideration our thoughts as to why it is important to set aside the bill for six months. I think it has all been said. Have a good day and we will see you tonight about midnight. It's been a slice. Thank you.

MS. SANFORD: We heard the Minister of Finance advance an argument — I can't remember whether it was earlier today or during the night, or whether it was yesterday — why this particular motion to hoist should not be accepted at this time. One of the arguments he advanced was that the personnel in the Ministry of Finance were keeping a constant watching brief on finances, taxation and the economy. But he failed to mention that ministry officials, in advising their leaders — or else their leaders are not accepting the advice.... One of the reasons they should be hoisting this bill for six months is the impact it has on those people who can't afford it. If ministry officials had the opportunity to analyze that impact, we probably would see a change of heart on the part of government. We would probably see that in six months' time they would decide that this kind of punitive legislation is indeed too much of a hardship on those people who can't afford to pay what is required under that bill.

I don't think the government wishes to harm unduly the poor of our province. I don't think that is their intention. And I don't think they've had an opportunity to analyze that particular aspect of the impact of this social services legislation. I feet they should have that opportunity so that not only the members on the government side but the people within the Ministry of Finance can have a look at some of the individual families who at this stage are hard pressed to meet all of the extra changes and imposts and user fees that are put upon them by the government at this time. I think if they had that opportunity, they could look at it over a period of six months. I think six months is a very reasonable time for them to make an analysis of the impact of this legislation on the poor.

Yesterday or the day before, one of the members on the government side indicated: "Well, what is one cent? What is an additional cent of social service taxation? What difference does that make to people?" Surely we on this side of the Legislature couldn't be complaining about that! If the government members are so misinformed and so out of touch with those people at the lower end of the income scale that they do not realize the impact of these changes in the social services legislation on the poor, then I think they need six months in order to study that problem. It is understandable that people who have a lot of money, who earn a high income, who have perhaps inherited wealth, would find it difficult to understand why any change in the social service tax should be of any concern to those of us on this side of the Legislature. That's understandable. That's one of the reasons they need this time: in order to analyze the impact on those people that they have very little communication with, very little contact with, and obviously very little compassion or understanding for. If they had any understanding of the impact of this legislation on individuals in this province who are struggling to survive, then surely after studying this for six months they would not even proceed with it.

We know that people who drink expensive wine and who fly around in government jets and travel overseas....

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 43 I would ask you to bring the member to order because she really hasn't been talking about the hoist motion in her last few sentences.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. The member was straying a bit from the principle of the hoist motion. The member will be reminded that references to committee are out of order during this debate. References to other studies have been made by many members and would be considered tedious and repetitious, and if the member can advance new material with respect to the principle of a hoist motion, the Legislature will be well served.

[4:30]

MS. SANFORD: The argument I'm advancing is that when the Minister of Finance spoke on this particular hoist motion he gave a number of reasons why he felt the hoist motion should not be accepted by government at this time. He stated that ministry officials were watching very carefully what was happening in the economy, what was happening in terms of taxation, what was happening in terms of recovery.

But the minister made one omission, which I want to speak about today. If we are going to convince the government that this hoist motion is necessary, then we have to convince them in the area of those people who are not able to pay. That's the area the minister neglected to mention during his argument in terms of dismissing this motion, saying it was unnecessary at this time. Because the Minister of Finance did not make any reference to those people who can't afford this legislation, I am saying the minister and the government need six months in order to have a look at what is happening to those people who cannot afford to pay these particular taxes. So I'm very much in order.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

I'm also pointing out that I recognize how difficult it is for those people who have a good income, those people who are able to fly around in government jets, who are able to drink expensive wines, who are able to entertain royally....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the debate on the hoist to Bill 15 must be strictly relevant. The member will continue in order, please.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is not very happy with what I am saying this afternoon. What I'm trying to point out is the need for this government — and I'm basing my arguments on the statements made by the Minister of Finance, who spoke....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It was so peaceful in here, Mr. Speaker, for a period of time. Now we have the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development back in the House interfering and interrupting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I realize the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is back in the chamber, and I fully intend to keep him in order. I would like, though, for you to be in order on the hoist to Bill 15.

[ Page 2382 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to that minister. He is already talking about the next election. I am saying that if the government wants to be re-elected four years down the road....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you wish the Chair to keep the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development in order, then you also must be fully in order and keep your debate relevant to the hoist motion before us.

MS. SANFORD: If the government has any hope at all of being re-elected four years down the road, then it should remove this kind of legislation for a period of six months so they can study and analyze those specific areas that the Minister of Finance neglected to mention in his speech on this hoist motion.

I was very disappointed that the Minister of Finance did not mention the impact that this particular legislation will have on those people who are unemployed, who are on Human Resources assistance and senior citizens on very limited incomes. He didn't mention what kind of impact this kind of legislation will have on single mothers with two or three children whom they are trying to bring up. He didn't mention at all the impact that would have. While he talked about the Ministry of Finance and the kind of work and watching brief they were keeping on the economy, somehow or other, either because they're instructed by the government not to look at those areas.... Or perhaps he somehow forgot. It is easy to forget if you are not in the position of those people, such as senior citizens and single parents with two or three children, people on Human Resources assistance.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It would appear that the hon. member believes that entering debate on a hoist motion entitles one to speak to the principle of second reading. If I may, if it would be of some assistance to you and the hon. member, may I refer to Sir Erskine May, nineteenth edition, page 388, for just a bit of guidance. Reading from the passage pertaining to amendments to be relevant: "The fundamental rule that debate must be relevant to a question necessarily involves the rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed." Further, on page 389: "The effect of moving an amendment is, rather, to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question."

Mr. Speaker, when one puts forth a resolution to defer or hoist a bill for six months, the principle is whether or not to hoist the bill. It's nothing other than that. Perhaps we could restrict it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. All members in this House, when speaking to specific bills or motions, must be very relevant, and your point is very well taken. I remind the member who has the floor that she must be relevant to the hoist motion on Bill 15.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am responding directly to the comments made by the Minister of Finance when he spoke on this hoist motion. If the Minister of Finance was given that kind of latitude, surely members on this side of the House should be granted the same kind of latitude under the motion to hoist this bill for six months.

DEPUTY SPEAKER; Hon. member, I am not aware of that particular debate, but at this time I would ask the member who is on her feet to be relevant to the hoist motion.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I will not stray any further than the Minister of Finance did. I'll keep referring back to his comments in order to make sure that I stay in order on this particular hoist motion.

I really don't think the people on that side....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, will you bring him to order? You gave me the assurance that if I didn't challenge him you would keep him in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair will decide when and if to bring members to order.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the decorum of the House is not as it should be when one member tells another that they do not think. This remark has offended me, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that you have the member withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will take it upon itself to keep members in order and I again ask the member who is on her feet to be relevant. I remind all hon. members that should debate be in order, be relevant to the subject matter being debated, I am sure it will lend a great deal of decorum and order to this House.

MS. SANFORD: If he doesn't say anything else I won't say anything in response. I give you that assurance, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think the members on the government side really want to hurt the poor through this legislation. I don't think they really understand how much harm they are causing to those people on fixed incomes, low incomes, to senior citizens, single parents, people on Human Resources assistance, people in receipt of a disability pension. Those are the ones that need to be studied for a period of six months to determine what sort of impact this legislation has on them. I submit that if they understood the harm they are causing to those people, at the end of six months they would say: 'We cannot proceed with this legislation. We will reverse it. We will ensure that people are not forced to pay regressive kinds of taxes anymore" — because that's what this is and that's why it should be hoisted. That is why that particular study relating to the impact on those particular people needs to be done at this time.

The other thing: I think this bill should be hoisted for a period of six months in order to re-establish the credibility of some....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: There he goes again. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? I had the assurance of the Speaker that he was going to keep him in order.

Interjection.

[ Page 2383 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development please come to order.

MS. SANFORD: The other thing that concerns me is that the introduction of this bill has in fact damaged the credibility of the Premier and a number of other cabinet ministers. That's why it should be hoisted for six months, just to consider the impact of this bill. We were told very clearly by the Premier that there would be no more increases in sales tax. When we have a bill that increases sales tax, that destroys the credibility of the Premier.... I think the government should hoist this bill for six months to consider what kind of impact it has upon the credibility of the Premier and the Minister of Finance, because he too assured this Legislature that we would not have an increase in sales tax again. After all, it is a very regressive tax. They didn't want to do that. It hurt the poor more than it hurt anybody else. That is what they told us two or three years ago, and for that reason they said they would never increase it again.

I'm concerned about the credibility of the members of government, and I think they should be concerned about their credibility as well. That's why, for a period of six months, they should study this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest that the present speaker is really debating the principle of the bill and not the amendment to hoist the bill. I would suggest that you bring the member to order and tell her to be relevant to the subject before the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is very well taken. As all members know, in any debate on any subject matter in this House, we must all be relevant to the subject matter therein. On that point, I would ask the member for Comox to please continue.

MS. SANFORD: It seems to me that the six-month hoist would enable the Premier to gain the credibility that he lost by the introduction of this bill. It seems to me that this is very relevant to the reason for a hoist. After all, it seems to me that a premier of a province should have credibility with all of his constituents, or at least with some of them. When he loses credibility through the introduction of a bill like this, which goes directly contrary to the promises that he made to the people of the province, I think the government should consider hoisting the bill just in the interest of his credibility alone. That's a very important aspect of government, of legislation and of procedures in parliament. The credibility of the Premier — the first minister — is at stake with the introduction of this bill. For six months they could go out and do a survey — perhaps another of their polls — by phoning around to people all over the province in the various constituencies....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is straying very near to that fine line between relevance and irrelevance, and I would ask that she be very careful in choosing the subject matter for the debate on the hoist.

[4:45]

MS. SANFORD: During that six-month hoist the government could undertake — and I think there would be some value in this in terms of the government itself — to determine how much damage has been done to the credibility of the Premier by the introduction of legislation which is in direct contradiction to the promises made by the same Premier just two years ago. That's an important aspect of any piece of legislation — to determine whether or not the government has been able to maintain any credibility during the period of time that the legislation is in effect.

I'll give you one more example. This is maybe straying a bit, and I promise that I'm just going to mention this very briefly, and I'll come back again to the debate on the hoist. To lose credibility, all the government would have to do is to bring in legislation that, for instance, disbanded the agricultural land reserve. Then it would lose credibility. I certainly would recommend at that time that a bill like that should be hoisted for six months as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know what the point of the filibuster is, but it certainly doesn't seem to be advancing a reason to hoist this bill six months, when the member by her own admission is straying from that principle of hoisting the bill to reflect upon other acts and other suggested legislative amendments. I think the member is admitting openly that she does not intend to be relevant to the hoist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was about to warn the member that once again — I warned her three or four times in the last short while — she is straying very close to that line of irrelevance. When speaking to a hoist motion, all hon. members must remember that they must be very relevant.

MS. SANFORD: I must point out to the House Leader that I used a one-sentence example only to illustrate the point as to why this bill should be hoisted for six months. One sentence — that is all — but it drove the Minister of Health to his feet in order to bring up a point of order.

Another reason that I would advance for....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You talk just to hear yourself talk.

MS. SANFORD: There he goes again. Mr. Speaker, did you hear that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please proceed. I will do my utmost to keep those noisy members in the chamber in order.

MS. SANFORD: One of the other reasons that I would suggest that this bill should be hoisted for a period of six months relates specifically to my constituency and to the tourism industry, which is extremely important. I have within the constituency of Comox....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's got nothing to do with hoisting the bill. Why don't you speak to the bill for a change?

[ Page 2384 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. For the third and last time, would the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development please come to order.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MS. SANFORD: I was trying to point out to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and others in the House that within my own constituency the issue of tourism is very important. Tourism within my constituency is being adversely affected by this particular piece of legislation, which is another reason that it should be hoisted for a period of six months. Within my constituency, I have a very fine hotel, which went to the trouble this year of undergoing extensive renovations. Part of those renovations included the installation....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Chair can almost anticipate the point of order, hon. member. I would ask the member on her feet at this time to return to the hoist. This is not an opportunity to canvass points that we may canvass in second reading. This is a specific, direct motion that is very difficult to speak to at length to start with. I must ask the member to return to.... The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound seeks the floor.

MR. REYNOLDS: As you just said, the member has been repetitious and many times irrelevant. I would suggest that the House would be better served if we were back in second reading where the members would have much more scope in this debate. Under standing order 46 I would ask that the question be now put.

MS. SANFORD: He can't do that on a point of order, can he?

MR. SPEAKER: For a member to gain the floor on a point of order and then to move standing order 46 as a point of order requires a moment for the Chair to consider same.

Hon. members, if we refer to Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twelfth edition, on the matter of closure, on page 314 it says: "Closure may be moved at the conclusion of a speech, or whilst a member is addressing the House, and in the latter case intercepts any motion which it was his intention to move." Based on this one reference, hon. member, I would have to say that to gain the floor on a point of order for the purpose of moving closure is a motion which the Chair cannot accept. The member continues on Bill 15, and the hoist thereof.

MS. SANFORD: It is interesting that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, all on his own, on a point of order, moves a closure motion in the middle of my speech on this hoist — a very interesting move, after consulting various times with the House Leader. He is just like the member for Surrey...

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Hon. member, back to the hoist.

MS. SANFORD: ....who moved it all on her own. Yes, back to the hoist.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I am just responding.

I was trying to point out that one of the reasons for the hoist, as it directly affects my own constituency, relates to a major hotel that undertook major renovations this year, including the installation of a computerized system through which they do all of their billing. That also includes the billing for the meals that are served in this hotel. I see the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) nodding in agreement with me; he has obviously been contacted by this particular hotel. If they could hoist this bill for six months and meet with those people who have invested that kind of money in a system as expensive as theirs, then to find out of the blue that this kind of tax is imposed on food over $7, they would, at the end of six months, agree with the hotel owner in my constituency that this makes no sense whatsoever. The kind of expenditure that he has made in the interests of improving the economy, of raising the kind of money that the government would have, instead of putting on this kind of social service tax.... The expenditures that he has made are in fact down the drain.

If the government took the time to look at the adverse impact that this is having on tourism, on the economy and on people who are trying to assist the government through a recovery, then I know the Minister of Finance, at the end of that time, who would also be looking at the adverse impact this has on senior citizens, mothers with children, single parents, and on those on human resources assistance, on disabled assistance or on a fixed income, would then tie that in with the impact on them as well as the impact on people like my constituent, who is trying to help out the government. The Minister of Finance would say: "Oh no, Mr. Speaker, we can't go this route."

All the government has to do is utilize the people within the Ministry of Finance, give them the necessary assignments, which the Minister of Finance neglected to mention in the House — things like the impact on those people who don't have an ability to pay. If he assigned his own people to undertake that kind of study for six months, then I know that we on this side of the House will have provided a valuable service to the people of the province. Six months would carry them over Christmas. They could look at all the receipts from Christmas-time, and they could understand what happens at the various stores in the province that are having a difficult time now. If they analyzed the buying patterns over that Christmas period, compared it with other years when the social service tax wasn't as great, and just simply lifted this for six months and said: "Let's do a little more analyzing. Let's try to understand what our actions are doing to people, businesses, the economy and to the recovery program...." If they did that kind of analysis, they certainly would not proceed with this particular piece of legislation.

[5:00]

We have people who don't have the ability to pay who would be quite willing to meet with the Ministry of Finance officials during that six-month period, talk to them and tell them about their problems. We have people in the tourist industry — lots of them in my constituency alone — who would be willing to meet with....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Which leadership candidate do you support?

[ Page 2385 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, are you keeping him in order? The previous speaker indicated that he would not allow him to speak any more and warned him three times.

I know lots of people in my constituency who would be willing to meet with a committee of the Ministry of Finance and be able to help out the minister and the government. Based on the arguments that I have advanced here, surely the Minister of Finance at this time is willing to accept this motion to hoist it for six months and have his ministry officials look at the problems that I've outlined. I haven't even outlined all of them. I haven't even talked about the phone service or the change in the tax to the various sizes of automobiles. I haven't even mentioned them, and I could do another whole speech on them.

But I'm sure that the arguments advanced have now convinced the government and that they will now say: "Yes, it is high time we looked at those people who can't afford them. It is high time that we looked at the damage that we are doing in this province." It is high time that they looked at the regressive nature of this particular piece of legislation and hoisted it for a period of six months; and at the end of six months, I'm sure they'll say: "Eliminate it. Do away with it. It's bad legislation."

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's amazing how the member for Comox can sit there and complain about somebody on the other side during her speech, and before I even say a word, she's yelling at me.

I have been listening to these numerous speakers on the hoist of Bill 15. I think there have been seven so far. They still have a number of people who can speak on second reading. I have yet to hear any members of the New Democratic Party on this hoist motion tell the people of this province what they would do to raise the necessary revenues to keep this province going.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: They like to complain when everybody yells at them when they're speaking, but they can't face the facts. That's the problem with the NDP. They can't face the fact that they have not told the people of this province what they would do. They only want to complain about the party that's in power, the party that won the election on May 5 and the party that has the support of the majority of the people.

I can't support this hoist, and that's why I'm up here. But after all the repetition and irrelevance that we've been listening to, I think it's a waste of the taxpayers' money. This Legislature costs about $80,000 to $100,000 a day to operate, and I think the House would be better served if we were to be back in second reading, where much of this debate would be more relevant. Under standing order 46, because of the number of interruptions that the Chair has had to make with the NDP, and because of all the debate and the irrelevance of their speeches, I would ask that the question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to entertaining the second member for Vancouver Centre, I would remind all members that the question having been put, according to our standing orders, the last line of which reads "...shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate, " while the Chair will entertain a point of order, absolutely no debate will be entertained on the motion.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order which I want to draw to Your Honour's attention is that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound did not move that the question be now put. He said: "I ask that it be now put." He failed to make it a motion. Therefore, I submit, it can't be dealt with. Whoever wishes to speak to the six-month hoist should be entitled to the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Because of the fact that the standing order itself was quoted, plus the fact that the Chair does have the residual power to correct the motion, the motion in itself could not fail on that basis.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, under standing order 46 I ask that you find that this motion is an abuse of the rules of the House and an infringement on the part of the minority on the following grounds: that the tenor of debate in the last two hours has been marked by frequent interruptions by government members and frequent consultations with the Chair, to the extent where it appeared to be a conspiracy to create the impression....

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

MR. LAUK: May I finish my point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the fact that the member has the floor, no imputation towards the Chair may be tolerated by the Chair unless, hon. member, it is by a substantive motion in the acceptable method. I would ask the member in summing up to rephrase his point.

MR. LAUK: I will rephrase, Mr. Speaker. The point that I am trying to make is that by design at around 4:00 p. m. it was clear that various government members started interrupting although the tenure of the debate from the opposition hadn't changed and, I might point out, it was agreed by some occupants of the Chair that the debate was relevant. It seems to me that this is clear abuse of the rules and certainly an infringement on the rights of the minority. Only 7 out of 22 of the opposition that are entitled to speak on the hoist motion have spoken.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The decision by the Chair on the motion to hoist, as moved by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), is that the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate and that question is that the question be now put.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 2386 ]

NAYS — 9

[5:15]

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

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 29

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

MR. SPEAKER: During the division, the member for Skeena notified the Chair that he wished to raise a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: It's obviously a waste a time.

MR. SPEAKER: Standing orders are clear on that particular motion.

The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor. It is incumbent on the member to advise the Chair for what reason he seeks the floor.

MR. LAUK: To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker.

I was amused to hear the Premier say that you can't trust those Mickey Mouse watches. I heard today that Mickey Mouse is now wearing a Bill Bennett watch.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Premier says the joke is old. I'll tell you closure is not old; it's brand new. It's the mark, flag and standard of this administration. It is a disgrace to the British parliamentary system. It is an absolute disgrace. It's the kind of procedure used by a desperate government, even with a majority in the chamber.

MR. PARKS: Quite clearly, I heard you ask the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre for what reason he asked for the floor, and he responded: "To speak to the bill." In the very brief moments that he has taken, he has not seen fit to do so. Might the Chair ask him to be relevant?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was engaged in some discussions for only a brief moment. Surely we are going to allow introductory remarks of that limited nature. I would ask that the second member for Vancouver Centre continue, as his introductory remarks will now lead us....

MR. LAUK: While you were otherwise engaged during my introductory remarks, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam's (Mr. Parks's) brain was disengaged. The junior counsel has been appointed to interrupt speeches of opposition members. He's doing a rather bad job of it. I would think that if he didn't have the majority of government members to support him, he wouldn't succeed with any rational interruptions.

We're talking about a taxation statute. It hasn't been passed yet, but it is retroactive to July 8 of this year. It imposes an increase in the social service tax — the sales tax, as it is commonly known. It seems to me that the government has not canvassed all of its possibilities. It is clear that this government is doctrinaire and inflexible; it is ideological and will not move from its position. It is a dangerous government for that reason. It is the kind of government that must be opposed at every opportunity and with every power available. It is the kind of government that brings in a retroactive taxation statute. Clearly they did not consider the revenues to the government. They did not consider the harm of such an imposition of a regressive tax. They did not consider any of these aspects before they introduced this bill for second reading.

What they did consider is their own narrow political point of view. What they did consider is that they represent a certain constituency out there who can afford to pay such a tax. They also considered that they do not represent a great portion of our population that cannot afford to pay such a tax.

What is the financial situation of the province today? Why is there a need to increase the sales tax from 6 to 7 percent? Why is there a need to do away with the exemptions that we have had, particularly in the meals tax situation, which will affect the tourist, hotel and restaurant industry in this province? Why did they consider that an appropriate move at this time? Did they just take their computers and adding machines and decide that with so much revenue at 6 percent last year, if we raise it to 7 percent, we'll have so much more revenue? That's a simplistic attitude indeed.

They did not consider that, by the whole budget package and indeed this very statute, they drove a sword into the consumer economy of British Columbia; they savaged the consumer economy of British Columbia. That is the kind of simplistic, moronic planning on the part of a government, which should be much more sophisticated in its planning, that we've seen from this administration during this parliament and before. Did they consider that with a 1 percent increase, together with the other package of legislation, consumers would save their money, they would stop buying, and they would be discouraged from buying, and tourists would be discouraged from using restaurants and so forth? In other words, there is a discouragement process taking place among consumers in this province, both tourist and citizen, to the extent that the 1 percent increase in the social services tax, I reckon, may bring in less revenue than had they left it at 6 percent.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

[ Page 2387 ]

This has happened before in this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions where governments have been foolish enough not to take those kinds of things into consideration. We do not know yet what the revenues to the government will be in the third and final quarter of this calendar year, but I am sure that the projections of increased revenue will not only fall far short but might well have been the same from this tax had they left it at 6 percent.

What's happened across the country? Consumer buying is up. Tourism is up. Spending is generally up. But in British Columbia it's down in the last two quarters. Why? It's down because of the budget. It's down because of this tax. When consumer spending goes down, your revenue goes down, whether your tax is 6 or 10 percent. They don't consider these kinds of things, because they're a very unsophisticated government. They plan by the seat of their pants, primarily in accordance with an inflexible doctrinaire ideology.

Was there any examination of the inflationary aspects of an increased sales tax? Very little consideration obviously went into it. Shortly after the election, this bill was introduced. Was there any examination of the current economic climate, with the troubles in the forest industry and our economy generally? Was there any consideration that stimulation was needed? I don't think so. I think it was clear that this government brought in the taxation on the simplistic and foolish idea that if you raise the tax 1 percent, it's going to increase the revenue accordingly. I suggest that it has not. I suggest that what it has done is discourage whatever little consumer-led recovery there could be in British Columbia to keep the jobs that we already have and perhaps increase a few during the summer.

But what happened during the summer? Consumer buying just plummeted. You can't say it was a general malaise in the Canadian economy, because consumer spending went down in British Columbia and went up everywhere else. Unemployment went down everywhere and went up in British Columbia. Where does that come from? It comes from this budget, this legislation and this taxation.

How do you get through to these people? You say we're tedious and repetitious. It is obvious we have to be even more tedious and repetitious to get through to some of these dunderheads who aren't listening to the debate on these bills. It seems that the back bench has been silenced. Has anyone stood up and defended the Social Service Tax Amendment Act? No. A few comments were made by the Minister of Finance, woolly-headed comments indeed. Nobody else has stood up to defend this bill. If this increase in taxation is such a great thing, surely we should have heard from members of the treasury bench and the back bench. Presumably they are all going to vote for it. Are they going to vote for it blind or simply because they were told to vote for it? Are they going to vote for it because they think the government needs it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because it's good.

MR. LAUK: "Because it's good." The hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) is reading his newspaper.

The back bench should be informed. If they are informed, they should stand up and tell us what they have learned. They should stand up and tell us how the increase in the social service tax is going to increase revenue to the government. They're going to tell us whether or not the social service tax increase is required at this time, or whether some other increase in another taxation field will do a better job than increasing taxation in the sales tax. A sales tax increase discourages spending and will decrease the revenue to the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. PARKS: I'm sorry. I will pass.

MR. LAUK: There is a point under standing orders where these kinds of interruptions are in themselves a breach of standing orders. I would ask Mr. Speaker quite seriously to take that into consideration.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The statement made by the second member for Vancouver Centre is quite valid. There is a point where points of order, or any interruption, become an abuse of the rules.

[5:30]

MR. LAUK: What about the aspect of inflation under the Social Service Tax Amendment Act? Did the government investigate that? I think not. Inflation has increased — or it has not decreased, I should say, in British Columbia to the extent that it has decreased elsewhere. But I will tell you one thing: unemployment has increased and consumer spending is down. No one can say that that is because of the international marketplace. No one can say that it is because of the national economy, because the figures are clear.

The social service tax drives a stake through the heart of the tourist industry. At a time when bankruptcies are at their highest, and higher still in British Columbia than elsewhere — bankruptcies of small businesses and in small communities — I would think that members of rural constituencies would be standing in their places and giving some explanation to their constituents who are small businessmen, who are running tourist-related industries and who have to put up with a taxation increase and a tax where none was before, such as on restaurant meals.

You know what tourists are going to do. They are going to keep their meals below $7. There are going to be further losses in these already marginal types of industries that we encouraged in the first place to serve tourists and to attract tourists. Now we've imposed a tax upon them, and I argue again that it will decrease revenue to the government because actions are being taken to avoid the tax by not purchasing meals in restaurants and so forth. Restaurateurs themselves will end up paying the taxes not being passed on to the consumer. In some instances they are lowering their prices on meals in an already marginal industry. They are lowering their prices on meals to keep them under the $7, to keep the regular trade that they've had year in and year out. They are taking further losses. To do that they might have to lower the wages of their staff or lay off one or two waitresses. Is that a progressive move on the part of the government? I should say not. Did they consider any of these aspects? I would think not. Surely by this time, after its having been on the table — although it hasn't been debated a very long time at all — the government would have taken into consideration these disastrous effects.

What about examining the other possibilities of taxation? The social service tax, as has already been said — and as is said several times whenever there's an adjustment to the

[ Page 2388 ]

social service tax — is really a regressive tax. People who say it is a regressive tax argue that it goes on to people who can least afford it. In other words, it harms those who can least afford it: those on fixed incomes, the low incomes, the working poor. These people have very short margins month to month.

I want to give an example of the kind of person I'm talking about. These are people in my constituency. Most of them are in the downtown east side area, where they live in one room — hotel housekeeping rooms. Some of them are disabled, many are on pensions, and they have limited incomes. Their rents are very high, and with the abolishing of the rentalsman and rent controls you can see they are in a dicey position. Rents are going up. They have less money for the other necessities of life. They used to be able to go to a restaurant nearby. If you check the price of meals in restaurants in the downtown east side, they're not low. You would expect them to be low in that area of the city, but they're quite high. These people don't have access to transportation to go elsewhere. They only have access to some of these restaurants as their regular eating places.

You know, seven dollars doesn't go very far these days. They are discouraged. They are people with very little money and they have nowhere else to go. It is not as if a restaurant is a luxury; it is a necessity. They have no cooking facilities in their rooms, and they're becoming more and more a charge on the state because of these regressive taxes. We think that the exemption on meals is a good thing. Why tax one of the necessities of life? It doesn't make any sense. Of course the rich can afford it, but there are very few of those these days. It seems it hits all people across the board in a negative way.

Why not examine the possibility of a tax in another form? Why do we always have to do the simple-minded thing and raise the sales tax? Because it is so widespread, it brings in so much money each percentage point it goes up. Why not consider other areas of taxation that are fairer, first of all — test the ability to pay — and more importantly, that perhaps would bring in more revenue to the government?

You talk about small business people and entrepreneurs being the backbone of the economy. The backbone of the economy is the total population. Small businessmen rely on ordinary people as their customers, and if they don't have the money then the small businessmen don't get the profits. That seems to me so fundamental to an understanding of our economy that I'm surprised government members and cabinet ministers constantly argue that we've got to encourage the business sector, that we don't want to add any unnecessary impediments to their creating more jobs and further investment. If that's true, then what they've done through the social service tax is to create a deterrent to spending. If it was just 1 percent on the social service tax, that would be one thing. There would be a brief downturn in consumer spending for a couple of weeks and then it would return to normal. But linked with the package of legislation and the budget as a whole, it has managed to create a fear psychology in consumers, to the extent that it has had a disastrous effect on the economy. Many economists could have advised the government that that would be the likely outcome of introducing all of the bills at once as well as this tax increase. I wonder if they received that advice; and if they did, did they listen to it? Clearly not.

We could explore new areas of creating revenue for the government, rather than raising the sales tax. Or we could take a third alternative. We can abandon this bill — we can set it aside — we can abandon any kind of a taxation increase and talk about taxation incentives. The best thing for people in this province would be a taxation incentive to the customer. That's the one that always works. People who have what I would call ordinary or average incomes usually spend all or most of it. They're not savers. It's people with higher incomes who tend to be able to save, able to make decisions not to spend. But people within the ordinary or average spending groups likely will spend most of their income. With that in mind, shouldn't there be some sort of tax incentive for them to spend what they have? As well, create tax incentives for people just above the average income level to encourage them to take their money out of the sock and buy the extra appliances or put an addition on their house and buy that car they've needed for the last 18 months and have been afraid to buy because of the economic situation.

So instead removing of the exemption from cars, meals and other things, it seems to me the government should have looked at the possibility of creating somewhat of a consumer-led recovery. If they do represent the small businessman in this province.... I have always argued that they are the last people I would describe as the defenders of small business. Nevertheless, they are identified in the public's mind that way. Shouldn't they do something to earn it occasionally? They could earn it by abandoning this policy of tax increases across the board and create tax incentives. If anything, they could decrease the sales tax modestly and create other incentives for spending in other areas. This is the kind of fiscal and taxation management that is within the power of the provincial government. It is quite an effective mechanism for creating economic development. This government has been dunderheaded and awkward and clumsy in the use of this fiscal power over the years. They take the simplistic view, the very superficial view, and they do not in any way look for the more sophisticated and creative ways of, on the one hand, creating more revenue for the government, and on the other, creating something of a consumer-led recovery in the economy.

I willingly concede that in these times it is a bit dicey whether there is going to be any kind of substantial recovery for any length of time over the next several months, but at least we can keep a few of the jobs that are already there and create a few more jobs in the meantime. There is really nothing that this government — as ideological and inflexible as it is — can do to affect Canada's national policies, or the international policies that are largely created through decisions made by the United States. But they can use these fiscal tools to prevent the worst of all possible situations. What has happened is that through this bill and others, they have created the worst of all possible situations. They've been quite clumsy about it; I would say sloppy, and not really thinking ahead too far.

The taxation statutes can be used more creatively. I would argue that this government should first of all establish a small group of civil servants, expert in the field, to examine these various creative opportunities. Also, activate one of the select standing committees. If they activated one of the select standing committees to review from time to time suggestions from such civil servants, you would find a much more creative fiscal policy on the part of the provincial government. As it stands today, it is the only province in Canada with a rising unemployment rate. It is the only province in Canada with a very serious decline in consumer spending. These are clearly related to the government's policies. You would think that

[ Page 2389 ]

after three months of debate they would learn, and that they would take a close look at such statutes as the sales tax increase here and pull back from it, understanding the disaster of it. It will be very interesting to see whether it does increase revenue at all. It seems to me some projections should have been made on whether consumer spending would be discouraged from the levels it was at in the two months either side of the election. That's one thing. Whether the 1 percent increase, together with the legislative package, would discourage consumer spending should have been a possible scenario too. They should have been prepared for it. That should have been an announced fallback position.

[5:45]

There is nothing wrong with an announced fallback position. "Look, we're going to announce this increase and see if the economy can stand it." This happens all the time with interest rates. You can see as they go up that consumer spending and investment decline to the extent where it is hoped inflation will be brought under control. However, it doesn't go up every day. They used to examine it once every two or three weeks. Now it is on the treasury bill situation. That's the kind of examination of fiscal policy and taxation this government should undertake. You try it for a little while, make your adjustments to the economy, and then you pull back from it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the debate seems to be straying into material that might be better discussed during the minister's estimates. Could we return to the principle of Bill 15?

MR. LAUK: With respect, I was using the analogy of interest rates to draw the attention of the government to the fact that they're not using the sales tax in the way they could in the 1980s. They're not using it to make adjustments to the economy which would be beneficial to most of the people in British Columbia. By that I mean introducing periodic adjustments in taxation, which would test the waters in the same way interest rates do. If it is too discouraging to consumer buying, they pull back from it. If it keeps a steady rise in consumer buying, they increase it a bit more. You bring revenue in without negatively affecting the tendency for people to spend money, which, as we all know, encourages a recovery in the economy and increases revenue to the government.

All of these things have led me to the conclusion that the government in all of its legislation, but particularly with the sales tax, has failed miserably in its approach to taxation questions. It has failed to take into consideration the effect on the tourist and restaurant industries, and it has failed to take into consideration its effect on ordinary people and on the people who can least afford to pay increases in taxation. I have mentioned examples in the downtown east side. There are others. There are working families that spend right to the maximum and have no more money to spend. The increase in taxation is an impost upon them. If they are on welfare, that impost is indirectly placed upon government again. There are a lot of people — as a result of this government's policies, I might add — who are on welfare; a lot of welfare families. The maximum allowance they receive from the government for welfare is spent every month. If you take 7 percent of that — because most of it is consumer goods — that is a heck of an increase every month. Who's going to pay for it? The government is going to pay for it. There will be pressure for an increase in the welfare rates, so really you're just taking it out of one pocket and putting it in another. That doesn't make any sense either.

One of the designs of exemptions that we have seen in legislation is to protect that situation. First of all, it benefits the welfare family. There is no delay in any increase to them by way of income. It also protects the government from a foolish move in increasing taxation on these families. That taxation is paid to the government, but they have another increase going back to the families and you have to pay for the handling charges, which increases the cost of government. I don't think these kinds of considerations have been thought of by the government. If they had, we would see a much more intelligent and creative approach to taxation than we have here today.

We'll have much more to say in committee on each aspect of the sections, and on the technical aspects of it, but in principle a simple increase in taxation comes from a government that is really bankrupt for ideas. They're great on ideology, as we know, but it's the kind of taxation increase — across the board, easy to do, stroke of the pen, a simple amendment — that has vast implications for the economy as a whole.

In order for the government to perhaps absorb some of our remarks, Mr. Speaker. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 8

NAYS — 28

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

MR. HOWARD: Here I am, being advised by the government House Leader to speak on the bill. I'll accept his invitation and do precisely that.

The purpose of the bill is to impose what is probably the most regressive, senseless tax in our whole grouping of taxation measures — namely, a sales tax — and to impose that upon the general public at the level of 7 percent, increasing it from 6 percent. It is also to eliminate the two-tier, two-level sales tax that applies to new automobiles or new passenger cars, a measure brought into effect just a year or two ago, if I recall correctly. It is also to impose — the explanatory note in the bill is accurate in that regard, because it says "to impose" — a 7 percent sales tax on the purchase of

[ Page 2390 ]

prepared meals for consumption on the premises if the price is $7 or more. It is also the imposition of the 7 percent sales tax on long-distance telephone charges. There are the four measures.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. There is quite a bit of conversation that is interrupting the proceedings. Would members please remain quiet?

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the conversation could be that the members in this part of the chamber have heard precisely these points so many times before. I certainly have. I can't think how many times, but each speaker several times. And of course the member is never terribly original in the matters that he brings before the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will decide whether or not the debate is repetitious, but I will ask all members from both sides of the House to show some courtesy.

MR. HOWARD: I would certainly agree that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is original and has original thought, for it was he who originated and instituted closure in this chamber. It was he who imposed....

[6:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will speak to the bill or discontinue his speech.

MR. HOWARD: I was speaking to the bill when I was rudely interrupted by that sellout Liberal over there, that turncoat from Point Grey.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we're becoming a bit unparliamentary. The minister had made his point of order, which the Chair did not find to be totally in order, having heard the member for Skeena advance only a few comments. The Chair recognizes the member for Skeena again, but if he's going to continue in the debate, he must relate his remarks to the bill before us.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House oblige members to correct misinformation immediately. The House Leader said that I had invented closure, when in fact it was the leader of the CCF, on the very first time the CCF spoke in the chamber, who moved closure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will take his seat, please. Perhaps we can explain standing order 42. It applies to a member who has spoken on a bill, and another member speaking to that bill who misinterprets the original member's feelings, interpretations or opinions. That is what standing order 42 applies to.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair's attention having been drawn to the clock, I recognize the government House Leader.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.