1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ 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?

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.

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