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, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1325 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment.

Mr. Reid –– 1325

Mr. Stupich –– 1326

Mr. Howard –– 1327

Mr. Lockstead –– 1331

Mr. Lea –– 1333

Mrs. Wallace –– 1335

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. REID: I rise to speak on the motion to hoist Bill 13.

It's interesting that at this stage we're debating the hoist and the

request to delay the process of good government and good leadership for

another six months. In the last few days we've had some indication of

the leadership for the other party. I'm hoping to have the opportunity

of meeting the new leader pro tem, Mr. Kube, who has been authorized to

indicate to their group an advance of $600,000 on behalf of Mr. Kube.

Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to watch the interview of the

Solidarity meeting in question, where Mr. Kube indicated that the

Solidarity group was not being funded in any way by the federal

government, by way of Mr. Kube to the advantage of the unemployed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he lie?

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

MR. PARKS: Did he tell the truth?

MR. REID: Well, he indicated as a leader — because they have

about 22 potential leaders, and now 23.... No, 22, because the

lame-duck leader isn't going to run again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are currently on

the hoist to Bill 13, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act. Somehow we must be

a little relevant to the bill before us.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the reason I raised those points is that the

hoist is a delaying tactic. It is a cost to the taxpayers out there of around

$80,000 on every given day when we delay, delay, delay. I think that the taxpayer

and the voting public on May 5 indicated they wanted some good leadership and

good government from across the water here. As one of the representatives and

a back-bencher in this government, I would like the opportunity to get on with

the business of the day, save the taxpayers some money and get onto the very

controversial day-to-day problems of the province rather than be dictated to

by a pro tem leader of a group that wants to continue to hold up passage of

any legislation within this chamber.

One of the reasons for concern, Mr. Speaker, of the three items

within our $1.6 billion budget for 1983-84 is the health costs. They

all have to do with operations of hospitals and the health care system,

which backs up into many, many reports indicating that smoking is

detrimental to your health and is a large contributor to the health

costs of this province. So, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the

continual hoisting of concerned legislation proposed for this year and

to the continued delay of government procedures by allowing the

expenditures of taxpayers' money in the magnitude of $80,000 to be

continually wasted on frivolous debate, and I emphasize the word

"wasted." Frivolous debate on the question of hoisting the tobacco tax.

How ludicrous to delay the decision of a 25 cent tax on an item which

I'm positive meets the support of the majority of the taxpayers and the

majority of the people who voted for good government and good

leadership on May 5, 1983.

I'm concerned about the non-passage of Bill 13. Why should we be

debating at any length the opportunity to hoist this bill? I think the

sooner that we as a government can impose a tax on such sinful things

as smoking and encourage more people to quit smoking to reduce the

costs to the health care system....

[10:15]

Interjections.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Repent!

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

MS. BROWN: That's not a sin.

MR. REID: I've been encouraged by the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) to indicate that it is just a little tobacco tax, but

it is a very big problem. Smoking is a big sin, especially in the

presence of people who have previously smoked heavily and have been

able to quit and continue to abstain in the presence of other sinners.

I would suggest that the question to hoist Bill 13, the Tobacco Tax

Amendment Act, 1983, does not give this government a chance to get out

into the field and encourage the sinners out there to quit puffing away

on that very sinful cigar, pipe or cigarette in the presence of some

people who have had the foresight to quit, irrespective of the concern

for the taxes, because I don't think the tax is the question. I think

this government should encourage more quitting, not more smoking. More

quitting could be encouraged by the application of this tax as soon as

possible.

The hoist certainly is out of the question because it allows the

opportunity for us to waste taxpayers' money within the confines of

Victoria at a cost of $80,000-plus every given day that we waste time.

and does not allow us the opportunity to go out in the field and reduce

the health care cost in the long term by talking people into not

smoking any longer. I think there is an evangelistic role that we

should provide by proceeding to a vote. Let's get on to Bill 13. Allow

the tax to be implemented, to discourage more people from that sinful

act of smoking, especially in the presence of those of us who do

[ Page 1326 ]

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. REID: Yes, he is a lawyer.

On a very serious note, this government would like to deal with the

question of extraordinarily high deficit budgeting, which was brought

upon us by such accelerated items as Human Resources, Education and,

most of all, health care costs, which are largely brought on — I am

positive, from the research I have been able to do — by this continual

smoke, smoke, smoke.

Members of this House should set an example for the rest of this

province, and maybe the rest of Canada. Some of the members on the

opposite side have taken an example with the money provided from Ottawa

— spending $600,000 ill-advisedly. So I think it would be positive for

me to say that I would advise the members of this House to set a

precedent and reduce smoking. If you don't want to reduce smoking, then

buy more cigarettes to help the province pays its bills by the 25-cent

tax which is added. Reduce the smokescreen that continues to be

provided by the back-benchers from the opposition — all the opposition;

they are not only backbenchers. But they are here for one more term and

then we won't see them any longer. The smokescreen they are providing

today is creating a real problem for some of us nonsmokers who don't

believe in the wastage of taxpayers' money and secondly the wastage of

time to delay the discussion of the tobacco tax, which is a very sinful

act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: This would be an opportune time to draw members'

attention to what we are actually discussing. The Chair is of the

opinion that the merits or otherwise of smoking per se might be touched

upon very lightly but certainly cannot be the sole topic of discussion

in speaking to the hoist.

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

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) were to listen to

himself, he would be supporting the amendment today to hoist this bill

for six months. But I expect he didn't listen to any of the arguments

that he made so well. He's concerned about the non-passage of this

legislation — concerned about holding it up for another six months. If

he had had the time to read it in the last two and a half months since

we've been called into session, or two months and a week since this

bill was introduced, he would realize that it came into effect on July

7 when the budget was read. I'm sorry — it came into effect on July 8,

Mr. Speaker. So he may set his mind at rest. However long it takes for

this legislation to pass, it has been in effect since July 8, and he

hasn't even noticed the difference.

Mr. Speaker, another point he made was how ridiculous it is for us

to be sitting here today, two and a half months after we were called

here to serve the people of the province, and to be talking about an

increase in the tobacco tax. He also said it's ludicrous, and it

certainly is. We talk about good government and good leadership. With

all of the important things that we have to talk about in the province

of British Columbia today, we're talking about whether or not we should

delay discussion of the most inconsequential bill on the order paper,

perhaps — an increase in the tobacco tax. If there is anything of any

importance that the government has to discuss, why don't they bring

that forward? Mr. Speaker, how can we object to the lack of leadership,

the lack of good government, other than to say we want to put things

like this aside for six months and get to dealing with the things that

have some importance? It is ridiculous to delay this. It is ridiculous

to be talking about this.

The second member for Surrey, in urging upon us that we pass this

legislation immediately, rather than delaying it, talked about the

contribution toward health costs. He must have been here when the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) told us that this is going to

raise an extra $18 million that already is being raised since the act

came into effect the day that the bill was introduced. So postponing

the delay doesn't make any difference. If the second member for Surrey

were to look again at some of the material presented to him he would

realize that $18 million is going to have very little impact on a

health care budget that is almost $4 billion. Less than half of one

percent is all that is being contributed.

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

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, he says every little bit helps and

$18 million is important. The government has cut other programs where

this money might be better directed that would cost much less than

this. Nevertheless, that is not the discussion right now. The

discussion is whether or not we should delay discussion of this

legislation and delay it to consider the total impact, if there is any

impact, of this legislation on the community. The second member for

Surrey suggested that it is important to pass this legislation right

away because it is going to influence people not to smoke. If it's

going to do that it has already done it. But one has to wonder whether

governments really do want to persuade people not to smoke.

There is a very interesting book that the second member for Surrey

might want to take a look at sometime. It is in the legislative

library. Public Policy and the Smoking Controversy ,

by Kenneth Michael Friedman. I believe it was published in 1975. This

book raises the question of whether governments really want to cut back

also in Canada. The Tobacco Tax Act is a very easy way of getting more

revenue. It's very easy politically. The legislation before us now has

not attracted any great deal of attention in the community that I know

of, and yet the government can, almost at the stroke of a pen and with

little debate.... Had this legislation been debated late in the order

paper rather than early, I'm satisfied it would have passed with little

debate, but coming as it does, we object to discussing it at this time

until other business has been dealt with, and that is why we're

proposing the hoist. But this legislation suggests that because tobacco

taxes are so easily increased, and as long as

[ Page

1327 ]

you don't do it too much at any one time — as long as it's progressive

and gradual — you can keep on increasing the rate of tax without decreasing

the amount of cigarettes and tobacco being bought, and actually the government

can go on steadily increasing its revenue as long as it doesn't go to the

point where it actually has some impact on the smokers. So the second member

for Surrey (Mr. Reid) might want to look at this and consider whether the legislation

in its present form is really going to achieve what he wants, which is one more

reason for hoisting it and for taking six months to consider whether, indeed,

we want to deal with the legislation in its present form.

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

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm being asked to show some

leadership. I wish the government would show some leadership. There are

some extremely important bills sitting on the order paper that we

should be discussing. There are the estimates. I've said previously on

many occasions, as each bill comes up: let us talk about how the

government is going to be spending the money before we vote in favour

of more ways of raising money. Even an $18 million item — what is the

government going to do with that extra money? The estimates are before

us, but not a single minister has had an opportunity to stand up in

this House and tell us why this $18 million is needed at this time

because he or she has plans for spending it.

All of the bills having anything to do with the total package that

minister after minister has talked about, including the Tobacco Tax

Amendment Act, should be hoisted for six months. We should set these

bills aside until we have had an opportunity to examine the spending

plans of the government, minister by minister. I can appreciate that

there are some bills that don't fall into that category, that were not

part of the package — a couple of resolutions were dealt with yesterday

and passed by the House yesterday. When the business does come before

us in an orderly manner it does get dealt with in an orderly manner.

But the government is determined to deal with things like this, which

the member for Surrey himself described as a ridiculous and ludicrous

situation — for us to be sitting here two and a half months after we

were called to do the people's business, and to be talking about, of

all things, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act.

There may be a time to talk about that, Mr. Speaker, but it should

be much later. Six months may not be long enough for us to do the rest

of the business on the order paper. But certainly, at this point in

time, the opposition believes very strongly that this particular bill

should be set aside and left until we've dealt with the people's

business: the important legislative program. Certainly the government

must feel it's important. We feel it's important. We believe it's

disastrous on the whole, but nevertheless we want to discuss those

important bills in this House. We want to discuss the spending

estimates of the ministers before we deal with ridiculous, ludicrous

situations such as whether or not tobacco tax should be increased by

$18 million — and to be talking about it two months and one week after

it came into effect.

Mr. Speaker, the government is not showing leadership in bringing this bill

forward this morning; it is being ridiculous. The only way we can express our

displeasure, the only way we can point out to anyone who is listening that it

is completely ridiculous and that we are not getting any leadership from the

present administration, is to say that this particular bill should be hoisted

for a six-month period in the hope that the government, in that period, will

get its act together, will start being reasonable, will start showing some leadership,

and will start dealing with the spending estimates of the ministers and the

important legislation that is sitting on the order paper, and perhaps other

important legislation not yet on the order paper.

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

[10:30]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I too was somewhat intrigued by the

earlier argument of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) with

respect to the time consumed on this particular subject matter. I want

to point out that if there is fault — and I'm not saying there is or

was . If the second member for Surrey finds fault in what has taken

place with respect to this particular bill, then he should bear the

full brunt of that fault that he complains about.

Let's have a brief recitation of where we went on this particular

bill. It was introduced on July 28 by the Minister of Finance. On that

day it was dealt with in both the morning and afternoon sittings, and

again on the following day, July 29. Then we saw neither hide nor hair

— if one can say that of tobacco — of the bill until August 12.

According to Votes and Proceedings

the bill was under debate on August 12, and the second member for

Surrey rose to take

part in that debate on the hoist motion, but all he

did was move adjournment of the debate, to postpone it; then, under the

guidance of the House Leader, the government moved to deal with another

piece of legislation, Bill 30. It's my opinion that the second member

for Surrey would have had an interest in seeing that bill proceeded

with on August 12 — and it might well have; I don't know what events

might have unfolded on that day — and that he shouldn't have moved the

adjournment of the debate at that time. We might have concluded the

bill by now, and he would not be in the position he is in today,

complaining bitterly about his own activities. If there is fault, it

lies solely and completely, in this instance, on the doorstep of the

second member for Surrey. He's the person who moved the motion to

adjourn the debate on August 12, after having said not a single word

about the bill itself. Then he resumes it today and natters about it.

Yes, I think it's kind of ridiculous to be spending our time talking

about something that isn't of tremendous political interest to the body

politic out there. Probably all preceding governments have not looked

upon the tobacco tax in any social way or healthily helpful way, but

rather as a reasonably easy means of raising money. Governments

probably recognize that the use of tobacco is an addiction; those

people who smoke or chew tobacco — or whatever form they use it in —

are addicted to it. Being addicted to tobacco, they are not going to be

deterred from its continued use by the simple process of raising its

price by way of a tax.

As the Minister of Finance said, the tax was increased in 1981. In

his 1981 budget — just a couple of years ago now — I believe he

anticipated raising an additional $26.9 million by way of the tobacco

tax increase; in round figures, some $27 million a year for 1981-82,

1982-83 and 1983-84, plus the increase that is before us at the moment.

The tobacco tax is any easy way to raise revenue, and it exploits the

weakness —

[ Page 1328 ]

if it is a weakness — of individuals who use

tobacco and are addicted to it: let's exploit that weakness, that

addiction, and force these people to pay a tax if they want to smoke.

Therefore it's not a matter of tremendous social consequence, apart

from the injury to health that arises from the use of tobacco.

A moment ago somebody said that the use of tobacco was a sinful

activity — I think it was the second member for Surrey. He may well be

right. My colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who

sits right behind me, complained that, no, it wasn't a sin in that

sense; it was a distasteful and disgusting habit, but not a sin. I

think that's probably correct. As one who smokes from time to time, I

think I have to fall down on the side of its not being a sinful thing.

But this government and preceding governments have considered

tobacco to be a rather dangerous substance. Just to give an idea of

what governments and this Legislature have felt about tobacco and the

dangers in it in the statutes, we have

an act called the Tobacco

Product Act. It's germane to the question of taxation, because the

taxation in the bill before us relates to tobacco. The Tobacco Product

Act, indicating the danger that's involved in this sort of thing, says:

"A person shall not, in the Province, deal in, sell, distribute,

advertise or promote the use of tobacco for the purposes of (

a) preventing a consumer or purchaser of tobacco from being deceived or

misled as to its character, toxicity, composition, merit or safety....

As long as the advertising is done for these enumerated purposes it's

illegal and can't be done.

We all know that up until the time that tobacco products were an

advertisable item on television, and even in the glossy magazines that

exist right now, those who advertise tobacco.... They have a disclaimer

in there that says that as far as the United States is concerned, the

surgeon-general figures that this is injurious to your health. But

they're not advertising and selling tobacco. They are selling some sort

of social acceptance. They are selling pleasure. I submit that that is

misleading, because this act says that you shouldn't do that. It's

deception to advertise a pleasurable event, to advertise tobacco in a

subtle way — maybe not so subtle in some of the advertisements —

tobacco as an activity sexually acceptable, and that's what they do.

The Tobacco Product Act also says that if you contravene this

act.... It's such a serious matter, simply advertising tobacco with

respect to its character, toxicity, composition, merit or safety, that

you can be fined up to $500 or three months in jail for a first

offence, and $1,000 or six months in jail for subsequent offences. In

addition to those penalties, the Attorney-General can, if he wants to,

proceed in the Supreme Court for an injunction against any person for

infractions of the Tobacco Product Act, preventing and enjoining that

person from continuing to do what it is or was that he should not have

been doing under this particular act. It is a serious question.

There was a statement some years ago in the United States that what

the country needed was a good five-cent cigar. It seems that the

government of the day here still feels that that's a possibility and

that there is a five-cent cigar around. I don't know whether there is

or not; I haven't been able to find any.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No, the Tobacco Tax Act. The very act that we are

seeking to amend, Mr. Speaker, says that there is such a thing as a

five-cent cigar. The tax on the consumer is an amount of two cents on

every cigar purchased by him at a retail price of five cents or less.

How long ago was it that we had a five-cent cigar? Cigars for the

retail price of five cents or less are contemplated as being available

under the Tobacco Tax Act. What sort of obsolescence do we have in the

legislation that we are amending?

If the government wanted to embark upon a course of dealing with the

health difficulties that arise from the use of tobacco, then it would

have an overall revamping of the Tobacco Product Act and the Tobacco

Tax Act to give the general public some understanding of the dangers

involved. But no, all the government seeks to do is to raise money by

way of taxing, according to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), a

sinful activity and — by way of other declarations including mine; I'm

partial to the addiction aspect of it — by taxing an addiction and by

hitting a person in the purse or pocketbook because of a weakness that

he may have with respect to being unable to stop smoking.

If this were a deterrent aspect to a tax on tobacco, then this isn't

sufficient. Is the government trying to find that fine line between

acceptability of a tax, given that the person is addicted to tobacco,

and not raising the tax high enough to prevent people from smoking in

order to hit them in the pocketbook or purse? Is that what the

government is trying to do? Are they just trying to run down the middle

and say: "Let's exploit the weaknesses of these individuals who are

addicted to tobacco. Let's raise the tax for them, but we won't make

the tax high enough to stop them from smoking." In other words, the

government doesn't care about the health effects of the use of tobacco.

It has no conscience about that at all. The government is just

selecting an arbitrary figure, saying: "If we raise the tax on tobacco

by X amount, then we hope it won't deter anybody from smoking. We want

them to continue to smoke, because we want the money." I submit that is

a shameful way to try to deal with a budgetary matter, but it seems to

be precisely what is the case.

As I mentioned earlier, the 1981 budget raised the tax on cigarettes

to 34 cents for a package of 25 from 24 cents. And the other feature of

this is that the tax rate on cigarettes and tobacco products was

indexed so that it automatically changed — usually increased — as the

price went up. The minister pointed out in his opening remarks on this

particular bill that B.C.'s tax on cigarettes and tobacco products has

been adjusted every six months by the change in the Vancouver consumer

price index subcomponent for tobacco products. So every six months the

tax goes up, and now there's another increase on top of that.

I suppose the government's approach with respect to indexing a tax

of this nature was predicated again on the hope that people wouldn't

stop smoking and that they wouldn't notice a slight change of a few

pennies — because the cost of living does go up from time to time — or

whatever the tax might have been on cigarettes and tobacco products

every six months. Other things went up. Why not tobacco? It became

painless and went almost unnoticed by the average consumer and

purchaser of tobacco that he was paying more and more tax to the

provincial government.

[10:45]

In the fiscal year of 1980-81 the minister anticipated receiving

$26.9 million in that tax. I suppose one would have to go back to Public Accounts

for that year to find out whether that was realized or not, but that

was the prediction of the minister. This year he said that this bill

before us is expected

[ Page 1329 ]

to raise the province's revenues by $18 million —

that's in the balance of this fiscal year — and by $25 million in the

full fiscal year of 1984-85. When we add the estimated revenues of

$26.9 million in 1981 to the $25 million now estimated, we're talking

in terms of an awful lot of money, something in the neighbourhood of a

$50 million increase in revenue from the tobacco tax itself, without

any connected or concomitant declaration or interest shown on the part

of the government about engaging in preventive measures with respect to

health care.

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

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

MR. HOWARD: It is interesting to know. I know that the

subject matter before us is not of great interest to many members. If

the government had not been playing hop, skip and jump with the

legislative program — on again, off again, and moving from one bill to

another, to resolutions and the budget, in and out and off again, and

so on.... They might very well have had this bill passed by this time

if they had not continued to postpone consideration of it.

In fact, I mentioned earlier that the second member for Surrey

himself is the prime person responsible for delaying the bill on the

12th day of August until today, about a month ago. He felt constrained

at that time to adjourn the debate, and I think one should look at the

record in that regard without casting reflections upon a vote of this

House. I'm not doing that; I'm just referring to a factual situation.

As the record in Hansard shows, all of the government members

voted to support the adjournment of the debate on August 12 and those

of us in the opposition voted against it. We wanted Bill 13 to be

proceeded with on August 12 and not postponed.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you give

me some direction? If that was not a reflection on a vote of this

House, what is?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good question. That was a reflection on a

vote. However, the member did not get into the merits of that

particular vote at the time — or I presume he's not going to — and we

can just carry on with the amendment. But the point is well taken.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, with respect, it is under stood that

"A member shall not reflect upon a vote...." refers to expressing

opinions about the vote itself and why people voted a certain way.

That's what a reflection means. I was not doing that; I was simply

reading from the record of votes and proceedings as to which group of

people voted which way on a simple motion to adjourn the debate. In

other words, on August 12 the second member for Surrey....

Actually, this is what happened: he moved a motion that the debate

be adjourned until the next sitting of the House, and we had a division

upon it. He sought to postpone — that was the purpose of moving the

adjournment of the debate — further consideration. He didn't want it

dealt with that day.

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

MR. HOWARD: Did the member for Surrey say it was six o'clock?

If the member for Surrey doesn't remember what happened on that day

when he moved the motion — if he was just acting under orders from the

government to do what he was told — perhaps I should draw his attention

to this fact. After that motion to adjourn the debate to the next

sitting of the House was passed, on a division, Mr. Speaker made a

statement, the Leader of the Opposition made a statement — I'm reading

from Votes and Proceedings

for that day — then the House resumed adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 30 and the debate continued. There was activity in

between the time the second member for Surrey moved to adjourn the

debate.... That's all I'm saying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, hon. members, we've had enough

discussion of what is already public knowledge, and if we could return

to the principle of the hoist on Bill 13 the Legislature would be well

served.

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

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

For a period of time it was probably a most acceptable course of

action socially for women, particularly, not to smoke in public. It was

deemed improper at one time, so my reading tells me. It was an

unrefined thing to do in public. That gradually altered and women began

smoking in public as well as in private, as, I imagine, they did

earlier. It became a socially acceptable course of action for women to

smoke in public. By this invasion of what was presumably regarded — by

those who took

part in it — as a predominantly male activity.... Women

gradually invaded that, and now that women smoke more, they are risking

their lives.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, unless I'm

mistaken, the Chair earlier today ruled that it is not so much the

merits of smoking or not smoking but rather a motion to delay the

imposition of the tax for six months that is before this House. I may

be mistaken, but that was my understanding of the Chair's earlier view.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken, and if all

members in addressing this debate could address themselves to the

principle of the hoist motion before us, the Legislature I'm sure the

member was arriving at that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: That's what I'm getting to, Mr. Speaker. I think

it should be hoisted. I think it should be postponed so that the minister can

consider whether or not the tax that he is seeking to impose by the bill itself

is at a sufficient level. That is part of my argument, and in support of that

I want to make reference to an

article in the Vancouver Sun of, as a matter

of fact, the day before the member for Surrey sought the support of his colleagues

in this House to postpone this debate further. On August 11 there was an article,

the headline of which says: "Women Smoke More, Risk Lives." It's

a new research study, so it says, in Public Health Reports , a journal published

by the U.S. federal Department of Health and Human Services. The study concluded

that the "overwhelming reason" — and overwhelming is in quotation

marks, saying that

[ Page 1330 ]

came directly from the study — for the difference

in longevity between men and women is cigarette smoking. So the more

people smoke, the more we don't take the positive course of trying to

deter smoking, the more we are allowing the tobacco companies to engage

in their advertising, attracting people to smoke, and thus attracting

people to lessen their lifespan. And the more women who smoke, the more

women there are who get into the workplace, get into positions of

prominence in society — and they should have done that a long time ago,

in terms of activity — the more that gap between the lifespan of men

and women is going to be narrowed. If the government really was

interested in preventive health care, and not simply in providing

medical facilities to deal with a problem after it happens, then they

would have another look at what they were doing with respect to the

tobacco tax.

If, for argument's sake, a package of cigarettes costs $1.50 now....

A voice whispers to me out of the ether someplace, Mr. Speaker, that a

package of cigarettes now costs $1.50....

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

MR. HOWARD: What is this, an auction? Whatever it is, I

haven't bought a package of cigarettes for a long time. This is what

the government should be looking at. If in the normal course of

consideration money plays a very important role in the capitalist

system and in the activities of human beings, if the government will

take the time to examine the level of tax that should be put in place

and move towards using that tax as a deterrent and using the income

derived from that tax for preventive purposes, for public relations

purposes, for advertising purposes, for identification purposes to the

general public that smoking is injurious to one's health, then we would

be going in the proper direction. That's why I think the bill should be

hoisted for six months.

It's an undeniable fact — I suppose it has been so for a long period

of time — that the use of tobacco injures a person's health. This

recent research study that I looked at says that the "overwhelming"

reason for the gap between the longevity between men and women is the

difference in smoking. More men smoke than women. But as more women

smoke, that's what's going to happen: their life expectancy is going to

be reduced. The incidence of lung cancer or throat cancer or emphysema

is going to increase. Then the government comes into play and says:

after this injury to health has taken place, then we'll put up the

public funds to provide the medical facilities — the hospitals, doctors

and the like — to assist the person once the damage has been done.

I'm arguing that we must place our emphasis in this society on

preventive health care, and not just simply on dealing with the ailment

after it happens, saying that it was inevitable. That's the fallacy as

to what we're dealing with here. It is simply a bill designed

exclusively and purely to raise money — no other purpose. There's no

social purpose in it, no preventive health purpose in it, no

recognition of the possibility that a heavy tax might deter some people

from smoking. It might assist some people in their desire to quit.

smoking, and....

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

[11:00]

MRS. WALLACE: I would draw the speaker's attention to the

fact that this is the second Tuesday in September, and across this

province concerned citizens are joining together in a pause for peace.

I would ask leave of this Legislature that we now join with those

citizens in a two-moment silence in the cause of peace. I would ask

leave, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Interjections.

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

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your point is well taken, but

I'm sorry, you did rise on a point of order and gained the floor. There

really was no point of order, so I am sorry, hon. member.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, whether or not that was a point of

order, it was certainly tremendously important subject matter. 1,

having the floor in conjunction with the member for Cowichan-Malahat,

would ask the House to proceed with a two-minute silence period out of

respect for those things we are trying to do.

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

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There were some noes. I would advise hon.

members that it is really not proper that such a motion should be

brought forward at this particular juncture of the business of the

House. There were some nays that I heard, so perhaps bearing the motion

in mind as being a very good one, we could ask the hon. member to

continue with his speech.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, in view of the fact that

leave was denied, what the member for Cowichan-Malahat has agreed to do

is this: if those people who are interested in observing two minutes

for peace would like to leave the chamber at this time, we can stand

outside and observe our two minutes of silence for peace.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder

if the member has concluded his remarks or not, with respect to a bill

which is before the House and a motion to hoist that bill for six

months.

[ Page 1331 ]

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

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

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

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

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

MR. HOWARD: Yes, without interruptions from those people

whose sole activity is to disrupt proceedings in this House, like the

member for Surrey and his colleague sitting with him. He had an

opportunity to speak in the debate and he took it; good for him.

What I was arguing is that the minister is simply looking upon an

addiction of people in order to exploit that addiction for money. He

wants to impose a tax, and I am sure that he and his colleagues in the

Ministry of Finance, with their computerized operation, were able to

sit down and come up with some arbitrary level of tax that wouldn't be

high enough to attract people to stop smoking because it hit them in

the pocketbook or the purse, but would be high enough to raise the

maximum amount of money.

That's a pretty cynical way to approach, I submit, a question —

namely the use of tobacco — that has such potential injury and damage

to human beings and that does cause damage. I am not arguing the

aesthetic aspects of smoking, as to whether one should smoke in the

presence of others, in a closed car, or in public places, or anything

of that sort. That is a different question. I am talking about a rather

cynical government that only has the intention of raiding the purses,

pocketbooks and bank accounts of the people in this province to the

maximum extent possible, without doing a single solitary thing in the

preventive health care field, which is what should happen.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If tobacco were not considered to be such an injurious substance,

then why has the Legislature in time past — and this is still

maintained on the statute books — determined that it was not proper for

a person to "deal in, sell, distribute, advertise or promote the use of

tobacco, for the purposes of (

a) preventing a consumer or purchaser of

tobacco from being deceived or misled as to its character, toxicity,

composition, merit or safety; (

b) preventing injury to the health of a

consumer or purchaser of tobacco; (

c) restraining the use and

consumption...."? If the Legislature has determined that tobacco is

such a substance that it requires to have all of these compressions in

place with respect to its use — compressions that relate to safety,

merit, toxicity, the character of tobacco and so on.... If it were not

such a dangerous substance, why do we have legislation like that on the

statute books? The very fact that it is there is tacit recognition that

tobacco is injurious to one's health. We know that it is. I suppose

there are dozens upon dozens of medical studies that claim and prove

that the use of tobacco, in addition to promoting or causing or

contributing to cancer, in addition to contributing to emphysema, is

also the greatest single contributing factor to heart disease and to

heart ailments.

The lives of citizens in this province are being injured every day,

and the government, not caring about the injury that accrues to the

general public from using a substance, not caring about using the

substance itself, simply says: "There is a weakness in humanity with

respect to tobacco. We think that that weakness is sufficient that we

can exploit it. We care nothing about the health of people in this

province. We only care that we can tax that weakness, that we can

exploit an addiction." I submit that that is a very improper way for a

government to approach tax questions in this province. Far better, if

there is any level at which the tax would deter people from smoking, to

put this bill to one side and try to determine what that level is. Do

some public opinion polls and find out what we have to do to try to

assist people in coming to the conclusion that they should not injure

their health by continuing to use tobacco. But the government simply

says: "We are going to tax the addiction, tax the weakness, and see how

much money we can raise from the weakness and from this tradition. We

don't care that the lifespan of human beings is going to be lessened by

continued smoking. We don't care that people are going to suffer heart

ailments and die of heart attacks and heart disease through the use of

tobacco. We don't care that people are going to get cancer from the use

of tobacco. We only care about the opportunity to reach into their bank

accounts and extract $18 million for the balance of this fiscal year,

and in a full fiscal year something in the neighbourhood of $25 million

— tax income on top of the $26.9 million projected as income in the

1980-81 fiscal year." Surely, Mr. Speaker, it merits more examination

than simply saying: "Let's impose a tax and not care about the illness

and the difficulties and the injury that comes to citizens in this

particular province and in other provinces as well." We note that the

minister has a great tendency to look at other provinces and predicate

part of his decision on what happens in other provinces, instead of

simply looking here.

I appreciate very much the opportunity of having had these few

moments. Maybe I'll have another few moments later on, under another

portion of consideration of this bill, to expand further upon these

opening remarks.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, it is a nice quiet Tuesday

morning. I should point out that I have spoken at some length on this

bill and I don't want to repeat myself too often during the motion to

hoist. I did want to make a comment, though, about the matter raised by

the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), requesting leave of the

House for two minutes of silence to observe the vigil for peace taking

place across this nation today....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I am out of order, but I wanted to point

out for the record, Mr. Speaker, that I do believe it was the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who said no, in spite of the fact that

most of his members did agree, I am a bit disappointed.

[ Page 1332 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are reflecting on a previous

decision of the House. We are on an amendment. Would you please remain

in order and speak to the amendment to Bill 13.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My reason for standing in my place on the

motion to hoist is that this is, once again, a regressive tax.

Basically that is why I'm supporting this motion to hoist. A regressive

tax means that the very poorest people in our society pay the same rate

of tax as the very richest. That, in a nutshell, is what a regressive

tax is. When you have this kind of tax on this kind of activity, which

in this case happens to be smoking, what we're doing, in effect, is

taxing the poor and the middle-income people as much as the rich people.

To people making $100,000 a year in salaries, as some people in this

House may be, an extra 15, 20 or 25 cents per pack really doesn't

bother them. But what we're talking about here is a regressive tax. We

have a large number of unemployed people in our province today. A lot

of people are receiving welfare benefits, because they have no choice,

and it's harder for them to purchase a pack of cigarettes or a can of

tobacco. A lot of people are now rolling their own cigarettes. I see

more and more of that, particularly as I travel around my riding. It's

one of the few little pleasures they have, particularly if they are not

employed.

[11:15]

I'm not sure, but I'd like to think that I've never voted for a

regressive tax in this House. I may have, as I just can't remember the

many hundreds of motions and bills I've voted for in this House, but at

least I've tried not to vote for regressive taxation. I am

philosophically opposed to that kind of taxation.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you've been allowing some leeway on the

hazards of smoking in this debate, and I think I went into that in some

detail in my previous speech. I'd like it on record here this morning

that I do not condone the use of tobacco, for all the reasons put

forward in this House on the numerous occasions over the past month.

Coming from members like myself, because there are several heavy

smokers in this House....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think

you ruled earlier that the debate relates to this hoisting of the bill

for six months, not the merits or lack thereof of smoking, nor, in

fact, of the harmful effects associated with it. That was and surely is

a matter for the main motion with respect to the tax, not this motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken, and I will

advise the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), as I have advised

other members, that if he can speak to the principle of the hoist for

Bill 13, then parliament will be well served. I am sure the member can

do that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I can do that quite

easily, and I promise you that I will not exceed the scope of debate

that has been allowed every other speaker on this motion to hoist. I

will not exceed those bounds; it gives me quite a bit of latitude.

The second member for Surrey was allowed a great deal of latitude. I

know he is a new member and he has to get his bearings in this House

and learn the rules. I might occasionally break the rules of the House,

but I don't do it consciously.

1 just wanted to have the hazards of smoking on record, Mr. Speaker.

The point I was trying to make before I was interrupted was that those

of us who are considered heavy smokers know well the effects of such

heavy smoking. I was leading up to how the increased taxes gathered

from this product should be put to other uses, rather than going into

general revenue. I wanted to say that the hazards are well known,

particularly by heavy smokers, and this is the point I was trying to

make. No heavy smoker, that I'm aware of, condones the smoking of

cigarettes, cigars or all these other tobacco products for health

reasons.

I guess I was trying to say that there definitely is a lack of

education — it's much better now — about the hazards of smoking. I

think the tobacco companies, for starters, should emphasize more the

hazards of smoking. I think that part of their profits, and they make

very good profits, as you will see if you read the financial pages

every year, should go to advertising the hazards of cigarette smoking

rather than going into the merits of smoking. I've been a heavy smoker

for quite a number of years, and I understand and feel the hazards.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, while it may be

appropriate to hear at some other time the member's views regarding the

hazards of smoking, I wonder how that relates to a motion to delay the

passage of this bill for six months. It's a tax measure bill and a

hoist motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order, as raised previously,

has been well taken. I'm sure the hon. member, as other hon. members

have, can speak totally in order with respect to what he wishes to say,

and also make it relevant to this hoist motion.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order the

minister raises, the member is using the information that he has now as

a reason to discuss the hoist. The minister knows that and is just

trying his very best to have this debate protracted as long as

possible. He obviously loves sitting in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You've made your point of order. Thank

you, that's sufficient. If the member for Mackenzie can continue on the

principle of a hoist.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was speaking on the

principle, because once again I was leading up to several reasons why I

feel the bill should be hoisted for six months. I was trying to outline

to the minister why he and the government should consider hoisting the

bill for six months.

One of the things the government could consider during that period

of time is how the government could get involved in a public education

program, utilizing the taxes that they are now gathering, and have been

for some months — even though the bill has not passed this House — on

how the government should spend this extra $18 million they're going to

raise with this increased tobacco tax. The minister might consider,

during that six-month period, entering into a public education program

dealing with the hazards of smoking. The Ministry of Health and doctors

across this province should be directly involved in this program. Mr.

Speaker, I think you're old enough to remember the radio programs where

the doctors used to get on during the commercials and advertise a

certain brand of cigarettes. For example, they would say

[ Page 1333 ]

they'd been smoking Winstons or Camels for 30 years

and they were good for you. Well, that's all a thing of the past. You

will not hear a doctor nowadays condoning the use of tobacco, even if

he smokes. The Ministry of Education should be involved in such a

program. The six-month hoist would give the minister time to get

together with his colleague the Minister of Education and launch a

program in our schools, particularly in the lower grades. I've found,

in my own family, that while individual teachers deal with this topic

in the schools.... My children used to come home and lecture me on why

I shouldn't be smoking — and they were right, but a little too late for

me.

But what I'm saying is that these kinds of programs work. Some of

this tax money now being gathered by the provincial government would be

better spent on a public education program, rather than the government

spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fly around in jet planes

paid for by taxpayers' money.... Is this where my tax dollar is going

when I buy a pack of cigarettes? Are my tax dollars going to fly

cabinet ministers all over this province in jet planes, particularly

back and forth to Vancouver, to fly over to Europe and stay in the most

lavish accommodation?

I'm suggesting to you the reason for the six-month hoist would be

for the government to consider spending some of this money on public

education programs. That's the main point of my discussion this

morning. Now, you know, I could spend the rest of my speech talking

about the hazards and having the minister leap to his feet on points of

order. That was not my intention at all. The only reason I dwelt on it

as long as I did was because.... It really wasn't necessary. If the

minister had been listening he would have understood exactly what my

remarks were leading up to and it would have saved him the problem of

jumping to his feet every few minutes.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's the main point I wanted to make this

morning. I don't know how much longer we'll be discussing this tax. The

other main point I wanted to make, though, which was important to me

was that.... I know I'm repeating myself, but I think this is the most

important point to people who actually buy cigarettes, cigars or

tobacco of any kind on a daily basis. This is a regressive tax, a tax

that affects the low-income people much more severely than those people

who are fortunate enough to have a steady job, be making good money, be

at the executive level or be sitting on the treasury benches in

government. They don't really feel it with their incomes; they don't

feel the pressure on them. But particularly for those people who aren't

working, or are looking for work, one of the few little pleasures they

may have is to roll a cigarette and have a cup of coffee. Many of these

people can't even afford to buy a case of beer any more, quite frankly,

or the few other little pleasures in life which many of us take for

granted. In principle I am opposed to regressive taxation. I'm not

condoning the use of cigarettes, but there are, to me, two very

important reasons why I got up this morning — and we will presumably be

voting on this hoist — the regressive tax issue and the public

education angle.

Public education could reduce the incidence of the use of tobacco of

any kind in this province, I would guess, by 25 percent in one year and

possibly 35 percent over a two-year period — if people really knew. The

most important thing we're talking about, and why some of these tax

dollars should be used for that purpose, is our young people. We all

know — and you're the age, Mr. Speaker, as I am — that after you've

been smoking for some time you understand the addictive aspects of

smoking and the health hazards. It's very difficult for us to quit, but

one of my own children, who started to smoke, I would guess — well,

when I found out about it — probably around 17, quit when she was 21.

She wasn't a very heavy smoker, but she quit because of the health

hazards of smoking. I'm sure I wasn't a very good example to her in

that regard. But in any event, I believe that the type of public

education system required in our school systems is important, and I

hope the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

will think about these remarks.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is that this legislation

be hoisted for six months, and the reason that we on this side of the

House would like to do that is that we would like to give the

government time to reconsider this legislation. Because of the hoist

we're asking for and the reconsideration we're asking for, we think

it's only incumbent upon us to give reasons to the Legislature which we

want the minister to think about during that hoist, so that the

minister is better able to make up his own mind as to whether he thinks

this is a motion that he can support. I know that when the minister

opened the debate he didn't have a closed mind. We're hoping that no

cabinet minister has a closed mind, that they will listen to arguments

from the opposition and then either accept or dismiss them based on

their own analysis and common sense.

[11:30]

We've pointed out that in many aspects this legislation is really

much like a sales tax, that the proportion of a person's wage he spends

on cigarettes or tobacco products depends on how much money he makes;

that any time you have this kind of a taxation it weighs more heavily

on those who are either poor and on welfare or some sort of social

assistance, or who are the working poor. Any time you have this kind of

tax, it does prey more heavily on them.

I was interested to note that a new report has come out of the

congressional bureau of economics within the Congress of the United

States, where a recent study done by that rather independent body —

independent, at least, from the administration of the United States —

has found out that the tax measures of the Reagan administration have

hurt the poor and have been no noticeable impediment to the

ever-increasing amount of money that the nation is spending. It is also

interesting that one of the reasons there isn't the lobby in this

country to promote cigarette smoking and tobacco usage.... There isn't

a noticeable lobby in this country like there is in the United States,

primarily I think because we are not a big tobacco producer and we

don't have one area of the country that is a big tobacco producer. In

Ontario we have tobacco production around Tillsonburg in southern

Ontario and in that general area; but I don't think even Ontario sees

it as one of their major economic producers. Therefore we as

politicians in this country don't have the kind of pressure on us that

the American politicians have to satisfy the lobbyists for the tobacco

interests. So we know there isn't that kind of pressure on the

provincial government or on us as legislators. We are relatively free

of lobbying, which does allow us to take a more objective look at

tobacco taxation.

Why would we want this bill hoisted? Why would we want the minister

to think about it? Number one, we feel it is an unfair tax in that it

does tax the poor more than the

[ Page 1334 ]

wealthy; number two, we don't believe that when you

are addicted to a drug such as tobacco, that the cost of that drug is

any real incentive as to whether or not you are going to carry on with

that addiction. The addiction seems to override economic considerations

of whether they are going to continue with that addiction or whether

they are going to stop.

Mr. Speaker, we would be much more prone to considering this bill if

the government would at the same time lay before us the measures of how

they were going to spend this tax from tobacco in an educational

program in the schools and a general education program throughout the

province. Obviously there's only one way for a civilized democratic

society to persuade people not to do something that's harmful to them,

and that is through the educational process, not through attacking

their pocketbook, especially when it attacks one segment of society

more than another.

In this country it wasn't until 1963 that a federal government — the

first one to do so — took any real notice of whether cigarette smoking

or tobacco usage was harmful to our health. I would like to read into

the record what Judy LaMarsh, the then Minister of Health, had to say

about this in the federal House. On June 17, 1963, the late Judy

LaMarsh said: "There is scientific evidence that cigarette smoking is a

contributory cause of lung cancer and that it may also be associated

with chronic bronchitis and coronary heart disease. Health agencies,

including my department, have a duty to inform the public about the

risk to health connected with cigarette smoking." Even though there has

been some movement forward by governments to try to educate people as

to the hazards to health, I'm appalled when I took at the young people

around us. I can't notice that more young people are not smoking today

than they did when I was a young person. It's incredible to me that

when people of my age bracket started to smoke — and probably this

includes a number of people in this Legislature — the only warning we

got was from our parents — it was in a sort of half-hearted way — who

said: "It will stunt your growth. Wait until you're old enough, and

then you can smoke and it's perfectly okay." We weren't warned. I'm not

blaming our parents for that. I'm saying that there just wasn't the

knowledge around in those days, that good health warnings were laid at

our conscience or at our thinking apparatus. We thought it was a big

thing to smoke. We thought it made us one of the gang. It's incredible

when I think back. I remember the first cigarette I smoked: it made me

so dizzy that I had to lie down. I couldn't stand it; it made me sick

to my stomach.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is

confirming that he was probably the same way. Yet social pressure was

such that even with that disastrous first try, the first few tries of

becoming dizzy and ill, and having to lie down to get over the

dizziness, we still continued to do it because we wanted to be big

shots. We thought that it would give us some sort of prestige with our

social peers; we carried on with it.

Today, with all of the information that's out and the talks that

I've had with my children, I realize the best advice I could give them

would be to set an example by quitting smoking, but I'm hooked. I know

that I have to make a decision. I'm just putting it off. I hope I don't

put it off until it's too late for me. I wish my children at least

wouldn't smoke. I realize that my example is the best; in that case I'm

not one of the best of parents, I suppose, because I should make up my

mind to quit smoking and set that example. But at the very least in

this House, all of us as legislators should be more interested in

stopping the usage of tobacco as opposed to taxing it. I think there's

every indication that taxation does not act as a deterrent; it only

means a bigger hardship on some than on others.

I would like to deal with another addiction for just one moment,

because I think it points out the folly of all of us. I've taken some

cursory looks at the cost of alcohol to the taxpayers. This year we

will have a budget in this province of approximately $8 billion. I

think I'm being conservative when I say that $4 billion out of that $8

billion — fifty cents out of every dollar taken in by this provincial

government — will go out to pay for the effects of alcohol. It's a

staggering confession for anyone in this Legislature to make, but I do

believe that it's true. I've taken a look at the health budget and the

big costs from drinking and paying for the effects of alcohol that are

in that health budget. Add to it cigarettes, and there's no doubt in my

mind that at least 75 percent of the health budget is spent on paying

for the effects of alcohol majorly and the effects of cigarette smoking

minorly — fifty cents out of every dollar; 75 cents out of every dollar

is spent in the health care budget.

Now to the Attorney-General's Ministry and the costs associated with

courts, incarceration, the educational programs and policing. You take

a look at alcohol and you are again seeing another big social cost.

Then take a look at the Ministry of Human Resources, and you see

drinking and the causes of family breakup and the cost of dislocation.

Really, Mr. Speaker, you are looking at a society that is laying it on

themselves. We cannot make moral judgments in this Legislature as to

what people should or shouldn't do. We can, though, I think, help to

educate. We cannot legislate these things away, but we can educate them

away. You see this government — this Legislature; I'm not going to put

the blame on the government — putting more taxation on tobacco and

alcohol when in fact we are spending fifty cents out of every dollar

that we take in in revenue to pay for the effects of those two drugs.

If someone were looking at us from Mars and doing an assessment of us

as a society and a Legislature, they would have to brand us as the

craziest nuts that you can ever get — both society and us. It is

ridiculous, isn't it? We know that prohibition won't work, either with

cigarettes or with drinking. That's not the way to do it under a

democracy, but we do have an educational process that is available to

us. I think we have an obligation to use that educational process in

order to cut down alcohol and on the consumption of drugs, be it

tobacco or alcohol.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said that they are going to spend a

great pile of money to persuade the people of this province that the

budget is a good one and that the restraint program and the way it is

being brought in by this government is a good one. I'd suggest that

more money could be saved if the Premier and his government were to

spend that money to dissuade people from using either alcohol or

tobacco and in a six-month hoist maybe this government could decide to

forgo the taxes on alcohol and save more money by spending money on an

educational program that will persuade people to stop smoking, although

I have my doubts as to how effective that will be. I think we have to

get people while they are young and educate them to the fact that

smoking is harmful to their health. Money would be well spent if we

were to spend it on advertising programs of that sort as

[ Page 1335 ]

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

Mr. Speaker, do you realize that if we were to cut alcohol and

tobacco out of society, everybody in this province could be paying half

the taxes they are paying today? That money could then be used to

actually get our economy going again.

What I am trying to say is that the government needs six months, I

think, to consider the arguments being put forward by the opposition.

Don't dismiss them out of hand. I think the evidence is in that to add

taxes to tobacco does not dissuade people from smoking. The only think

that will work is an educational program. So instead of raising more

taxes on the backs of people who are addicted, and in many cases ill,

let's spend money to try to save a portion of the $4 billion that we

are going to spend this year paying for the effects of alcohol and

tobacco consumption. Doesn't it make more sense? If we can actually

spend a few million dollars persuading people not to smoke and not to

drink, we are looking at saving $4 billion if we are absolutely

effective. I don't think we will be that, but surely, with the proper

educational program, in the schools, the health care system and public

media, we could save a big proportion of that $4 billion we are going

to spend this year to pay for the effects of alcohol and tobacco

consumption.

Preventive health care in the long run is the most socially

desirable way to go, and it just happens to be the most economical way

to go also. What could we ask for as citizens and legislator as a more

positive way to go than that? When we can combine social betterment

with the saving of taxpayers' dollars and the saving of dollars in the

economy itself on bad habits, surely that's the way we should consider

going.

[11:45]

1 realize that it's always in vogue to tax sin. Somehow as Canadians

we seem to get off on that more than our neighbours to the south: that

it's always okay to tax sin, that that's more socially acceptable than

taxing anything else. If there was evidence that could convince me that

by taxing sin we could wipe it out, then I would be more prone to go

along with the government; but there is every indication that it

doesn't work. I would rather spend money in preventive health care, and

what better place to start than an educational program to dissuade

people from smoking and using tobacco in other ways. Surely it's a

reasonable request that the government consider it for six months; they

would surely look better in the eyes of the public. I think as

politicians we tend to make a mistake once in a while. We tend to think

that the public looks at politicians and says: "If those politicians

change their minds on anything we'll consider them to be weak." I think

as politicians we all fall into the trap.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that out there in the province the

majority of people would consider it strength to reconsider and to

change one's mind when presented with new facts — even when presented

with an old argument in a persuasive way. Surely the people of this

province see more strength in people being able to think things through

and having the intestinal fortitude to change their minds and reach new

conclusions. Surely they don't see strength as being intransigent —

being rigid and not willing to take that second look. The former

Premier, W. A. C. Bennett, built his political career on taking that

famous second took. If only the son had inherited that quality and not

some of the others, it would be a far better province to live in today.

We implore the government to do this: for six months pull this

legislation. I think the Minister of Finance could take a look at the

health care system and find out exactly, or as close as we can

ascertain, what it's costing us every year to pay for the effects of

drugs — talking about tobacco. I think those figures could be isolated

from the general health care budget, and then we would have some facts

in front of us and decide which way would be the best to go. Would it

be better to tax tobacco more? Would it be better to spend money on an

education program or on telling people about the hazards of alcohol and

tobacco? Or would it be better to spend money to enhance the image of

the Social Credit Party?

We all know the answer, but in case there are any doubters as to the

direction we should go — preventive health care or taxation of sin and

sickness.... Which is the best way for us to go? We're not fooling

around here with a political question that we can afford to fool around

with. We're talking about the health of our citizens. Surely that's

above politics. If it isn't, the people of this province had better

take a look at every political party in this province and get rid of

all of us, because we don't deserve to be here if we're going to put

politics ahead of health care. We don't deserve to be here if we're

going to put taxation ahead of health. We don't deserve to be here if

we don't take a look at all of the facts before we make up our minds as

to the direction we're going to go. I don't think we've had that

opportunity in the House. I think that the minister can marshal those

facts and come back, either next spring or later in this session, and

say: "Okay, we're reasonable people in government. We've listened to

the arguments from the opposition. They're worth consideration. We've

listened to the request by the opposition to have some facts put on the

table." The minister, I believe, can get those facts through his

ministry. Surely six months is not asking too much. If the minister is

serious, we will see those facts back here. If the minister is serious,

we will see the government go along with this hoist. If it's only

silly, stubborn pride, then, Mr. Speaker, we've come to a sorry pass in

this Legislature. Surely the minister wants to show that he is

cooperative. That was used many times in the throne speech: that the

government feels that in order for our society to move forward to

social and economic security, we must have a society that is

cooperating with one another. The government put that in their throne

speech. Shouldn't it start right here? If you don't want your children

to smoke, the best way is to set an example. If we want people in our

society to cooperate with one another to help build a better future,

surely there is no better method than an example of us in this House

doing it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So in a spirit of cooperation, that this government asked for in the

throne speech, I and my colleagues are asking that this legislation be

studied for six months. We call it, in parliamentary terms, a hoist.

What we're asking for, Mr. Speaker, is a hoist of this legislation so

that the son can maybe gain the vision of the father, and take that

famous second look. Look at preventive health care as opposed to

taxation of sin and sickness.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few

words in favour of taking a second took at this particular bill.

Certainly the member who has just taken his place, my colleague for

Prince Rupert, has very clearly outlined some of the reasons we believe

the government should be taking a second look.

[ Page 1336 ]

Taxation in the form proposed by this bill is doubly difficult for

people on low or limited incomes. During the election campaign we heard

promises from the present government that taxation would not be

increased. Here we are facing a fairly massive increase on an addictive

product, and I'm certainly no supporter of that particular addiction,

as you well know. The fact remains that it is an addiction; it is a

form of illness, and it certainly causes a great deal of illness. Those

points have been raised, and I don't intend to reiterate those. But it

is most unfair when people are under the stress and duress that they

are under today — many of our members of society who are living on

reduced and limited incomes — to add this regressive tax as one more

burden that they are forced to contend with. That's why I believe that

this particular piece of legislation, along with others that are

certainly probably more far-reaching and more demanding upon those same

people, is part of the whole package. This is part of a series of

regressive taxes that this government is attempting to foist upon the

public of British Columbia. Without authority of legislation, they have

already foisted retroactive legislation, something else that I

certainly am not a proponent of. I think therefore that it is time the

government did take a second look at this, along with many other pieces

of its proposed legislation. For that reason I believe delaying the

reading of this bill for six months would enable the government to

re-evaluate what they are doing.

We saw some statistics this morning and last week — two series of

statistics. One, relative to unemployment, indicates that here in

British Columbia we are facing a much worse level of unemployment, a

downturn as opposed to an upturn, and the inference has been drawn by

many people that this downturn is part and parcel of the kind of

legislation that has been introduced in this Legislature, and this bill

is one of them.

This morning we saw the report from the B.C. Central Credit Union's

economic analysis branch, which has indicated that in British Columbia

things are not looking good, that there will be a continuation of the

recession. I think it is high time that this government did take a good

look at what is happening in British Columbia and consider, frankly and

honestly, whether or not the legislation they are putting before this

Legislature and proposing to impose upon the residents of British

Columbia is part and parcel of the problem. If you are not part of the

solution you are certainly part of the problem, and I believe that that

is exactly what is happening here in British Columbia. I believe that

this government is a very great part of the problem and that this piece

of legislation is part of the problem. They are imposing excessive and

regressive taxes upon people who are trying to get by, many of them

without jobs, many of them with reduced income, and at the same time

reducing hand over fist the number of people who are gainfully employed

in this province. It's part of a vicious circle, a cycle that goes down

and down: the more curtailment in the economy, the less consumer

spending, and the less consumer spending, the more curtailment in the

economy. As long as you continue to drain out of the consumer's pocket

more and more dollars on more and more taxes, we're going to see this

downward cycle.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada