1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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, APRIL 13, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

899 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 899

Mr. Davidson — 901

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 902

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 11) Second reading.

Mr. D'Arcy — 902

Mr. Wallace — 903

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 904

Mr. Lauk — 904

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 909

Mr. Lockstead — 910

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 913

Ms. Brown — 914

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I rise to support

this $3.6 billion budget. Despite what those people on the other side

of this House have been saying for the last few days, by far the

largest portion of this budget is in direct services to people. I think

you owe it to your constituents to go home and tell them that there's a

$339 million increase in health, education and income support. If you

do any less, you're not doing your job.

Mr. Speaker, I don't rise only to support this budget. I'm very

proud of this budget. I'm very proud to support a people's budget. I'm

proud that my government is moving to relieve senior citizens from

paying property taxes. I'm proud that my government is taking major

initiatives in housing through programmes which will assist people to

own their own homes, and to find rental accommodation if they wish it.

I'm very proud that my government is building the kind of economic

development programmes which will provide job opportunities for all of

our people.

I'm very proud that my government is extending income support

benefits through the Guaranteed Available Income Act to people in need

in the age group 55-59 and to single-parent families who need our help

to maintain them as full partners in our society.

I'm very proud, too, that the largest single expenditure in this

great budget is in health care — up $148 million, an increase of over

20 per cent — almost one-quarter of the total budget for the health

care needs of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke in the throne speech debate and talked about

some of the specific programmes this government plans to deliver in the

next few years. I'd like to outline briefly in this debate some of the

general approaches we hope to make in the delivery of health care.

Detailed debate, of course, will happen during the estimates of the

Health department, but perhaps I could talk for a few moments at least

about some of our major concerns.

First of all, in any discussion about health care delivery, Mr. Speaker, we

have to talk about costs, and no member of this House would disagree with the

statement that something has to be done about spiralling health care costs,

not only in British Columbia but in Canada as well. Our National Health minister,

Marc Lalonde, said recently that Canada's medicare bill for 1975-76 is going

to show an incredible 16 per cent increase over the previous year, and that

bill was up some 14 per cent, almost.

We have, perhaps, an even more dangerous situation in British

Columbia in that in the last two years in this province we've seen

payments for hospital care rise an average of 34 per cent in both of

those years. That kind of increase can't be tolerated because the

people of this province will not be able to continue to afford the kind

of health care that they deserve and must get from government.

The question, of course, Mr. Speaker, is how we curtail these costs

without interfering with the level of health care delivery. It's a

tough question to answer, but there are some answers. Probably they

come mostly, as has been said before, in the provision of low-cost

alternatives in different kinds of health care services. I just wish to

say that this government is committed to providing those low-cost

alternatives and those different levels of care, and for the member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I would like to say that I share his concerns

that have been expressed in this House on many occasions since I've

been a member about the provision of intermediate-care facilities for

the people who need those facilities all over this province.

I served with the member for Oak Bay and other members of this House

on a committee which travelled this province a few years ago to talk

about alternatives and to find out what was needed. The answer was

overwhelmingly clear: everywhere in British Columbia the greatest

single need in health care delivery was for that level known as

intermediate care. That need was clearly identified after even the

first year of the NDP government's rule, but nothing was ever done

other than to identify the need. I promise you, Mr. Speaker — and I

promise the people of this province — that there will be a plan put

forward this year in which we'll be able to identify the way this

government is going to provide intermediate care for the citizens of

British Columbia.

Another low-cost alternative that was developed some time ago in

British Columbia was the early discharge programme and the home-care

programme. The home-care programme is proving to be a tremendous

success. In the areas in this province which have used it to the best

advantage we're finding that we are saving hospital days at a

substantial rate, and by saving those days we must reduce the cost of

health care delivery.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, last year the previous

government initiated a programme of staff cutbacks which seriously

affected the delivery of home care in this province. We were faced with

staff

[ Page 900 ]

shortages in the home-care services in the public

health units throughout this province when we took over. It was a

dilemma that we had to face immediately because it was one that

couldn't be allowed to continue. We faced that dilemma and we've solved

it. If you'll check your budget you'll see that the allotment for home

care is up substantially, and we have now made arrangements to have

those staff shortages alleviated immediately. Hiring is now going on to

restore the home-care programme to its previous level. It's just

another example, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of mess that was left. I'm

not going to dwell on that, but we were faced with some serious

problems when we took office and it will take us a few months to settle

all of them.

There are other ways in which health care costs can be curtailed,

but I think we're whistling in the wind when we look to traditional

methods of cutting costs, because each time we develop new programmes

in health care they're more expensive and the costs go up. Wages, which

are 80 per cent of the hospital costs in this province today, continue

to go up. While we expect that there will be some modification with the

new guidelines, we still are faced with cost of living increases.

So there's only so far you can go in saving money in the traditional

ways, and I think once we recognize that we can get on with the job of

looking for new ways of saving money in health care delivery. I believe

the only real way we'll ever achieve those cost savings is once we

establish, once and for all, that we must bear much more personal

responsibility for our own health care and take the responsibility

ourselves of coming up with ways and means by which we can save money.

The first, of course, is perhaps the most important, that we take care

of our own bodies through good physical fitness and nutrition, good

diets.

Safe driving, Mr. Speaker — this government through ICBC initiated a

programme of incentives for safe driving in this province which is

paying off already and that will pay off in saving money for health

care delivery.

I think it's time that our education system — I guess I've said this

before in the House, but I don't think there's any problem with

repeating it — started to develop programmes of lifetime sports, the

kind of sports that we can carry with us all of our lives rather than

giving up at age 35 or 40, because that's when we start going to pot.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Listen, I'm coming over to your house

tomorrow night to check the plumbing in your basement. The Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is coming with me. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Which lifetime sport are you talking about?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The only lifetime sport I am engaged in

at the present time is politics. It's strenuous physical exercise these

days as well. (Laughter.)

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): That's because you jump to conclusions. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, another area we must

address ourselves to is one which will also save us considerable health

care dollars, and that is the use of seat belts. If people would buckle

up more often we know very well that we can save literally millions of

dollars in the delivery of health care. We know now — there isn't any

doubt — that the wearing of seat belts reduces accident fatalities by

as much as 30 per cent. We know that people in British Columbia are

only using their seat belts about 20 per cent of the time now — or 20

per cent of the people are using them. We know that safety-belt wearers

are likely to remain conscious in an accident and so they are able to

escape from a car which might be in difficulty in water, or trapped in

some way.

Hospital expenses for the rehabilitation of traffic accident victims

amounted to some $13 million in 1974. One-third of the beds at our G.F.

Strong Rehabilitation Centre in Vancouver are now occupied by

paraplegic and quadriplegic victims of automobile accidents. The

evidence is here that if only two-thirds of the British Columbia

vehicle occupants wore safety belts, a 20 per cent reduction in

fatalities would result. There are lots more figures; I won't bore you

with them today.

We have to address ourselves, as we have and will, to the whole

problem of drug and alcohol abuse because that, too, will result in a

tremendous cost saving for the people of this province. There was an

alarming editorial in the paper the other day which dealt with a study

which has just been completed in Ontario. It bears directly in British

Columbia where we have a lower drinking age than we had a few years ago

as well. Over a three-year period in Ontario there was an increase of

300 per cent in fatal accidents involving young drivers and alcohol —

in just three years. Alcohol is involved in at least half of Canada's

fatal traffic accidents.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to tell you a few things about what the

abuse of alcohol is costing us in this province today. Alcoholism ranks

first to third with heart and cancer as North America's deadliest

killer and public health concern. In this continent, of the approximate

100 million alcohol users, there are reported estimates of anywhere

from 7.5 million to 19 million alcoholics. One out of every 12 to 15

[ Page 901 ]

people who use alcohol will develop a dependency;

one in every two or three of those people will be a woman. Each

alcoholic, directly or indirectly, affects another five people: their

spouse, their children, other family members, employees.

Over 90 per cent of those dependent on alcohol and other related

drugs represent an average cross-section of society. They are not skid

road derelicts; they are professional people; they are doctors; they

are salespeople; they are housewives; they are ordinary people. Almost

every third arrest and over 95 per cent of all jailings, over 50 per

cent of all commitments to mental and penal institutions, over 50 per

cent of all recipients of welfare and social aid, over 50 per cent of

all highway accidents, deaths and injuries involve alcohol.

In most communities alcohol is at least 10 times as serious a

problem, with a higher incidence of dependency, a higher death and cost

factor, causing 25 times more disasters, than all other dependencies

combined.

Business, industry and labour now refer to alcoholism as their

"billion-dollar personnel problem." Property damage costs over $13

billion in North America — over $1 billion of that is in Canada. One

out of 13 to 14 employees in industry and government is a problem

drinker. Alcoholism at home is equally and adversely reflected in the

employee at work.

If you want to look at the future, if we don't do something about

it, you might recognize that 70 per cent of all students between grades

7 and 13 use alcohol. One in every 10 of these will become an alcoholic.

More than half of the young people in trouble today come from homes

where one or both parents are alcoholics. Arrests for drunkenness of

those under 21 years of age have increased over 500 per cent, with 50

per cent of all the serious crimes being committed by this same age

group — and these are average young adults.

The chief medical adviser to General Motors, Dr. Nicholas Pace, gave

some statistics in which he said that alcoholism causes 40 per cent of

all hospital admissions, 31 per cent of all suicides, 60 per cent of

all homicides and 40 per cent of all family court problems. The

epidemic is spreading to youngsters. It's an epidemic that we have to

deal with urgently, and it's one that will save us literally millions

of dollars. It will reduce the costs of health care in this country.

Perhaps the final way in which we can contain health care costs

comes in the utilization of the services. Again we come back to the

problem of our personal responsibility in developing good health care

habits. Every one of us in society has a responsibility to develop that

kind of an attitude.

We have to rely on our doctors to practise the kind of

responsibility in which they'll be responsible for bringing down the

utilization of our health services. I'm very happy to say that one of

the first things we did after becoming government was approach the

medical profession and ask them if they would come to us with some

ideas about the way in which this kind of future cost containment could

happen. Just yesterday we had a meeting with the British Columbia

Medical Association in which they presented us with a very

comprehensive brief offering their cooperation in the future towards

this problem.

I think it's a first, It's a programme that will continue, and with

the help of the doctors, who are the prime movers of this industry, we

will come up with some solutions at the end of the road.

Mr. Speaker, the patients also have a serious responsibility in this regard.

I suppose that what we have to do with people in our society is to start to

"uneducate" them. For so many years we have had no regard for health-care

costs. We have said to people: "Use your doctor; use your hospital. If

you have a sliver in your finger get down to Emergency and have it taken out.

If you have a runny nose go to your doctor and get a prescription." We

used the services too much, and we have come to rely on the service too much.

The only way we'll ever achieve what we're trying to achieve is if

we take that personal responsibility and don't go running to the doctor

with every minor ailment that we have, don't overuse our hospitals and

do use our alternative services. That way, in the long run, we will end

up with a better system at less money.

This is not only a good budget; it's a great budget. It's one in

which all British Columbians who accept the challenges of these

difficult times — and I know that the majority of our people do — can

take pride in. As just one of these British Columbians, I am proud to

support this budget with all of my enthusiasm.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset of

my first major address in this assembly take the opportunity to offer

you my sincere congratulations on your elevation to the position of

Speaker of this, the 31st parliament of British Columbia. May I express

also my congratulations to the member for Chilliwack upon his

appointment as Deputy Speaker. We are indeed fortunate to have such

dedicated and capable members in positions of authority and trust in

this House.

To the other members of this assembly, both newly elected and

re-elected, may I add my best wishes in your endeavours to serve the

people of this great province in your respective ridings.

I would also like to state the honour I have in serving in this historical parliament — the 31st

[ Page 902 ]

parliament of British Columbia and the first

parliament in Canadian history headed by the son of a former provincial

Premier. If ever any Premier were to set himself a goal, what higher

goal could there be than to equal the distinguished record of

accomplishment of a father who served this Legislature for 32 years and

who, for the last 20 of those years, led the province of British

Columbia to the highest level of social reform, economic stability and

international stature in its entire history?

To the people of Delta, White Rock and North Surrey — the people who

make up the riding of Delta — may I take this opportunity also to

express to them my sincere gratitude for the confidence they have

placed in me and for the honour they have bestowed upon me, and may I

in turn pledge to them my determination to serve their interests to the

very best of my ability and to represent them, first and foremost, here

in Victoria.

Mr. Davidson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

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

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Once again, Mr. Speaker, I must

oppose this bill. As with most, but not all, of the other tax and rate increases

attempted to be imposed by this government, this tax increase is well over and

above the national guidelines which we are being asked to support morally and

legally by this government and by the government in Ottawa. It is one of the

heaviest tax increases in terms of revenue it will generate to the province,

and which means a loss in terms of the amount of money which will not be there

for use by the citizens of this province to purchase goods and services or to

invest in job-intensive industry and service industries.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing constant tax increases by this government which

betray the position they would ask us to take, and ask the people of this province

to take, in terms of their own business. The government not only seems to be

saying but is saying: "Well, the guidelines are good enough for you people

out there, but they are not good enough for us." I ask: how can we encourage

people to invest not only in business but in, let's say, rental housing

when we have statements by various ministers that the municipal and school taxes

could climb by 12 or 16 per cent? And we have statements by other ministers

that the government intends to go further and further with tax removal from

homeowners.

It used to be tax removal from residential properties; now it's tax

removal from homeowners. What does that mean? Does that mean that the

people who own rental housing are going to have to pay an increasing

share of the burden? Does this mean the tenant will pay an increasing

share of the burden, Mr. Speaker? Does this mean that it's a further

disincentive for the private sector to build more rental housing in

this province? What does it really mean? I would certainly like to know

before I can support a bill of this nature.

I found a rather interesting letter in one of our local newspapers

here in Victoria yesterday. I don't normally read things in papers, but

I thought this was an excellent letter, and its writer should be

congratulated. This gentleman, in writing to The Victorian ,

says that he would like to congratulate the provincial transport

minister (Hon. Mr. Davis), whom I see is missing this morning, for his

refusal to approve a wage increase for the crew of the Princess

Marguerite on the grounds that the proposed settlement exceeded the

guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board.

"How comforting to know that at least one Social Credit

cabinet minister has decided to adhere to these guidelines. We are indeed fortunate

that the forthcoming increases in B.C. ferry fares also fall under the jurisdiction

of Mr. Davis. As he has committed himself to a policy of only approving increases

which do not exceed the wage and price control guidelines of 10 per cent, we

can now look forward to the

[ Page 903 ]

ferry rates being increased by a maximum of 50 cents per

car and 20 cents for passengers.

"My only regret is that Mr. Davis did not impart his

knowledge of the federal wage and price controls to other Social Credit

cabinet ministers who could then have used them as a guide to determine

the increases in car insurance, medical premiums, hospital charges and

provincial sales tax."

That's from a Mr. Blair here in Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at some of the percentage

increases that this government is doing. We've already mentioned in

this debate that some 40 per cent is being added to the provincial

sales tax. We've already seen insurance increases of 133 per cent. We

expect to see, by virtue of statements in the budget and in the Price

Waterhouse report, possible ferry increases of up to 160 per cent. We

are looking at medicare premium increases of 50 per cent; corporation

tax increases of 16 per cent, which have already been dealt with;

income tax increases of 7 per cent, which is one of the few increases

which are within the guidelines; hospital per diem increases of 400 per

cent; tobacco tax increases — which are again within the guidelines —

of 6 per cent for those who smoke. For people like myself…it doesn't

really matter to me.

We are seeing other increases which will accrue to Hydro:

electricity, natural gas users and bus users in British Columbia. Some

people would say those are not taxes; I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

those are essential services and they are taxes.

Now I would ask before I sit down once again: how can we expect the

people of British Columbia to take seriously what we say in this

Legislature, or take seriously what the government says? How can we

expect them to keep their salary and wage expectations within the

guidelines? How can we expect them to keep business and corporate

income expectations within the guidelines; their professional fee

expectations within the guidelines? How can we expect landlords, and

even tenants, to adhere to these kinds of guidelines when we have this

kind of what I believe to be a callous and cavalier attitude, whenever

it comes to tax increases, by the government?

I would suggest that the most heinous of all the tax increases we

have seen in British Columbia — more so than the auto insurance

increases or the ferry increases — is the sales tax. I certainly

deplore this move of increasing these taxes by 40 per cent in one fell

swoop in this difficult year of restraint and, hopefully, expansion of

the economy in British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the main points have been canvassed and I'll be very brief.

The sales tax is not based on ability to pay, and for that reason,

above all others, I will oppose this bill. The impact of the sales tax

unquestionably inflicts hardship on lower-income groups since they have

much less flexibility in disposable income, and spend a very high

percentage of their income on essentials.

If the sales tax has to be increased then I think some specific and

special consideration should have been given to recipients of Mincome

and social assistance recipients, much in the same way that there are

basic exemptions under the income tax provisions. I think that if the

government felt that this was the only way to raise that further $200

million, then at the same time there should have been some specific

initiative to exempt persons receiving Mincome and social assistance

from the provisions of the sales tax.

I realize that that might be a somewhat radical move, but all the

voices from this side of the House have made it very plain that not

only is it the agreement of the members of the opposition parties but

they have quoted numerous independent and objective authorities from

many jurisdictions, pointing out that indeed the sales tax is a very

unfair tax in relation to the people at the lower end of the income

scale.

Beyond that, it seems to me clearly to be a depressant to the

economy inasmuch as consumer goods people have talked about…dryers and

washers and stoves and fridges and so on. Young people setting up

homes, young couples getting married, are just having an extremely

difficult time to find the financing for that in any case in

inflationary times, and it'll just be all the more difficult. If

consumer sales drop, then, of course, the expected upturn in the

economy will be that much slowed.

I think that in the field of home construction also, if the

government was really very concerned about encouraging an economic

upturn, this kind of increase in the sales tax is just about the last

thing that should have been done. It very clearly increases the cost of

construction of new homes or repairs to existing homes or expansion of

existing homes. We all know very well that basic industries and the

sales of appliances and so on depend very much on the number of people

setting up homes, whether it's in an old home or a new home. So I think

this is a very negative effect.

I've said already that there is a contradiction in the budget

anyway. If the increase in the economy is anticipated as being 4.5 per

cent, there really is no need for as much as $200 million extra,

regardless of the source of its revenue.

There's every likelihood from the budget that increased income tax

revenue will take care of a much larger fraction of the total

government revenue than has been projected. I've repeated this figure

before but I just say again, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite likely

[ Page 904 ]

the $815 million in personal income tax which is

expected in 1976-77 will be a great deal higher. Under these

circumstances, this $200 million which the Minister wants to derive

from an increased sales tax is an exaggeration.

Without reflecting on a vote, I think that we have tried to put

forward positive alternatives in this debate, Mr. Speaker, which were

reasonable and constructive and I thought were very well argued by the

three opposition parties. I've no wish to intrude on the rules of the

House by reflecting on that vote, but it's so often felt that

opposition parties simply oppose for the sake of opposing. I happen to

think that in this particular debate regarding the 2 per cent increase

in the sales tax there have been very many valid, positive, justifiable

points put forward which have risen above the partisan political

approach to debate.

Even at this late stage in the debate I would hope that the

government might still take a second look, particularly in areas such

as the impact on Mincome recipients and social assistance recipients,

and particularly on the longer-term effect on the economy. Certainly

the economists — the people whom I have sought advice from — are

unanimous in saying that at a time when you want an expanding economy

to create more jobs, the last thing you do is put up taxes. So the

government seems to be contradicting one of the basic goals that it

should have at this time. While I realize that the government has taken

a basic position that it will balance the budget at all costs, I still

feel that even on that premise it is going overboard in raising taxes

in a variety of ways which not only are unnecessary to the degree that

they're doing it, but in fact are inflationary and a depressant to the

economy at the very time when we're trying to expand the economy.

With these thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, I'd move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 31

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

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

MR. LAUK: All the cabinet is leaving as soon as I get to my

feet, Mr. Speaker. The press gallery should take note of this. In fear

they're rushing out of the House….

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Oh, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is going to stay.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: What files? Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly grateful to

the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for calling a division on

adjournment of this debate. At least we got a few more members in the

House.

I think this is one of the most serious bills to have come before this 31st parliament, although short-lived.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, Mr. Member, you feel I always say that, but I don't. It's just guilt feelings on your part.

You know, Mr. Speaker, raising the sales tax — a most regressive tax

that will affect the ordinary citizens of British Columbia in a most

drastic way — is a most serious bill, and I think for all of the

members of the House, it should be incumbent upon them to stay in the

House and listen attentively, as the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) is right now. I mean, he should set an example for his other

colleagues on the front benches.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made me.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General says he's going to hang himself. Well, I don't think he should feel that bad about this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: You know you fought it in cabinet.

[ Page 905 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Can we get back to the principle of Bill 11?

MR. LAUK: The principle of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker, is a bad

principle. It's a principle that if you can collect a tax easily

enough, even though it hurts the low-income people of this province,

then by all means let's do it.

Let's not take the time to consider carefully the alternative

measures of taxation that would be fairer and more equitable for all

groups of people, not just the privileged, not just the millionaires

and the well-to-do people of this province, but every ordinary citizen.

It was not too long ago that W.A.C. Bennett spoke on the sales tax.

It was not too long ago, as I pointed out in the debate on the

amendment to hoist this bill for six months, that the distinguished

British Columbian was so distressed by the fact that the government he

supported at the time was bringing in a sales tax that he shortly after

bolted that party, and I say rightly so, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What year? What year was that?

MR. LAUK: 1948. I bring that to the attention of each and

every backbencher of this government side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

W.A.C. Bennett had the courage of his convictions, and I know some of

you, especially the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)….

MR. CHABOT: Twenty-eight years ago.

MR. LAUK: The member for Columbia River — boy, he's not

anxious for this House to adjourn, Mr. Speaker, if he has to go back to

Columbia River and tell his merchants who are right near the Alberta

border that there's now a 7 per cent sales tax, and that all the people

of Golden are going to have a regular cavalcade to Calgary.

Where does that suit come from, Mr. Member?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Calgary. The suit you've got on your back is Calgary because there's no sales tax, and you know it, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The dust is there. The dust is there, but let me tell you there's no dust on that suit.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: There's no dust on that suit. The member for

Columbia River, boy, hightailed it to Calgary and had that suit made as

soon as he heard about the sales tax.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Who could blame him? The people of Columbia River

can't be blamed either if they're going to form a cavalcade — an exodus

from British Columbia of all the people of Columbia River to get goods

and services in Calgary where there's no sales tax, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: W.A.C. Bennett….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: I don't know, I haven't asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think they'll ask you either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker, I can imagine why the member

for Columbia River is upset today. At least he has the courtesy to sit

in the House and take what's coming to him, but I'll tell you that he's

going to be hard-pressed to go back and talk to that hardware merchant

— not the one that's sitting in the Premier's chair — but that hardware

merchant, that drugstore operator, that restaurateur…

HON. MR. GARDOM: Or tailor. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: …the tailor, who's now voting NDP (laughter)….

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He always did. That's why he goes to Calgary. Not the sales tax. All right. No, I can't accept that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You know as well as I do….

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you that the hon. Member for Columbia

River is going to have some explaining to do, and rightly so, but I

have a feeling before the final vote on this bill is taken, Mr.

Speaker, that the hon.

[ Page 906 ]

Member for Columbia River will stand up and at

least speak on this bill. He's sat on his hands quietly because he

knows there's no defence for this bill. He knows that the people of

Columbia River are going to reject him and finally after all these

terms throw him out of office (laughter) because of that extra 2 per

cent on the sales tax. He knows it. He's laughing now but he's hiding

that hurt, that pain. He knows he's got to face those good people in

Golden and explain the sales tax.

MR. CHABOT: Come on up and run against me.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, Hon. Member, can we get back to the principle of Bill 11?

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what greater

principle there is for the member for North Peace River, very close to

Edmonton. I don't know what he's going to say, Mr. Speaker. If he were

in the House today, he'd be listening to this debate and he'd say to

himself: "What am I going to tell the merchants in Fort Nelson? What am

I going to say to them?"

MR. SPEAKER: The principle of the bill, Hon. Member, is an

increase in sales tax in the province of British Columbia. I hope you

will direct your remarks to that principle.

MR. LAUK: I am, Mr. Speaker. I'm very interested in helping

the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Smith) explain this increase

in sales tax to the merchants of Fort Nelson and Fort St. John. What is

he going to say to them when he goes home? What happens when you hang

up your three-cornered hat and you go up there and you have to talk to

the merchants?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. There's a certain dignity

and respect paid in this House to the three-cornered hat, regardless

of, what member might wear it. I'd ask you to observe that respect and

that dignity.

MR. LAUK: Thank you for drawing that to my attention, Mr.

Speaker. I would in no way wish to mean any offence. It was just a

little light-hearted humour, and I hope that Mr. Speaker doesn't take

offence at that remark.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think it's incumbent upon you, because you

are the Speaker of the House, that we speak out on behalf of you

because you are not allowed to enter into the debates. I think that if

I were the member for North Peace River and able to speak in this

debate I would be concerned about the people of Fort St. John and Fort

Nelson — the little merchants there who must collect an extra 2 per

cent sales tax. Will not the people of those communities from time to

time take advantage of shopping trips to Alberta? Will not that great

amount of economic activity in the Peace River area, in Columbia River

and in the East Kootenays go to Alberta?

Is this not a self-defeating measure, Mr. Speaker? This is the point

I'm trying to raise. W.A.C. Bennett in 1948 had the courage to stand in

this House and say it was wrong, it was regressive and it was going to

hurt the farmers, the industrial workers, the merchants and the little

people of this province. He called it an accountant's budget, and it's

truer today than it was in 1948.

It's not important, I suppose, to worry about the sales tax when

you're a millionaire; it's not important, I suppose, when you're

well-to-do.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Tell us about being a millionaire, Gary.

MR. LAUK: I don't know what it's like.

HON. MR. MAIR: You drive a car.

MR. LAUK: I drive a car; I'm a millionaire. That's very good.

The Minister of Consumer Services says anybody who drives a car is a

millionaire. We have to take that minister out of the horse-and-buggy

era. That's the way the old Mercedes bends.

HON. MR. MAIR: You've got a basement full of files. What more do you want?

MR. LAUK: We could hope for a better government.

I feel that the example of W.A.C. Bennett set for this House, for

this province and for that back bench over there is an important one.

He not only spoke against it, but he voted against it and he went

around this province and spoke against it to every constituency group

in B.C. Then he crossed the floor, Mr. Speaker, and eventually formed

his own party and became Premier of this province for over 20 years.

Now think of the possibilities for you, if you stand up and speak

against this regressive legislation. It turns you on, doesn't it? You

think about it. Not only that, but you would be arguing for the

ordinary citizens on this province.

What's happened? People say: "Well, how are we going to increase

revenue if we don't have a sales tax?" That, in the modern vernacular,

is a cop-out. That is admitting defeat. There is only one kind of

person who is going to be defeated in this world, and that is a person

who admits to defeat — a person who says to himself: "I choose defeat."

You can choose to be victorious, and you can choose to do something

better than Bill 11. You can choose to take the time that's necessary

to work out

[ Page 907 ]

a fair and equitable plan of taxation for this province, instead of a regressive, ancient, 19th century approach to taxation.

MR. G H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): What would you do, Mr. Wizard?

MR. LAUK: I would argue what W.A.C. Bennett argued: we'd

increase revenue from the natural resources of this province. We would

increase revenue from natural gas and coal royalties, because natural

gas and coal are in demand.

MR. KERSTER: Well, why didn't you do it?

MR. LAUK: We did. This is not our budget, Mr. Member — this is your budget.

I don't object to the member for Coquitlam talking out of his seat, Mr. Speaker, but you should.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Coquitlam wishes to

harass the member who is speaking he will have to do it from his own

chair, not from someone else's. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I object. That is encouraging people to harass me.

MR. SPEAKER: I withdraw the word "harass."

MR. LAUK: Thank you. Let the record show that the Speaker withdrew the remark. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, they ask what we should do.

MR. KERSTER: Nothing.

MR. LAUK: We would increase the revenue of this province by

concentrating on getting more money from American users of our natural

gas, a very precious commodity indeed.

Coal is now becoming in demand. I can remember under the previous

Social Credit administration where the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources actively encouraged the closing of coal mines in this

province, and coal mines closed one after another. Little foresight did

that person have, and that administration have, because we could see —

surely, all of us could see — the energy shortages that were coming.

They were talked about in the last 10 years of that administration's

life.

Now coal is a valuable resource in the world market; it is

increasing every year, and coal royalties — it would make sense —

should be increased as well. We now talk about a vast plan for

developing the coal resource in this province, a plan developed and

started by the former NDP administration…

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. LAUK: …but we are delighted it is being carried on by the

new administration. It makes good economic sense, and if the coal

resource is properly taxed, either by royalty, economic rent or profits

tax, the revenue to the people of the province of British Columbia

would help greatly to avoid regressive taxation measures such as that

outlined in Bill 11.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: As I say, now that energy shortages are here it

will lead inevitably to coal sales throughout the world. It'll have its

little dips and so on, but soon the market for coal will be increasing

in Japan. We've got many good entrepreneurs who are producing coal in

this province who are travelling through Japan, through Europe, making

long-term contracts for the sale of coal. This is all to the interests

of the people of British Columbia. It will bring revenue and jobs to

the people of British Columbia. It will increase income tax. It will

increase revenues through royalties — or it should — so why should we

rely on this regressive legislation that only attacks the lower-income

earners, the industrial workers and the pensioners and fixed income

people of this province?

Coal, metallurgical and thermal…coal is a very, very valuable

resource. It is marketable; long term contracts are being signed every

day. Natural gas; very precious, very valuable to the United States;

why should we allow the American users of our natural gas to pay less

for our natural gas than they would otherwise? I say that's wrong. I

say the people of British Columbia own that resource. They have every

right to expect that their government, which is supposed to act in

their interest, that has the trust of the people, will make sure that

the revenue from those natural resources is sufficient so that the

people themselves are not taxed to death.

MR. KERSTER: Are you on Bill 31 or Bill 11?

MR. LAUK: You know, even in forestry, Mr. Speaker, when you

talk about stumpage, the NDP administration gave stumpage 1ncentives to

forestry during a slump last year. Every indication is that forestry is

improving. We have Mr. Barclay of B.C. Forest Products who says that he

expects that the market is going to improve slowly but surely, by a

great measure, toward the end of the year. Stumpages will be increased.

Revenues to the government coffers will be increased. The revenue

expectations of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I'm sure,

will have to be revised in mid year. Why are we troubling ourselves now

with this bill? Why are we imposing this hardship upon the ordinary

people of British Columbia when things are looking better, when

revenues could be increased on our natural resources?

[ Page 908 ]

1 say the only reason is political revenge and vindication. I don't

think for a moment that if this government was operating with good

sense and with — as W.A.C. Bennett would describe — careful budgeting

planning techniques, they would bring in a social services tax,

particularly to 7 per cent.

I think that in the forest industry as well we can see great markets

opening up in Japan. The efforts of the Department of Economic

Development in that regard — if I would cast modesty to the winds for a

moment — was excellent in the last three years.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I hope that the new minister gets his mind off

trivial matters and gets down to the business of selling British

Columbia products abroad, gets down to the business of selling forest

products to the Japanese and to Europe.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Let him get out of the basement.

MR. LAUK: I would think so. He should get his mind out of the

basement, Mr. Member, and on to the high office that he's supposed to

occupy, and get out there and make sure that our forest industry

survives — not only survives, but prevails in the world markets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Return the files.

MR. LAUK: Do you know that increased sales are predicted for

Japan? And the revenues to the province for an increased market in

forest products will be beneficial to us all. Get out and sell, Mr.

Minister. I should say to all the members of the front bench: get out

and sell the products of this province to the nation. Don't sit on the

backs of the little people of the province who voted you into office.

Don't tax them to death. Don't sit there and whimper about recession;

get out and sell this province to the world and make sure we've got

enough revenue so that we don't have to tax our people to death.

This is the kind of creative thought that I would urge upon the

Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, instead of saying: "Oh, well, what

can we do? We need the revenue; let's raise the sales tax."

That requires no imagination. That's dull, uncreative and oppressive

on the people of British Columbia. They hoped that they had voted in a

government that was creative, that had some financial pizzazz, that was

able to get out there and think of a creative, more equitable tax

structure and also create jobs and economic development in this

province. So far we've only heard petty complaints and whimpering about

the economy and trivial matters that have been dragged on the floor of

this House.

Nothing has been done to create jobs, to create revenue, to avoid

the kind of oppressive kind of tax legislation we're now dealing with

in Bill 11.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Grace, you're going to have a long way to fall when you go.

MR. LAUK: Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that this government always

is most interested in protecting the corporate structure of this

province — the profit structure of this province — and never interested

in protecting the jobs that the ordinary people have in this province?

This is the approach that can be seen in Bill 11. An increase of 2 per

cent on the sales tax will be almost a death blow to the retail sales

economy of this province. A 40 per cent, 2-point increase is a death

blow to the economy, Mr. Speaker.

I mentioned the ridings such as yours and Columbia River which

border on the Alberta border. I mentioned how that would create an

exodus for retail sales in this province. But that's not even the major

issue. The major issue is not the exodus on the Alberta border; the

major issue is the $200 million minimum that will be taken out of the

private economy. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is a death blow. That is part

of the real regression of this bill; that is part of the lack of

creativity — the lack of imagination — that has become so apparent in

that government in the last four months.

Why couldn't they take W.A.C. Bennett's words to heart? Why couldn't

they take the time to plan a careful budget that was creative and

equitable to the people of the province? No, the easiest way out, even

though it's on the backs of the little people — they take it. Two

hundred million dollars are taken out of circulation in the consumer

economy, Mr. Speaker, and they sit there silently on their hands and

talk about phony issues, trivial matters, and at the same time the

little people of this province are suffering. December 11 was a cruel

joke of the people of British Columbia — at least $200 million less in

wages, $200 million less in income taxes, $200 million less in retail

sales.

Have we forgotten the multiplier effect, Mr. Speaker? Have we

forgotten that? I wonder how many members of the cabinet benches

understand the multiplier effect of taking that taxation money out of

the economy. If they don't understand it then they should understand

it; they should understand it before they bring down this kind of

regressive legislation. Every dollar taken out of circulation by this

tax means three or four in the multiplier effect to the economy. That's

$600 million, perhaps, out of

[ Page 909 ]

the economy of British Columbia — $600 million less

that the people will have to spend on themselves, to take that

vacation, to pay the high increase in ICBC rates or ferry travel or to

pay the high increase in their home heating fuels or the food prices

that were unfrozen by that cruel administration. It's $600 million less

for the ordinary little people in this province to spend because the

Minister of Finance only knows black and white. He's an accountant. He

hasn't got the creativity or the imagination to think in terms of an

equitable, fair taxation structure for the little people of this

province. That is a sad, sad condemnation of the Minister of Finance.

We would hope that a businessman of his stature would be more

creative. We know how creative he is in selling his product. Why

couldn't he be creative in dealing with the taxation of the ordinary

people of this province? I am saying, Mr. Speaker, they did not take

the time of day for the people that voted them into office. They gave

them short shrift, indeed, Mr. Speaker.

If they had courage, which they do not, they would bring in an

equitable structure. They would have lowered taxes and not raised them.

There are jurisdictions which were condemned in the very budget speech

that that Minister of Finance uttered in this House — administrations

that are taking real steps to protect ordinary people. They are

lowering taxes, not raising them, because these other administrations

realize that lowering taxes increases economic activity and, in the

long term, will increase revenues to the government many more fold than

they would by this one-shot affair at raising the sales tax.

The ordinary people would then feel that there was a government that

was on their side; a government that was not interested in protecting

the privileged class, but interested in government for all of the

people of British Columbia; a government that was interested in equity

and social equality; a government that would apply a tax structure that

would enable little people to have a chance in this system.

What were they promised before December 11 — these people who got

short shrift by this bill and the many other oppressive measures of the

Finance minister? They were promised better times. I think it was:

"Happy days are here again." They were promised more jobs. They were

promised a tax freeze. They were promised practically everything under

the sun.

They promised the NDP policy, they promised the federal Liberal

policy, they promised every policy but their own — and what have they

delivered? Zero. The opposite.

What is the legacy of the little people of this province after

December 11? ICBC rate increases making us second or the highest in

Canada as far as automobile insurance rates are concerned. They lifted

the price freeze so that the people on fixed incomes — Mincome

recipients and the people on disabled pensions — could no longer rely

on a government that will protect their interests at the supermarkets,

allowing Kelly Douglas and Safeway to make their profit on the backs of

the people on fixed incomes. They are offering an increase in income

tax and an increase in sales tax by this bill. Medicare premiums have

been raised. Ferry rates are to be raised. Home heating fuels are

allowed to rise. Hydro rates are going to be raised. Cutbacks are in

place and will only cost more money to the ordinary person on fixed

income.

This government has shown great courage in agreeing to the

anti-inflation bill. They said to the ordinary people: "We'll raise all

these rates but you hold back your wages." Isn't that sweet?

When you look at the budget and you look at this bill particularly, in The Province of March 29 there is an

article which says:

"Subtract $150 and you've got it. A family of four

will face an extra $150 or more a year in provincial taxes and health

insurance premiums, with another increase due in 1977 as a result of

the provincial budget.

"The biggest individual increase will be the extra $75

for medical plan premiums. Notwithstanding this increase, if any

members of the family have to go to hospital, they will still pay more

for the treatment. Instead of the current $1 a day it's $4 a day."

And on and on it goes.

The sales tax cannot be calculated with any degree of accuracy, but

we know it will weigh more heavily on the people on pensions, the

ordinary, little people in society. We would think the government

should have adopted the amendment put forward by the Liberal leader and

take that six months that is so crucial to careful budgeting. We

reiterated the warnings of W.A.C. Bennett and many other distinguished

people who understand taxation. They have gone unheeded.

The reward to the people who voted this government in on December 11

is not "happy days are here again," but "eat crow." That's a sad, sad

day.

Mr. Lauk moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

[ Page 910 ]

NAYS — 28

McCarthy

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

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

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I take my place in this debate with some pleasure, although I expect to be quite short.

I know that we are discussing the 40 per cent increase in the sales

tax, an increase that hurts people in my constituency possibly to a

greater degree in some areas than in other parts of British Columbia.

That possibly may be because in large areas of my riding I have a large

proportion of senior citizens, people on fixed incomes. It appears that

this government is not prepared to assist our seniors or people on

lower incomes and in fact are making it more difficult for them.

In these sad economic times when there's an economic recession all

over the world, and the federal government is attempting to fight

inflation with its Anti-Inflation Board, this government has introduced

a budget and a bill that is unquestionably inflationary, particularly

to the poor, the working poor, low-paid people on low incomes, ordinary

working families, small businesses.

Yes, how about the small businesses, Mr. Speaker? How about that?

How about people who wish to start a new business? There's no doubt

about it that with the 2 per cent sales tax the start-up cost of a new

business will be initially much greater than it would have otherwise

been. I think many of these businessmen are people who voted for that

government, if I recall. I would suggest that possibly the majority of

people in the small businesses perhaps supported the Social Credit

government for their so-called intent of fiscal responsibility. Well,

we have disproven that claim in this House, Mr. Speaker, time and time

again.

It's a regressive tax. This tax hits the poor, the working poor, the

ordinary working family and the small businessmen much more and much

harder than the rich. The rich, the well-to-do, can afford this 2 per

cent, or 40 per cent — 2 cents on the dollar. In fact, they can afford

a lot more than that. I think under our present taxation system they're

getting away with murder because of the loopholes in the federal law.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can afford to go to Alberta and shop.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, anyway, I don't think that people living

in unorganized areas will get the full benefits of this social service

tax when we hear that ambulance services may be cut back in areas where

it's particularly needed, such as rural areas like the one I represent.

And we're all paying our equal share.

I wish you'd listen to me, Mr. Speaker. Who am I talking to?

I think it's worthwhile quoting a letter I received the other day

from Vancouver, a letter dated April 1 and sent to the Premier and the

Minister of Finance from a senior citizen. I'd like to quote this

letter, if I may. It is from Ethel M. Davis:

"Dear Sirs,

"I feel I must bring to your attention a grave error

in your budget of last week and your claim that it is fair and doesn't

hurt anyone…"

"…and that it does not hurt

we old folks seriously" — it does so! — "the raise in sales tax to 7

per cent and the hospital charge from $1 a day to $7. I am 83½ years

old and live in a home at my doctor's insistence. I get my OAP of

$132.90, but as I have a railway pension, half of my husband's, I do

not get Mincome nor the supplement."

Well, I've got news for some of the seniors, Mr. Speaker; they're going to be getting less. under this government.

"There are old folks here who are not so fortunate" —

she considers herself fortunate — "and it is for them that I am so

concerned. One lady in her 90s, who has been widowed many, many years,

raised a family by working through the hungry 30s and has outlived them

all and gets $226.12 per month. She pays the rent, board and

light-nursing care, $244. How does she afford the little necessities

one must have, a cake of soap, a box of Kleenex, Polygrip, deodorant

and all these things raised by 2 per cent? She does like to give church

collection."

[ Page 911 ]

Ah, you're biting into the church collections. I'm shocked, shocked!

"But where does it come from? To keep her

hands busy she knit herself an afghan with wool, $1.35 per ball; that

used to run 29 cents. What does one do when their clothes or shoes wear

out? Can she go to a rummage sale or ask the Salvation Army for

replacements? You will say, too true."

Mrs. Davis goes on to say:

"There are men who live alone, without wives; some are

chronically ill in hospital. When the rate is raised from $1 to $7, how

are they supposed to afford this raise? There are also personal items a

man must have — shaving cream, razor replacements, clothing, shoes, an

occasional haircut."

For sure you need a haircut these days, Mr. Speaker, or you won't get anything; they'll cut you right off.

Mrs. Davis continues:

"These are the bare necessities of life and things people should have on any account.

"Another item I almost forgot to mention is that in

this elderly-folk group there are many with heart conditions, angina,

and whose doctors prescribe a tablespoon or so daily of brandy, or in

many cases rye, which is costly. Now they have to pay an extra 14

cents. Do you call this being humanitarian? To quote Marie: 'Let them

eat cake!'"

Well, boy, I'll tell you quite frankly, I object to the price of

booze myself, Mr. Speaker. I really think it is unfair. There are a

whole lot of ordinary working people in this province who like to have

a little nip now and again. I really think this bill is infringing on

their rights — and this budget. I really believe that. What's wrong

with a person, after a hard day's work, going and enjoying an ordinary

glass of beer or having a drink in the bar with his friend before

dinner? What's wrong with that? Not a darn thing.

"I call this government the many-Vs government:

vindictive, vicious, vituperative, vitriolic, vendetta, inhuman,

money-mad and arrogant," says Mrs. Davis. "These are my thoughts on

this government.

"The almighty dollar is more important than the

people, especially the small people who have a vote but little else.

The increase in sales tax does hurt them — the big business, the

hospital cost to $7, the callous treatment by Mr. Vander Zalm, Minister

McClelland and the Minister of Education, Dr. McGeer. And the

enthusiasm of our Premier pounding his desk as these inequities were

mooted was very disgusting."

Mrs. Davis closes with a poem: "I will close with a favourite poem of mine that seems to

fit your attitude towards the unfortunate of this province."

Away with him; he utters the word love,

Dark-souled incendiary, madman forlorne.

He dares to put humanity above discretion,

Better never having been born than thus to be offended.

Learn, good brother, that love and pity are forgotten fables

Told by the drowsy years to one another

With nothing in them to supply our tables.

These are the ways of hungry common sense.

Millions of men have died to bring these days,

And more must die these good days go hence,

For God moves still in most mysterious ways.

Ah, Debs, Debs, Debs, you are out-weighted, out-priced!

'David Barrett might be substituted for "Debs", by the way.

These are the days of Caesar, not of Christ.

Yet, suppose all was done and said

There was a resurrection from the dead.

So says Mrs. Ethel M. Davies.

A copy of this letter was sent to all leaders of all parties. Okay, there you have it once again.

How about the price of housing? How will this affect the price of

owning a home, Mr. Speaker, the increased sales tax? This government

claims to try to live up to the standard that we accept for housing. We

had made a good start when we were the government, in terms of housing,

and made good progress. But this government, while they say they are

interested in helping people obtain houses, I find that, in effect,

they are not doing very much. I don't expect that they will do very

much. I think they might do something for the developer, the

speculator, but I doubt that there will be very much housing for people.

I think John Kenneth Galbraith has something to say about housing.

Just to quote Galbraith: "There is no country in the world where

middle- and low-cost housing works under private enterprise." I think

we've found that pretty well to be true. It works if you have money; it

works if you want to sell your soul to the mortgage company or to the

bank for the rest of your life. But for ordinary people on ordinary

paycheques trying to raise a family — I can tell you from experience

that is just darned well won't work. Is "darn" on the list, Mr. Speaker?

The proposed increase in ferry fares — how about that?

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, it's the first time I've said it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members: There is a

[ Page 912 ]

rule in the House about repetitious debate, whether

it be debate you have delivered on the floor of the House or debate

that others have used, and the repetition of that. The other thing that

I would ask the member to do is to relate his remarks to the bill

before us, and the principle of the bill. Reading from whatever you may

have in front of you, unless it is relative to the principle of the

bill, could be out of order, Hon. Member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate

your remarks, but I would like to point out to you that I expect to

have the same leeway extended to me as was extended to members over on

that side of the House when they spoke for hours and hours, some of

them 34 hours at length — repetitious, about nothing and didn't prove

anything.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Continue as long as you relate your remarks to the bill before us.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am discussing the 40 per cent increase of a sales tax.

Another aspect of my remarks is the effect on the cost of living

that this sales tax increase will have on the personal and private

decisions of investors in British Columbia not to invest in primary

industry.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I really believe that B.C. should be more

self-sufficient in its economy. We're not going to be that way as long

as we rely on the resource industries and ship them out of this

province. It may be a way of raising the necessary funds that the

government feels it needs, although I don't believe that they need it.

I think it's a revenge type of situation we are in here, But, in any

event, I think that we could raise these funds by looking at the

possibility of a steel mill, secondary industry, copper smelters in

environmentally sound areas, a petroleum plant — why not?

I really must object, by the way, to this government's proposed —

and we haven't heard the exact amount — ferry fare increases. Now this

is going to be really inflationary — another inflationary move — and

they'll have to pay a 40 per cent sales tax probably on these fares,

will they not?

HON. MR. MAIR: No.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No? Oh, good. But it's an inflationary move

like the 40 per cent sales tax, Mr. Speaker, and I really don't think

it's quite necessary.

We've discussed the merchant service problems. I don't want to be

tedious and repetitious. The previous speaker did discuss the possible

ways and means by which funds could be raised for this province.

Certainly we're not getting a fair price for our natural gas. I think

the royalties should be raised. I think that this government should be

receiving the same amount in royalties as the American producer is….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to draw to your attention

item 43 in our standing orders, Mr. Speaker. The present speaker on

this motion continues to be repetitious, and I would appreciate it if

you would draw his attention to the concept of the bill itself and to

please stop him being repetitious in the House. We are wasting the time

of the House in that regard, and that's what the standing rules are for.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I would just suggest to you that

your debate must be relevant to the principle of the bill and not a

repetition of debate that has been used by other members in the House.

As long as you observe those rules, then you're in order in the debate.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order, it's very unusual during debate on second reading — that is the

principle of a bill — that one should be brought to order in this

House. We understand and we can see it in the committee stage where

there can be that kind of repetition but, Mr. Speaker, a person is

charged in the principle of the bill to delineate the problems as far

as his constituency is concerned. It strikes me that if there is some

overlapping, and I've been in the House long enough to see an awful lot

of overlapping…. I was in the House the last number of years….

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order, hon. member?

MR. COCKE: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the House

Leader did not make a point of order that's relevant to this situation

at all.

A member is standing in this House trying to suggest exactly what

his constituents feel, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is

relevant to the second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already suggested to the hon. member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) that as long as he stays within the principle

of the bill he can proceed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have very nearly

concluded. I know that we are not discussing the budget but the

principle of this bill, and I thank you very much for your remarks.

On one hand this government espouses the fact that they would like to fight inflation by supporting

[ Page 913 ]

the AIB — the Anti-Inflation Board — and on the other hand does bring in legislation that is extremely inflationary.

This 40 per cent increase in the sales tax can be construed in no

other way but being inflationary and regressive, and it will certainly

create unemployment in this province. I can see nothing in this bill —

as a matter of fact, nothing in the legislation that has been

introduced to this House to date — to create employment for our people.

I really think that's quite despicable. Is "despicable" allowed, Mr.

Speaker? Could you advise me?

If it's allowed, then I say it's a despicable budget. If it's not

allowed, I withdraw it. I'll have to find another word. I'm just asking

your advice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if you are applying that word to any hon. member of the House….

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, I'd never do that. Never!

MR. SPEAKER: If you're applying that word to any hon. member

of the House, or specifically to the executive council or the

government, then it would be out of order. If it's a general term used

in a general manner, then I don't find it offensive to the rules of the

House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. I'm

glad we have that cleared up. I was certainly not directing that word

towards any member of this House, certainly not toward the executive

council.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to conclude, as I said, I find this bill

regressive and inflationary, and will create unemployment for the

people of this province, and I move adjournment of this debate until

the next sitting of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Ordinarily, hon. members, I would

not put that question to the House at this time. Inasmuch as we've had

two motions of adjournment of this debate, a third, in my opinion, is

an abuse of the rules of the House. The only reason that I'll consider

it is that on past occasions, when we have sat at 10 in the morning, we

have, on occasion, adjourned at 12 o'clock. But I would also remind the

members that there is nothing in our rules that say, when we sit at 10

in the morning that we necessarily stop at 12. But because we have done

this in the past, on occasion, I'll put the question to the House, but

it's very, very close to being a definite abuse of the rules of this

House.

The question is adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 30

McCarthy

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Jordan

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to

standing order 8, which says: "Every member is bound to attend the

service of the House unless leave of absence has been given by the

House." Mr. Speaker, I am instructed that the hon. Premier is in the

precincts of the Legislature and is absent from division without leave.

In addition, I would ask Mr. Speaker to decide whether or not the

Premier is in breach of the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has suggested that because one

of the other hon. members is not present when a division was taken he

is offending against the rules of this House. Standing order 8, if you

read it carefully, says: "Every member is bound to attend the service

of the House unless leave of absence has been given him by the House."

That rule is there in the event that people will be absent from the

House for more than a few minutes or a few hours. The rule presumes

that it will be effective and that the persons absenting themselves

from the House will make that fact known to their party Whip and to

their party leader, if they are, in fact, to be absent for any length

of time. The fact that a member is not able to be present every minute

of every hour is not an abuse of the rules of this House.

The hon. Premier was present for quite a bit of the debate this morning. Obviously he has business

[ Page 914 ]

elsewhere at this moment, but that does not mean that he's absent from the precincts or he is away with or without leave.

I will listen to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre on the same point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my reading of Sir Erskine May

indicates that a similar standing order which applies means, and has

been interpreted to mean, that no member shall be absent from divisions

if he is in the precincts of the House, and that that is considered to

be a breach of the standing order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On the point of order that the hon.

member for Vancouver Centre raises, I would like to say that the hon.

Premier did indicate to the House Leader that he would be in business

with the federal government on very important business affecting the

Province of British Columbia and its activities with the senior

government.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the rules were to be

interpreted that the Premier would have to be present while neglecting

his duties as the Premier of this province in negotiations with the

federal government, surely this House would expect that he would attend

this House for a very important motion, but surely a division on

obstructionist tactics to delay the House cannot be considered

important.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. W. S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the

point is that if this House kept reasonable hours that recognized even

basic labour standards in this province, perhaps all members could

spare the time to do the province's business properly, and the Premier

would not have the dilemma, trying to be in this House and do business

in his office at the time.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the,

Opposition has been in the House long enough to know that when the

Speaker rises the hon. member takes his seat.

Hon. Members, we are on second reading of Bill 11.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. BROWN: I would like to rise to make my comments about this bill, certainly before debate is terminated by the Minister of Finance.

I notice that when the minister introduced the legislation he stated

that it was with a great deal of reluctance that he introduced the bill

to increase the sales tax. I would have wished that the minister's

reluctance had extended to the point where he refrained from

introducing this increase to a tax which should not even exist. In

fact, the sales tax should have been wiped out, rather than extended,

because of the impact that it has on people in this province.

Mr. Speaker, because the sales tax applies to everyone, the people

who bear the brunt of it are those people who make incomes of between

$4,000 and $6,000 a year. Who does that include? That includes people

earning the minimum wage. It includes people who, according to the

Dominion Bureau of Statistics, are below the poverty line. Because

people in those incomes spend all of their money, and spend most of

their money on consumer purchases, that is where the brunt of the sales

tax will be coming: on people on incomes of between $4,000 a year and

$7,000 a year. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that that income includes people

making the minimum wage in this province, as well as people who have

been designated as living below the poverty line by Senator Croll and

the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and other measurements used to

measure these things.

The Minister of Finance went on to say in his speech that he did not

agree that this tax is going to bear more heavily on low- and

medium-income families because of the generous exemptions to the tax on

food, children's clothing, footwear, for example.

In fact this sales tax has some very strange exemptions. One of the

things that it does not exempt, for example, are the drug supplies used

by people who need the service of osteopaths. These people are not

covered by MSA, they are not covered by Pharmacare, but in fact their

need, after they have had one of these operations, is just as great. It

makes no difference whether they are on welfare, whether they are

earning the minimum wage, or if they are eligible for Mincome. They

have to pay for these supplies, because these supplies are taxable, and

now we find that they are going to experience. a 40 per cent increase

in paying for these very essential supplies which they must have after

they have had one of these operations.

Who else is included, Mr. Speaker? Another important item is

vitamins. I really am at a loss to decide who decides what is covered

by the exemptions and what is not. Children use vitamins. We just heard

a long speech from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) telling

us that one of the ways in which we could cut into the cost of health

care in this province was through preventive services, through keeping

ourselves in good, physical condition, through keeping ourselves in

good health.

Anyone who has had small children knows that

[ Page 915 ]

vitamins are a part of keeping your children in

good health. Yet vitamins are not covered by this sales tax. Parents

who are concerned about the health of their children will continue to

purchase vitamins, and once again will have to bear the brunt of this

40 per cent increase on the sales tax.

Who will be bearing most of that brunt, Mr. Speaker? The people on

fixed incomes and on low incomes; people earning the minimum wage;

people living below the poverty line, whose dietary needs are as great

as anyone else's dietary needs, whose nutritional needs are certainly

equal to everyone else's nutritional needs. To all the other increases

which those people will be suffering as a result of that government

over there will be added an increase of 40 per cent every time they

decide to buy vitamins — essential vitamins certainly for themselves

when they're senior citizens, or for their children.

Another strange thing that this sales tax does, Mr. Speaker, is to

decide when a child is a child and when a child is not a child.

According to the sales tax, a child ceases to be a child at the age

of 15. Now anyone who has ever had teenage children knows that they eat

more from 15 and over, that they grow out of their clothes more quickly

from 15 and over — and I notice the gentle smile on your lips, Mr.

Speaker. Surely, like so many other parents, you must know what it is

like to be faced with the food bill of a teenager, to be faced with the

clothing bill of a teenager. Gone are the days when our teenagers'

clothes were at the reasonable rate. Yet we find that that period of

their life, when they are more expensive to us than at any other time,

is a time when the government has decided that they are no longer

children and that the sales tax must apply.

Aside from the fact — and again I'm addressing myself to the

principle of the bill — that over and over and over again, economists

and people who study these things, and know these things, tell us that

the sales tax is surely the most regressive form of taxation that there

is as it applies to everyone, it does constitute an additional burden.

It does constitute a greater hardship on those people in our society

who live below the poverty line, or certainly who earn less than the

$7,000 income.

Who are those people, Mr. Speaker? If we look at the reports of the

royal commission on the status of women for this country, we find that

they constitute most of the women in this country who are the single

heads of families. They fall into this category. Most of the women in

this country who are over the age of 65 fall into this category. Again,

on top of all the other burdens which have been placed on this segment

of the community, we have this 40 per cent increase in the sales tax,

despite the minister's statement about generous exemptions for food and

drugs and for footwear and books and other things.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): All services?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Minister, I would like to give you some

statistics to help bring this fact to your attention because I'm

certainly labouring under the illusion that you are listening to this

debate and that you have an open mind, Mr. Minister, and that there is

a chance that you will retract your decision to increase this

regressive tax. You yourself admitted that you introduced it — I can

quote you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, of course — with

great reluctance.

That includes, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, 123,200

families headed by women in this country. On top of the increases under

the MSA programme, on top of the increases in their hospital premiums,

on top of the increases of ICBC, on top of the pending increases of

heating fuel, public transportation, and everything else, comes this 40

per cent — certainly the most regressive form of taxation that has ever

been introduced in this province or any other, for that matter.

The minister again, when he was introducing this taxation, said, and I quote from an

article in the Times of March 27: "The primary consideration is the revenue that the tax will be bringing in."

Over and over again, Mr. Speaker, the primary consideration of that

government is never people. Never do they care one bit about the kind

of impact that their increased taxes and their cutback in services is

going to have on people. Did he care — did the Minister of Finance

care, through you, Mr. Speaker — about those 125,000 heads of families?

Did he care about those working-poor families who are only making the

minimum wage in this province? Does he care about those people over the

age of 65 on fixed income, who use all of their income in terms of

consumer services and other services? Did he care what kind of impact

that 40 per cent increase on sales tax would mean to them?

The saddest part, Mr. Speaker, is that this is to raise $200 million

to ensure that at the end of the financial year this government shows a

surplus. Again we have what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) refers to as 'kitchen-table' budgeting going on over there.

Again we see that people are being sacrificed in order to boost the ego

of the Minister of Finance and the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) in their

headlong attempt to end up with a surplus at the end of the fiscal

year. Increasingly we see that it is the people in society who can

least afford it — it is those people in our community who can least

afford it who continually are being called upon by that government to

bear the brunt of these iniquitous tax increases, of its unfair and

unreasonable and regressive tax increases.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

[ Page 916 ]

Finance, I am appealing, on behalf of those people

earning incomes below $7,000 a year, to the minister to reconsider his

decision to increase this tax by 40 per cent and, instead, to look

again at the whole business of his budget to see whether it would not,

in fact, be possible to wipe out the sales tax altogether, or at least

decrease it by 40 per cent rather than increase it by 40 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that, in fact, this 40 per cent increase

in the sales tax is another way of the Premier carrying out his promise

which he continually made around this province during the campaign to

make this province like the State of Texas. If I can quote him again —

I know it by heart now — he said: "There was a time when British

Columbia was the Texas of Canada. There was nowhere bigger." That is

the climate which he is trying to return to this province. This

increase certainly is very much the way things are done in Texas.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if I can read from the special report done on

Texas, that province which, like British Columbia, is so rich in

natural resources, that province which, like British Columbia, has so

many other ways of raising its revenue, yet when it decides to raise

its revenues, Mr. Speaker, it does so by increasing its sales tax, and

worst of all — the thing that frightens me most of all — extends it to

cover food and drugs…. Is this what we are going to expect? Is this

what we are to expect from that government over there — that in the

future, when it finds it needs to raise income again, it will think of

extending the sales tax to food and drugs? It is frightening, as one

remembers the Premier's words and one looks at the things that that

government is doing, how closely he is, in fact, trying to reproduce

Texas right here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, you asked us to refer ourselves to the principle of the

bill. This is an unprincipled bill dealing with destructive and

regressive legislation. As I repeat, whether it is Samuelson, whether

it is the federal Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the special

report done for the federal government on finances, the textbooks used

in your economic tests, with very few exceptions — the most outstanding

exception is the Minister of Finance himself — everyone agrees that

this is regressive taxation and its impact on the lives of people on

fixed income and poor people is a destructive one. In fact, it is a tax

which we should work very hard to abolish, a tax which we should work

very hard to wipe out and not a tax which we should be increasing,

especially since there is no urgent need for the $200 million which

will be realized by that tax at this time.

The fact that the minister brags that there are other provinces in

this country with a higher sales tax than British Columbia again fills

me with apprehension. What is that government trying to do?

Do we really have to have the highest taxes? Do we really have to

have the biggest and the worst of everything in order to satisfy that

government over there? It is to Newfoundland's sorrow that their sales

tax is so high; they are not proud of the fact that their sales tax is

so high. Ontario is not proud of the fact that their sales tax is so

high. Yet we have a Minister of Finance who stands up and brags that

our sales tax is not the highest and that we still have further to go.

That, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, is certainly a backward step and a

retrogressive way of thinking in this day and age. It goes back to what

has been referred to in describing the budget as pre-Cambrian and

certainly has nothing to do with the kind of philosophy which we as a

government, and you as a government over there, should have.

The other thing that….

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Look, Mr. Speaker, I accept the principle that

that government over there accepts democracy very reluctantly, but I

intend, certainly as long as I am a member of this House, to demand my

right to speak on the issues which affect my constituency. If this

government decides that legislators do not need to eat; if this

government decides that we are going to go back to the days when people

sat in this House around the clock until the following morning in order

to represent their constituencies, Mr. Member…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: … I will certainly do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you please get back to the principle of Bill 11?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this is the principle of this bill.

It is the principle of this bill that any government that would make

that kind of decision certainly could not be expected to understand the

kind of hardship that a 40 per cent increase has on the poor people in

this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MS. BROWN: I certainly accept the heckling of

[ Page 917 ]

the members across the floor because that's the

only thing that they seem to be efficient at doing, having bungled

everything else they have done since they have become government.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: You have my permission, Mr. Member…

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MS. BROWN: …to heckle. Please, be my guest.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: And I am speaking. That's right. Any further comments, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Right!

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I know why they're not speaking on the bill. It's

because, as the minister himself said, it was introduced with great

reluctance. There was a battle over there. Not one member from the back

bench is speaking on this bill because they know that it's regressive

legislation, Mr. Speaker. They know it's a bad bill. They know that

they can't support the bill. The great reluctance the minister spoke

about when he introduced this bill is demonstrated by the fact that

nobody over there will speak in support of this bill. It's a cruel,

vicious attack on the poor people in this province, and you know it,

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, and that is the principle of

the bill which I am dealing with.

Quite frankly, the only reason I'm speaking on this bill is because

I'm hoping that the Minister of Finance, who is still new to the job,

still has an open mind and will reconsider his position on this bill.

It is only because, in an attempt to represent the people of

Vancouver-Burrard, I am hoping that the Minister of Finance who, unlike

the Premier, at least is sitting here listening, will reconsider this

position on this piece of legislation, because the legislation, Mr.

Speaker, is iniquitous. It bears heaviest on the people who can least

afford it, and that is what I keep saying over and over and over again.

If I am repetitious, Mr. Speaker, it is because this needs repetition.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Over and over!

MS. BROWN: Precisely, and it has to be said over and over and

over again. This is regressive legislation. It works a hardship on the

people who can least afford it, over and over and over again, until

sooner or later it gets through the head of the Minister of Finance

over there, and perhaps he will hoist his decision. He should have

accepted the amendment which was moved by one of the other members of

the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to quote from the Minister of Finance again,

since this is his bill. He assured us in speaking about…. He said

"regressive tax", and the reasons why it would not bear heaviest on the

low-income families was because of the exemptions. In fact the people

who benefit most from this legislation, of course, will be your top….

HON. MR. WOLFE: I did not say it was regressive.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker. I think the House Leader was trying to say something to me.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest to

the hon. member, if she would like to move adjournment of the debate,

we would accept adjournment.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the other

hungry members in this House, I would like to move adjournment of this

debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:33 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada