1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

559 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 559

Mr. Stupich –– 560

Mr. Lockstead –– 561

Mr. Lea –– 562

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 567

Mr. Cocke –– 569

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1983

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the

very hon. gentleman who presides over this House has attained the ripe

old age of 29 years. I would ask this House to bid Mr. Speaker the very

best today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Statements in the House are recorded in Hansard .

I think that now the member has sat down maybe somebody would like to

make a correction with regards to the age of the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind all hon. members that any reference is out of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I happen to also find that your

natal day is shared by the likes of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Vida

Blue and Rudy Vallee. I don't know if we should attach any particular

significance to that, Mr. Speaker, but we certainly join in wishing you

the very best and happiest returns.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members.

MR. CAMPBELL: Today we have in our gallery Mr. Ted Noonan from Vernon.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would call second reading of Bill 13, which is one which I'm sure will distress the member across the way and myself.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, I wonder if I might ask

the House Leader whether or not he would consider asking leave of the

House to consider Motion 24, standing on the order paper in my name.

We're fast approaching the second Tuesday in August, and I would

respectfully request leave of the House to consider that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, that can hardly be considered as a

point of order. An arrangement such as that would best be made between

the respective House Leaders outside the chamber, or, at best, with the

Whips. I would commend that course of action to all hon. members.

The bill has been called, hon. members. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This bill will receive endorsation by a

number of people in the province of British Columbia and will be found

to be unfortunate on the part of others. If it were possible — if our

House rules permitted — I would place a package of cigarettes with the

Clerks as a document. I realize I cannot do that, Mr. Speaker, but this

has a direct impact on a number of us.

Since the March 1981 provincial budget, B.C.'s tax on cigarettes and

tobacco products has been adjusted every six months by the change in

the Vancouver consumer price index subcomponent for tobacco products.

The purpose of the amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act contained in this

bill is to increase the tax on tobacco products by 25 percent. Another

important change that relates to the regulations, but is relative to

this act, is that by order-in-council the government is placing a

maximum on commissions paid to vendors who collect the tobacco tax.

Mr. Speaker, in May 1983 British Columbia's taxes on cigarettes and

tobacco products were lower than in all provinces, with the exception

of Alberta and Nova Scotia. Because this province in the past two years

has relied on an indexation formula to raise cigarette and tobacco

taxes over that time, B.C.'s taxes have, in fact, risen more slowly

than those in other provinces. As a result the first part of the bill

proposes to raise the tax on cigarettes and tobacco products by 25

percent from its current level. The taxes will continue to be indexed

in the manner which I spoke of previously. As I indicated on budget

day, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this measure the taxes on a package of

25 cigarettes rise from 40 cents to 50 cents as of midnight last July 7.

Similar tax increases have been applied to cigars and other assorted tobacco products.

One of the members opposite made an inquiry with respect to how much

this will raise — I believe that was his inquiry. This is expected to

raise the province's revenues by $18 million in the balance of this

fiscal year, 1983-84, and by $25 million in the full fiscal year of

1984-85.

I spoke about the change being made by regulation under the

provisions in the act limiting to $5,000 per year the amount of

commissions payable to wholesale corporate tobacco vendors. Currently,

there are 77 provincially licensed wholesale dealers supplying

cigarettes, cigars and tobacco to the retailers. These wholesalers

presently receive a commission of 3 percent on the first $10,000 of tax

remitted, and 3/8 of 1 percent on the balance of the tax, whatever that

may be. By contrast, I think members of the House know that the

commissions paid to vendors who remit social services or sales tax, and

to operators remitting hotel room taxes, are limited to $1,020 per

year, regardless of the volume of those tax revenues. We saw this,

therefore, as equitable, limiting tobacco tax commissions to ensure a

more consistent treatment of sellers of different products.

With respect to the commissions which are allowed, Ontario and

Quebec place annual limits of $2,000 and $1,000 respectively on tobacco

tax commissions. Newfoundland and the Yukon Territory pay no tobacco

tax commissions. The new commission limits, which are ancillary to the

bill rather than directly a part of it, will increase provincial

revenues by about $400,000 in the current fiscal year, and

approximately $600,000 in 1984-85.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that those few remarks are of assistance to the

members, and therefore I move second reading of Bill 13, Tobacco Tax

Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could we entertain the word "now" in that particular motion?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I accept your guidance and add the word "now."

[ Page 560 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to consider any

finance legislation without looking at it in the context of the budget

that was presented on July 7, and the 26 pieces of legislation

presented the same day. I have to ask first, what on earth are we doing

on the morning of July 28? We had a demonstration yesterday of some

20,000 people concerned about the budget, and about the package of

legislation that was introduced with the budget. There is that concern

in the community. In the House we started consideration on July 7 of an

$8.5 billion budget, of which this legislation is a relatively small

part, and after a very short debate we abandoned discussion of that

$8.5 billion. This morning we are asked to consider seriously an item

that will have an $18 million effect on $8.5 billion, and to consider

seriously an item that will have a $400,000 effect.

Mr. Speaker, where is the government's sense of proportion, of

urgency? Where is their thought for the people of the province when

they are bringing in this morning for consideration this particular

piece of legislation? We can't support it in the context of what we are

supposed to be doing here.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What do you recommend then, a 20 percent sales tax?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if it is a serious attempt to raise

revenue, then it isn't enough. If it is a serious attempt to persuade

people to quit smoking in the interest of their health and our health,

then it isn't enough. If it is a serious attempt to make up the cost to

the rest of the community of what smokers are costing all of us, then

it isn't enough. If we are talking about raising any appreciable amount

of money for any other government service, then again it isn't enough.

It fails on all counts to do anything constructive for the people of

the province of B.C. It's ridiculous; it's completely out of proportion

with what we're supposed to be doing here. Why are we talking at this

point about trying to fill an $18 million hole in the budget, when we

haven't even discussed the budget itself, we don't know government

spending plans, apart from the figures that have been presented? We've

had no opportunity to discuss with any of the ministers what they plan

to do with the money they are raising with their programs; no

opportunity to discuss in depth with the Minister of Finance what his

plans are for the province. We simply have a budget, one that they

apparently felt was so meaningless in terms of the needs of the people

of this province that they abandoned discussion of it after three short

days.

[10:15]

Where is their sense of proportion? Why are we discussing this this

morning, when we have abandoned discussion of the total budget? We've

abandoned discussion of Bill 3, which certainly has a great deal to do

with the budget, and we've abandoned discussion of Bill 9. This morning

we are asked to consider seriously the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, which

in itself, if we are talking about tax increases.... The government

promised during the election campaign that there would be no tax

increases. Of course, they forgot that promise very quickly on the

evening of May 5. We're talking about a 25 percent tax increase.

Whether we like this particular way of getting money or not, how can we

talk to the community in total about the idea of restraint — that

governments should restrain themselves in raising and spending money,

that the private sector should restrain itself in raising and spending

money — when in this one item we're holding up the mirror and showing

everybody that the government is prepared in this instance to raise the

levy by 25 percent?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you going to filibuster this one too?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to filibuster any of them. But there are things I want to say about it. I don't expect....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) again — he loves to speak sitting in his seat. He

doesn't have the nerve or intestinal fortitude.... Apparently he

doesn't have anything worthwhile to say in this House. He just can't

seem to get up on his feet. He tries several times when other members

are speaking, and then when the opportunity comes for him to be

recognized, all of a sudden he's forgotten whatever it was that was

rattling around in his mind and he has nothing to say. If he has

anything to say during my remarks, I wish he'd say it more loudly so

that I could respond. If he has anything to say standing on his feet,

then I'd love to hear him speak.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: As I understand the rules of this House,

it is completely out of order to refer to another member and to allow

personal allusions, and I would remind the Speaker of the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is also a rule of this House

that we do not interrupt other members when they are speaking, and the

comments, had they not been most appropriate, would have been chastized

by the Chair.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose, when it comes to raising moneys for

government purposes, it's always felt to be relatively safe to tax sin.

The government feels that politicians will rarely oppose increases in

taxes on habits such as smoking and the use of alcohol — it hasn't

really gone beyond that to any great extent, I suppose.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: It has just been suggested that those are the

only two bad habits. He might have said that they're the only two that

can be taxed. But even then, is it a bad habit? I'm not prepared to say

that they are bad habits in themselves. Certainly I don't want to be

exposed to cigarette smoke; that's a personal preference. That's what

we're talking about at the moment, so I won't go beyond that.

However, I am opposed to this legislation. I am opposed to it, as I

pointed out, because it isn't important in the context of what we

should be discussing in B.C. today. It isn't important in the context

of the budget itself. It is not proper and I'm not reflecting on a

ruling from the Chair — from the point of view of orderly debate. In my

opinion, we should be disposing of the budget itself before we consider

the details of tax legislation, so I'm opposed to dealing with that

particular legislation at this point. I'm opposed to trying to

determine whether the legislation is appropriate in terms of the amount

of money it raises or in the source from which it raises that money

until we've had an opportunity to decide the budget in

[ Page

561 ]

total, the total revenues to be raised and the sources of those revenues, and

to talk about expenditures in general. There has been a lot of publicity lately,

over the past 15 months, as to how some ministers of this administration have

been dealing with the funds entrusted to them.

Until we get into that kind of general discussion — until the

government is ready to let us deal with the budget as a whole and

decide.... It's always theoretically possible that some members on the

other side of the House will see the error of their ways and that the

budget itself will be voted down. If that weren't a possibility, why do

we go through the motions? Why does anyone discuss the budget unless

there is some possibility that members on both sides of the House will

come to a conclusion that they should vote a certain way with respect

to that budget?

We don't like the budget; we've made that very clear. We don't know

about the government members. Very few of them have had an opportunity

to discuss the budget. It would appear as though the government is not

going to give them that opportunity. One has to wonder whether there is

some rebellion in the ranks of the Social Credit caucus, whether the

government has deliberately avoided discussing the budget and the

effect of the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act on that budget, because there

is some concern in the Social Credit caucus that the budget should be

changed in some way and if it isn't changed it should be voted down.

Certainly the demonstration yesterday would have convinced them that a

lot of people are concerned about the total budget.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Order!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader is calling me to order.

Had we disposed of the budget first, we could be talking about the

details of the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act. But since we haven't disposed

of the budget, we're obliged to talk about the effect of the Tobacco

Tax Amendment Act in terms of revenue and about the effect of the

expenditures. So there is not just an obligation; there's an

opportunity and an obligation to talk about the importance of this

particular legislation or the unimportance of it in terms of the total

budget and in terms of the government's plans — of the government's

spending plans as well as their revenue-raising plans.

Mr. Speaker, I wish that legislation of this kind could do away with

this habit completely. It certainly isn't going to achieve that. A 25

percent raise in tax is not going to do that. It's talking about

raising $18 million this year, and chiselling another $400,000 out of

the people who are collecting the tax, so they're talking about a total

of $18.4 million. We're looking at a Health budget this year in excess

of $2 billion. So obviously it's not intended that this amount of money

will have anything to do in terms of the total cost of health care in

the province.

We have to ask, then, why is it worth the bother? Why are they raising tobacco

tax? Why are they trying to get this extra $18 million? It can be a lot of money.

I can recall the government did away with an employment program that was costing

less than $4 million and was providing a lot of work. Apparently in the name

of restraint they did away with that. But, Mr. Speaker, this will contribute

nothing to their program of restraint. This will not convince the public generally

while the government is saying: "Hold yourself down to a minus 5 percent

wage increase, while at the same time we increase one of our taxes by 25 percent."

That's not practising what you preach. That is not supporting restraint

with your action.

The legislation makes no sense in terms of the total budget. It's

legislation that should have been discussed in the context of the

session as a whole at a much later date in the session, certainly after

the budget speech itself was considered and dealt with. For no other

reason than to show our concern for the real problems in the community,

to show our concern for the way the government is treating this

Legislature, and the way the government is failing to recognize the

real concerns in the community, the opposition will be voting against

the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I'm making my annual speech, because the

government raises taxes on tobacco and alcohol every year, sometimes

twice a year. Here we are this morning discussing Bill 13, the Tobacco

Tax Amendment Act, when we should be discussing the budget. We've only

had three days' debate on the budget, which was presented to this House

some three weeks ago. Why we're not debating the budget this morning is

beyond me. Then there's a very controversial bill. The government

interrupted the budget debate to discuss Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair did allow

some latitude in the opening remarks to the minister; however, that

latitude having been extended, we must now return strictly to the

principle contained in the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act. If the member

could make his remarks specific to the bill before us, it would aid

greatly in the principles of debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It was, I guess, a rhetorical question,

because to bring on a bill like this when these controversial bills are

before the House and the budget hasn't been debated.... They're afraid

of something; that's why we're not discussing the budget. That's why

we're not discussing Bill 9 or Bill 3 and these other bills.

The bill before us now, Bill 13, once again is an increase in tax —

I would say a regressive tax. It's the kind of tax that hits the poor

people, the unemployed people — God knows we've got a lot of unemployed

people, more every day. The government is firing people left, right and

centre and putting more people on the unemployment rolls in the name of

restraint. There's no restraint involved there. These people have very

few little pleasures in life.

Before I get into that aspect of what I'm discussing, I'm deadly

serious about this. I'm a smoker myself, as some of you may have

noticed, and I'm not proud of it. It's a habit that's very difficult to

break. I have been told by some people working in the health field that

the habit of smoking, if you're a heavy smoker, is just as difficult or

more difficult to break than a severe drug habit. Some people are

shaking their heads; they say it’s easy. Well, I find it very

difficult, and many of us do. We all know people who have quit dozens

of times, so it has to be an easy habit to break. It's not. It's very

difficult, believe me. I don't condone smoking. I've tried to impress

on my family, while they've seen me.... Thank goodness most of them

don't smoke. One does, but I won't name her here — she wouldn't

appreciate it. She's a light smoker, but that's not good enough.

We know it costs the public treasury a great deal of money because

people are more subject to illness when they smoke, but what I am

suggesting to you is that people do smoke and

[ Page 562 ]

that's the reality of it. The reality is that the

wealthy, the well-to-do and the rich can well afford to pay a 25

percent increase for their habits, whether alcohol or tobacco. The

point I'm attempting to make here this morning is that this is a

regressive tax. It's the same tax to the very poor and the working

people as it is to the rich. That's wrong. I don't like regressive

taxation in any form, for starters, and that's why I'm voting against

this bill.

There are other reasons why I'm voting against this bill. One reason

was pointed out by my colleague from Nanaimo who just spoke. That is

that before and during the last election campaign, the government, the

Social Credit Party and the Premier particularly were on record as

telling the people of this province that there would be no tax

increases in this province. They were elected, they say they've got a

mandate, but they certainly have not got a mandate to do what they've

been doing in this House over this last month. I want to tell you,

we're going to be here a while on that; but that's beside the point.

The government once again broke it’s promise to the people of this

province, for political gain. That's what I'm saying. If you had gone

out and told the people of this province that you were going to

increase taxes....

[10:30]

I just received a note from a friend. I'm very serious about what

I'm saying here, Mr. Speaker. I won't name the author, but I can tell

you that the note says: "If I can quit, you can too."

You know, after the federal government is finished with us, and

after you guys have had a go at us — a 25 percent increase provincially

— with another increase coming up federally we won't be able to afford

to smoke. We'll probably have to quit taking the odd little nip, too.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yeah, what will you tax next?

Another point I would like to make.... Mr. Speaker, what I do resent

as well is that it's easy for a self-righteous person to get up in this

House or anywhere else and say: "Increase taxes on tobacco and liquor.

It serves them right. We'll vote against every other tax measure, but

we can go along with an increase in tax on tobacco and alcohol." A lot

of self-righteous people have said that.

One of the things I think the government should be doing with the tax revenues that they receive is initiating a program....

[Interruption.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sounds like the little one up there. I'm not

your dad! There's a child in the galleries, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very

pleased. No offence to the mother. We thought for a moment it was the

Premier up there but, no, it's a child.

Where was I? I was suggesting to you that the government should

reinvest some of the tax funds it receives on tobacco and alcohol in

educating young people about the hazards of smoking. I know that even

the last several years....

I want to just back up a bit. People are becoming more and more

aware of the hazards of smoking and other habits, but I don't think

enough is being done. When people my age started to smoke — I would

suppose some time during our school days, sneaking out during recess or

whatever, having swiped a couple of dad's cigarettes — the health

hazards of smoking weren't known. Doctors used to go on radio, as I

recall, and say: "I've been smoking Camels for 38 years and I'm still

alive." They'd flop over dead the next day, of course. They were

actually getting paid for tobacco advertising on radio. In any event,

we now know the hazards of smoking. There are no end of documentaries

on television in most schools, particularly in the lower grades. I know

from my own experience in my own family that children will come home

and lecture me about smoking. So we're all very much aware of the

hazards of smoking.

In standing up and speaking against a taxation measure that the

government is bringing in, I want to make it very clear that I'm not

speaking in favour of smoking. In fact, if there was ever a human being

who was a walking advertisement against smoking it's me. I'm a good

example of why people shouldn't smoke. Nonetheless, what we are talking

about here is a tax measure — a tax measure that affects the poor. It

taxes the poor much more than the rich. It's a regressive tax measure

and that's why I'm not supporting it. I'm going to oppose all

regressive tax measures brought before this House by any government in

this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the Legislature.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 20

Barrett

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 31

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland'

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, two members stood to request recording, and I don't think that is sufficient.

MR. SPEAKER: While it may seem very simple, hon. members, it is important that the rules be obeyed so that we can record the division.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this legislation. If all members of the House would consider other

[ Page 563 ]

aspects of this bill than what the minister said

when introducing it, they also would have some misgivings. For

instance, I wonder how many back-benchers know that this tax is already

indexed. All we are doing is setting a new base which will be indexed

and be a compounding effect on the new base. So already, without doing

anything, the tax is going to increase on cigarettes. This just gives a

new base, a new compounding of pricing, and is therefore even more

regressive than if it were just an increase in taxation.

The other thing is the irony of the government's cutting out the

Alcohol and Drug Commission and then raising the taxation on tobacco,

which is also a ridiculous move. They're going to take away all efforts

toward education about the ill effects of smoking, and then tax people

more for smoking. You'd almost think that what they were trying to do

is take away the educational aspect, get more people to smoke, tax more

and get more money into revenue on the backs of people who do smoke.

It's that kind of ironic, stupid legislation. Even putting aside all of

those things, if you look just at the plain, ordinary economics of

taxation during a recessionary period, then you have to look at the

bill with even more suspicion.

I agree with the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) that it

is regressive taxation. What we're going to do is tax the poor who

smoke and not tax the rich who don't smoke anything. We're not going to

raise taxation for the rich one cent. This bill signifies the kind of

crazy economics that this government is practising. This government has

one economic theory. During inflationary times they practise restraint

and dampen the economy. During times of recession they've got quite a

different economic strategy; it's restraint and dampen the economy.

When do they do anything else? Is that their only economic theory?

I watched the Minister of Finance on "For the Record," a public

television program, as we all know, dealing with politicians facing the

press. The minister showed a complete lack of understanding about any

kind of economics whatsoever. Whenever he was pressed by one of the

reporters as to the sort of economic theory this government is using,

he would fall back on the catch-all "restraint." I can't wait to get to

estimates — sometime in the spring — because, Mr. Speaker, this

Minister of Finance is obviously barren of economic ideas.

[10:45]

During the heights of inflation in this province, what did this

government recommend to the federal government in terms of economic

policy? Raise interest rates; tighten up the money supply. Generally

speaking, that is an accepted form of trying to get rid of inflation.

At some point during the discussion of finance bills, or discussion of

the budget itself, I think it is incumbent upon the Minister of Finance

to stand in his place and tell us exactly what sort of economic theory

this government is using. I cannot make head or tail of it. I don't

think any economist in this country can make head or tail of it. For

restraint you dampen the economy in terms of inflation, and when you

get recession you do exactly the same thing. For the first time in this

debate I saw the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), I

believe, talk about something he didn't believe. Up until now I've

always listened with a great deal of interest to what the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour has to say. As a matter of fact, whenever you

go by that member's desk you quite often see a book on economics open.

Joan Robinson, I believe, is one of the member's favourite economists.

What would Joan Robinson say about this budget? She sure wouldn't say

what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour had to say. For the first

time I think that member is going to vote against what he considers to

make good economic sense, because this time he is going to vote for

whatever the government brings in.

What we are saying is that if there is going to be any taxation in

this fiscal year, that taxation has to be taxation of the rich, not the

poor. The poor spend every cent they get. Whether they are out of work

or the working poor, every cent that comes into that family goes back

into the economy. Isn't it irony, Mr. Speaker, that with this

legislation we are going to tax people who are already shoved against

the economic wall and who don't have enough money to pay rent or to buy

the nutritional diets that their families need? And we are going to hit

them once again. Other people in this province, and I'm including most

of us in here, I would think, are making enough money that at the end

of the month we can put a little away if we didn't overexpend ourselves

during the inflationary period trying to make a dollar and if greed

didn't catch us. Probably there are a great many of us on both sides of

the House who got caught in that trap too. But if we managed our money

properly during the inflationary times, there isn't one of us in this

House who can't put a little money away right now. Anybody making the

kind of money we do or more money than we do and who looked after their

money in the most recent past can put a little money away. Are we going

to put money away by some people in our society and tax others who are

up against that economic wall? That's what this legislation does.

The reason the government brings it in is that they think possibly

it will be something that can pass and look good. Isn't it good to

raise taxes on a bad habit and try to get rid of the bad habit? Except

there is no indication that that works. There is no indication that you

can tax people out of bad habits, either with alcohol or with tobacco

or anything else. People have to be educated. They have to be persuaded

to move away from a habit that affects their health in an adverse way.

You can't tax morality away or in or out or anything else. I think all

members here will agree with that.

I see the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) is

agreeing with me. I think you are, aren't you? You are agreeing that

you can't tax away a bad habit.

MR. MOWAT: No, you shouldn't smoke.

MR. LEA: We all say that. We all say you shouldn't smoke; we

probably all say you shouldn't drink. There are all sorts of bad habits

that people in the community shouldn't have, but when are you going to

allow people to be individuals in society and make up their own minds?

I think we can help them make up their own minds by being persuasive

and by educating. But to cut out the one area of government that has in

the past been delegated to do that job of education — the Alcohol and

Drug Commission — and then to put up the taxes on cigarettes and

tobacco seems to me to be ludicrous. It just doesn't make sense. It

doesn't make sense in the narrow confines and it sure doesn't make

sense in broader economics.

I've mentioned this before, but I don't think we can mention it

enough. One of the things that we have to do during a recessionary

period is somehow find a way of getting those great sums of money that

are in the savings accounts of this province working in the economy. We

are not going to do

[ Page 564 ]

it by allowing them to continue to put that money

into savings accounts with no incentives to take it out and invest it

in the economy and no fiscal policy to tax some of us into the economy.

You can use the two-pronged attack of using incentives, especially in

the housing area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tax savings accounts.

MR. LEA: Not tax savings accounts, Mr. Member; I'm not saying

that at all. What I'm saying is that you tax the high income earners

who are putting their money into savings accounts. In other words, we

divert that money out of savings accounts and back into the economy.

Who wouldn't do that? That would be the object of a budget during

recessionary times. That would be the object. But at the same time, I

think we have to understand that we do have to fuel the private sector.

We agree that it is the basic engine of our economy. So we also have to

look at ways of using incentives — in other words, the carrot — to get

some of that money out of savings accounts and invest it in the economy

— a two-pronged attack.

Taxation is called for now because we don't have time in this

recession to wait for the benefit of incentives getting the money out

of bank accounts and into investment in the economy. We have to take

hard measures now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we seem to be

straying somewhat from the bill before us. While the discussion the

member is on would possibly be appropriate at another stage of debate

in this House, we really have to concentrate on the specific bill

before us.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I am. Maybe I'll make it even a little bit more specific.

What I'm saying is that this bill will raise approximately $18

million in this fiscal year; $25 million for a full year, as estimated

by the Minister of Finance. I'm saying that money should not be taken

out of the economy, and I'm giving my reasons for that. You can't

confine yourself strictly to this $25 million or $18 million. You have

to discuss the broader aspect of this kind of regressive taxation in a

time of economic downturn, and that's what this bill is applying itself

to.

I understand why some members on that side of the House go along

with the government; I think they are doing it with good conscience. I

think they have believed the clichés about economics, and I believe

they think restraint is a way of getting economic recovery. But I know

there are others over there who know that just isn't true. You cannot

pull yourself out of an economic slump by restraint. In fact the

opposite is called for. There should be some sort of stimulus to the

economy. Even though $18 million or $25 million, in terms of the

overall budget, doesn't seem like a great deal of money....

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a start.

MR. LEA: That is a start, exactly. If you would leave that money in the economy to be spent in the economy, it all helps.

This government is always talking about big government and Big

Brother being a bad thing for the economy and for society generally,

and I happen to agree with that to a great extent. What I'm saying is:

leave the money in the pockets of the consumers and taxpayers; let them

decide where they're going to spend it. Wherever they spend it, it's

going to be in the businesses of this province, and that can't do

anything but help.

I think we can put this in a very simple way; other members have

done it before. I think it's something we can all understand. In most

legislatures today I think both sides of the House would be talking

about some way to stimulate the economy in order to get economic

growth. This is probably the only legislature in the country or on the

continent that is talking about killing the economy to get economic

growth; it's the only one. In other legislatures they may differ on the

means of stimulation: one will be the demand side; one will be the

supply side. That is legitimate debate between the two sides that want

to stimulate the economy. But this is the only legislature in the

country where on the one side of the House you have us putting forward

a demand economic theory and the other side not even putting forward a

supply side. They're saying: "Kill the economy; that's the best way to

get economic recovery." It just doesn't make sense.

Is it not better to start at the consumer level, have the consumers

of this province spend their money in the stores and shops, buying

services and goods, so that the small store operator and the small

supplier of goods have to go back to their suppliers and order more

goods to sell to the consumers? Where does he order them from? He

orders them from the manufacturer. Isn't that good for the economy? At

some point during either this debate, the budget debate or on a

taxation bill the Minister of Finance has to get up and tell us, step

by step, the effects of this budget on the economy. He has to do that,

but so far he hasn't. So far the minister has not taken us through and

followed it up and said: "By us doing this, here is the natural

consequence of events that's going to happen from this budget."

AN HON. MEMBER: He'd be happy to get up and speak.

MR. LEA: He will not, Mr. Member. Maybe you could, but I

guarantee you that that Minister of Finance does not have the knowledge

to do it. Not once, in the four years that this Minister of Finance has

been in his office, has he ever stood up and spoken about the kind of

economics that he would like to follow.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we're

debating a specific bill. I think it would be appropriate if the member

would address that bill and perhaps desist carrying on private

conversations with other members in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. On that point of order, hon. members,

the members must realize that the Chair is in a very difficult position

at this particular time, because the budget debate itself has not yet

been terminated and the specifics before us on the Tobacco Tax

Amendment Act.... It is very difficult to constrain debate because of

the very motion of the progress of bills within the House. I'm sure

that members will bear that in mind when they are debating.

Nonetheless, the point brought forth by the minister, I'm sure, will

bear to some degree on the continuing debate.

[ Page 565 ]

MR. LEA: I understand the problem you're having, Mr. Speaker,

because any taxation bill is part of the budget. I guess it's

unfortunate that that 1932 rule had the second page, because Mr.

Speaker's ruling, as he had to rule from precedent, puts us in that

kind of position. But there's no doubt that you cannot talk about

taxation during the budget time without going into the ramifications of

what it all means. I appreciate the Speaker's leniency.

[11:00]

This is a bill that will raise $18 million in this current year out

of the economy of British Columbia. The minister thinks he can sell it

by the mere fact that it's a tax on a bad habit, and therefore it's

okay. What the minister is trying to imply — imply is too strong a

word; infer — to the people of British Columbia is that really it's a

moral thing that he's doing; that he's taxing smoking and tobacco

usage, which is, after all, bad for your health. It's rather an odd

sort of approach, I would think, Mr. Speaker, for someone who puts

himself forward as an arch-conservative, to actually go out and use

taxation to try to take over the individual decisions of people in our

society. But at the same time I suppose the inconsistencies will have

to be answered by the minister himself. It seems like Big Brother is

speaking in this legislation; that Big Brother is saying: "We disagree

with your habit, so we're going to use the form of taxation to get you

to stop." It seems ludicrous that you're going to take a poor person

who smokes and tax them, and a rich person who doesn't smoke and tax

them nothing. It just doesn't make sense.

I know that many years ago when the hon. Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was on this side of the

House as a Liberal, he would have been sitting at that desk with his

suitcase beside him.... That's the way I remember him; he couldn't wait

to get out of here. It was almost as if the suitcase was a growth on

the end of his arm. It was always there, always packed, ready to go —

thermos, picnic basket — waiting to catch AirWest to get out of here. I

daresay that that member, when he was a Liberal, wouldn't have even had

his suitcase packed during these debates, because he would have been as

against this budget.... As a matter of fact, I'm almost tempted to go

back, Mr. Speaker, and pull out some of the budgets that that hon.

member presented to the House against the Social Credit year after

year. Now he'd like to eat those budgets that he presented; either

that....

I guess people can change. I guess they can. They can go from being

the leader of the Liberal Party to being a flunky of the Social Credit.

I don't know how he can live with himself and get up and vote for this

legislation when we know full well that a few short years ago he would

have been on this side voting against it and presenting his own budget.

I cannot believe, even though the Minister of Science agrees with the

economic theories of Argentina, that he would still have sat on this

side of the House and allowed it.... The member for Surrey frowns. You

didn't know that? That was before you were here. The minister got up

and told us that we should be following the economic policies of

Argentina. That was about two years ago. That was, of course, before

they blew sky high in economic chaos.

MR. REYNOLDS: Were you smoking at the time, Pat?

MR. LEA: The Minister of Finance used to sit on this side of

the House. Where would the Minister of Finance be if he were still on

this side of the House as a Conservative and had to deal with an

inflationary budget during recessionary times? It just doesn't make

sense.

Any taxation that isn't a transfer payment into the economy out of

the savings accounts of the nation, at this point, is a budget that

won't help economic recovery. I would like to have the minister, when

he closes the debate on this bill, take us through all of the steps

that the effects of taxation is going to have on the economy: not just

stand up and use his clichés, but actually take us through and say:

"We're going to use this taxation. This is going to effect this in the

economy this way, that in the economy that way." Not once in four years

has the Minister of Finance ever done that. There are people who say he

may be trying to avoid it. I don't believe that; it's that he doesn't

know what to say.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) rolls her eyes

heavenward and says: "Isn't that member for Prince Rupert crazy?" You

actually think that the Minister of Finance knows something about

finance. I know you do. You haven't been here long enough. The only

thing the Minister of Finance has ever had to do with finance is borrow

money — lots of it. He used to be the chief borrower for the Municipal

Finance Authority. That's how he got into the habit. That was their

only function, borrowing money, and he hasn't stopped since. Rather

than see the working people of this province having to go out in the

future and work and put part of their wages into paying off the huge,

gigantic debt, we would rather tax the rich today. The irony of it is

that it would be the best thing for the economy, including the rich.

The rich also want economic recovery. I believe that they are willing

to do their share, but we have a Minister of Finance who wants to

protect the rich against themselves. He doesn't even want to put in

motion a budget that will bring around economic recovery. The rich are

willing to.invest their money in this province as long as there is an

incentive to do so. When you can leave your money in the bank and gain

more interest on it than you can by investing it in the economy, you're

in rough shape. That money's not going to come out of the bank accounts

of this province or the nation and go into the business community, into

economic recovery. Instead of taxation of the poor, why not an economic

incentive to get people to pull their money out of the bank and invest

it in housing or some other economic endeavour that also has some

social benefit to the province?

We will be voting against taxation measures that tax the poor and let the rich go.

MR. REID: Smoking tax isn’t a tax on the poor.

MR. LEA: It's the same as sales tax. The amount of money out

of your paycheque that the poor will put out in regressive taxation

like the sales tax and the tobacco tax is a greater proportion of their

income. Yes, the rich man who smokes the same amount as a poor man will

pay as much in taxation as the poor man. The only problem is that the

proportion of the income of the rich is so much smaller. That's what

most economists call regressive taxation. Progressive taxation is where

you tax on the ability to pay. That is what we thought our society was

all about.

If we're going to have economic anarchy, then so be it. If we say

civilization is nothing more than keeping people from hurting one

another socially, that's one thing; but we in this

[ Page 566 ]

country and in the western democracies have also

decided that we're not going to allow our neighbour to be hurt

economically if we can help it either. That's one of our goals. That's

part of the western democracies. The only province out of ten in this

country that is actually going out of its way to reverse that trend is

the Social Credit government in British Columbia. They're doing away

not only with human rights but with human dignity through taxation of

those who can afford it the least, and taking away services from those

who need them the most. This bill is part of the package. As I

mentioned earlier, not only is it added taxation, but it's added

taxation on a tax that's already indexed. I wish I had taken the time

to work out the compounding taxation on that, but I would suspect that

by the end of the second year that taxation is going to be somewhere

around a 60 percent increase because of the new base and the

compounding effects through indexing.

Mr. Speaker, how do you go to the public service of this province and say to

them: "We want you to take a 5 percent cut in your wage package, and if

you smoke we're going to put up your taxation 60 percent over the next year

and a half to two years"? You have to appear to be fair or you can't

persuade people to go along with you. I think that's been the biggest problem

of this budget and of this session — that people are absolutely convinced that

they are not being treated fairly.

I don't recall any trade union or any other segment of society

saying that they wouldn't pull together, either to dampen inflation or

to get economic recovery, but they do want it to be an even pull. They

want everybody to dig in and help. They want the rich.... I believe

that people who are in high-income positions, who are putting money in

the bank every month, really, when it comes right down to it, will

accept their moral obligation and will be willing to pay a bit more tax

for a while. I know I would. I don't think there's one member of this

House....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The trade union movement too will do their part, if....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, will they?

MR. LEA: They have been doing their part, Mr. Speaker. Look

at the kind of negotiated settlements that have been going on in the

last while. To say that the trade union movement hasn't been doing

their part would be to lie; they have been.

Someone asked me the other day in the House whether I thought the trade union

movement was a vested interest group, and I said yes. They all said: "Oh,

gee, he's admitted it." Of course they are. But then so is the chamber

of commerce and so is almost any organization that you can think of. They're

all vested interest groups in society. I'm not going to stand up here and

say that everything that trade unions demand they should get, or that everything

they ask for is fair. But we have to look at the record of the trade union movement

over the last little while and ask whether they've been responsible. I think

when you examine the negotiations and the settlements that have gone on in the

last while, you have to conclude they have been responsible and they have been

fair with the rest of society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not so!

MR. LEA: They have been. Look at the workers at Chrysler.

They took a pay cut to help the company. Interestingly enough, the only

way that Chrysler survived was by going a little smaller so they could

become more efficient.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they smoke?

MR. LEA: I'm sure they do. But I'm sure that it doesn't come out their ears like you, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, at this time we cannot support an increase in tobacco

tax. We cannot support it because at this time and because of the

economic circumstances of today it is a regressive tax that affects

those people at the bottom end of the scale more than it affects those

people at the top end of the scale. That's looking at it just from a

personal point of view of how it affects individuals in our society. On

an even broader scale, we cannot support this taxation because not to

tax the rich and get that money out of savings accounts, or stop it

from going into savings accounts and transfer it back into the economy,

is foolhardy. You cannot get economic recovery by taking money out of

the consumer's pocket. It is impossible.

If one of the government members.... I always like to do this at the

beginning of a parliament. Believe me, you back-benchers are not

government members. Did you know that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEA: You did know that. I noticed one after another, when

you first arrived, got up and thought you were. Now you're going to

understand a little bit more as time goes on just how much you aren't.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll find out.

MR. LEA: You sure will. And I'm not just putting that on your

party — I've been there. You're going to find out just exactly what you

are worth to the government. You're worth a vote. You're here to stand

up and sit down and do as you're told. That's what you're here for as

far as the government is concerned. But the people who sent you here

may have a different idea. If you think the government wants you to

take money out of the consumers' pockets, and it's a good thing, then

vote for this bill. If you think the people who sent you here want

economic recovery and want money left in the consumers' pockets to

spend of their own free will on those things that they want to spend it

on, and to help economic recovery, then vote for the people who sent

you here and vote against this bill. That's your choice: economic

recovery, further downturn in the economy, or a lengthy delay in

economic recovery. Those are your choices.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put it to a vote.

[11:15]

MR. LEA: If you, Mr. Member, or the Minister of Finance or

anybody else in this House can get up and tell me how economic

restraint can help economic recovery, I'd like to hear it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair, hon. member.

[ Page

567 ]

MR. LEA: I am, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. McGEER: Maybe you could get him to address this bill while you're at it.

MR. LEA: I'm addressing the bill. Mr. Speaker, that member's going to be the one who won't address the bill.

He'll get up and say, "1933, 1942..." and he'll go through it all,

but that member in good conscience cannot address this bill. I'd just

love to have you get up and tell me how they would have done it in

Argentina. Tell me how they do it in Argentina today, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're tiresome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm tiresome? Because I remind him of

his Argentina speech? No, I'll tell you why I'm tiresome: it's because

I'm exposing you as a fraud, Mr. Minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: I do apologize, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you withdraw your remarks?

MR. LEA: Yes, I do. He has put forward an economic policy

that is a fraud, and the minister cannot explain it. But I shouldn't

have said he is a fraud. I do apologize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you unconditionally withdraw? Thank you.

MR. LEA: Yes, I do, and I mean it. The minister is not a

fraud; his ideas around economics are. The minister knows beans about

economics. He knows it, I know it and everybody in this Legislature

knows it. The minister is so deathly afraid that everybody's going to

know it. That's his worst dream: that some morning British Columbians

are going to wake up and find out that this minister doesn't know

anything. You know what? I think he's even behind the times there. I

think they woke up a while ago. Twenty-five thousand of them were out

on the lawn yesterday saying that the Minister of Finance knows beans

about economics. They're right. It doesn't take a genius to understand

that you don't get economic recovery by taking money out of the

consumers' pockets, therefore creating unemployment and an economic

downturn that even goes further than it has. A six-year-old grade 1

student can figure that out. The minister cannot come into this House,

put forward regressive tax legislation and tax the consumers, and

expect to get economic recovery. For those reasons, and the hypocrisy

of this legislation in cutting out the Alcohol and Drug Commission in

the same session that they raise taxation on tobacco which is

absolutely ludicrous, I will be voting against this legislation and I

will be proud to do it.

I move that this debate adjourn until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. PASSARELL: On a point of order, the bells are not ringing in the offices downstairs. I wonder if you could check into that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. It will be looked into immediately.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's nice to have so many members of the New

Democratic Party turn out for the Legislature on a Thursday. It may

only be to adjourn the House, but to have as many as 20 NDP opposition

members appearing at any one time in the Legislature is something that

deserves note in Hansard . I know many of them will be taking

part in this debate on Bill 13. I'm certainly going to take the

opportunity later on, when it's appropriate in debate, to discuss the

very matter which the member for Victoria has suggested. In the

meantime, though, as always, I'll have some suggestions to make to our

opposition about how they might be able to improve their performance

beyond turning up to the House with requests that it adjourn for

vacation, or for golf, or whatever the members wish to do when they put

forward the idea that we stop debating the bills before the House. The

suggestion that I have, Mr. Speaker, particularly for the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), is that he and his supporters have a

tremendous opportunity to get revenge on the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis). Don't pay his tax. Teach that Minister of Finance a

lesson. Don't give him an opportunity for that increased tax. Stop

smoking! Instead, the member for Prince Rupert should tell his friends

and supporters, and everyone else, "Spend that money that's saved and

in your pockets. Spend it on something else that will prevent that

awful Minister of Finance from getting money." Spend it on milk for the

children. Spend it on clothing for the children. Those things aren't

taxed.

Interjection.

[ Page 568 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, the House will come to order.

HON. MR. McGEER: You see how difficult it is to speak any

common sense to the people opposite? They've objected to the Minister

of Finance. Why, the leader of the opposition thought he was a

purse-snatcher! Make him give that money back to the people by spending

it on milk for the children instead of on smoking. It's an excellent

idea. I've been waiting for years to address the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: A pompous ass? A pompous ass for saying that

money should be spent on milk for the children? Well, if that's being a

pompous ass, I'm glad I'm a pompous ass, because I can't see anything

wrong with buying healthful food for the children and supporting a

British Columbia industry — as opposed to what the member for Prince

Rupert does, which is to support a habit that is not a bad habit; for

those who smoke it's a killer habit, and for those who don't smoke it's

a filthy, disgusting, abhorrent habit. But you want people to do that.

You want to see that money go to an industry in some other part of

Canada or the world. You don't want to see B.C. industry stimulated.

After all, that's where our food industry comes from. The money should

go to the farmers here in British Columbia who grow all the food and

produce the milk and so on. That's where the money should go — on

healthier things for the family.

[11:30]

The members opposite oppose, in favour of smoking, the bill which

the Minister of Finance has brought down — quite inconsistent with the

bill I will support, brought in by the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace). That's the sort of thing you should be supporting, but

you're not; you're standing up here and supporting smoking. That's what

they're doing because they believe it's worthwhile. I say that's not

so. The bill the Minister of Finance brought in is brilliant, because

either it brings more revenue into government to support the deserving

services to go to the poor in British Columbia, or it brings in less

revenue — which I would hope — and promotes the health of British

Columbians. The money is then given to the ex-smoker to spend on

non-taxable things, supporting British Columbia industry and helping

himself and his family. That's what we should be doing, Instead, the

opposition is completely muddled, recommending to the people of British

Columbia, as they always do, the wrong thing economically, and now, for

heavens sake, the wrong thing in health. Can you imagine it?

I was going to speak about Argentina, not necessarily as directly

relating to Bill 13, but upon the invitation of the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea), because his references were permitted before as being

relevant to this particular debate. It's an illustration again of the

inability of the opposition to comprehend. First of all, in having so

little to talk about on the bill itself, they bring something like

Argentina into a debate on Bill 13, and then they misunderstand the

message. What I was saying in the Legislature before, and have repeated

several times, is that in that unfortunate country of Argentina they

have instituted in economics the very thing which the NDP opposite have

been advocating, They have done it there, and because they have done it

over a period of 50 years that country is one of the most unfortunate

in the world. But of course, when you point that fact out to the

opposition, they say that I'm supporting the economy of Argentina, and

advocating that for the people of British Columbia. It's you who are

advocating the economy of Argentina, because there they have put your

economic practices into effect. If we were to have a socialist

government in this province for 30 years instead of three years, we

would have an economy that is in as bad shape as that of Argentina.

The member for Prince Rupert, in not supporting this bill, has told

us that taxation measures have no effect on smoking. If that's the

case, then I would like to know why the cigarette manufacturers of

Canada, those purveyors of death, have been going to see the federal

government requesting that taxes on tobacco be reduced so that their

industry is promoted. Most people understand that cigarette smoking

causes lung cancer, and that lung cancer is one of the major causes of

death. What most people do not recognize is that smoking causes heart

disease, and that the statistics linking heart disease to smoking are

even stronger than those linking lung cancer to smoking.

So here we have what the member for Prince Rupert calls a bad habit,

which I think is more appropriately described as a killer habit, one of

the major contributors to death in our society. Anything which

discourages any person from continuing to smoke, if it's a fiscal

measure that is the way to get the job done, we need more of these

fiscal measures.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert, in his rambling

opposition to this particular bill, stressed that whether it was

alcohol or tobacco, taxation measures had no effect on consumption.

This flies in the face of all statistics that have been accumulated in

any country in the world where alcoholism is directly related — in

every country where studies have been done — to the relative cost of

alcohol. Similarly, we now have strong evidence in Canada that smoking

is related to the cost of tobacco. We know that of the two, smoking is

a far greater contributor to death and disability than is alcoholism,

serious as that is as a health problem. I would venture to say that

nine out of ten people who currently smoke would confess they wish they

had never started. They have become the true victims, not of a bad

habit but of a killer habit. If, in the increase of tobacco costs

brought in by this bill, some young people in our province are

discouraged from taking up a habit that will mean their death if they

take it up and persist in it, then the bill will have done far more

than act as a revenue measure for the people of British Columbia.

I don't think it should be looked on as a revenue measure at all. It

would be my profound wish that the result of this bill would bring less

money to government. If it did bring less money to government as a

direct result of that tax, the government itself, let alone the

individuals involved, would be better off because we would not be

looking after the victims in hospital. We will not for years bring in

legislation to this House that will serve such useful purposes to

society as this particular bill, because, as I said earlier, either it

is going to bring in revenue which will help to pay for the legitimate

services that people deserve....

MS. SANFORD: Like the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member says: "Why not use it for the

Alcohol and Drug Commission?" Mr. Speaker, there is a very sound reason

for this, and that sound reason is there are measures that can be

proved to work in discouraging

[ Page 569 ]

filthy, disgusting, killer habits. Taxation is the way to do it. No question about that at all.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order.

HON. MR. McGEER: Here we have one of the most appropriate and

valuable bills brought before this House, and we see the member

opposite voting not just against the bill, but filibustering. Instead

of coming and addressing themselves to the business of the House, one

after another asks that the House should be adjourned. I tell you, in

terms of judgment and tactics, we've never had a worse opposition. If

they lost because of their inept performance in 1933, and if they lost

in 1937, and if they lost in 1941 because of that inept performance,

and in 1945 and in 1949 and in 1952 and in 1953 and in 1956 and in 1960

and in 1963 and in 1966 and in 1969 and in 1975 and in 1979 and in 1983

— if they lost all of those times because of their bad performance, I

can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this almost unbroken string of losses

will continue indefinitely into the future.

I will be supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, now we are full of great wisdom

purveyed by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

The minister raises arguments that have never been proven. It has never

been shown that increased taxation deters people's smoking habits.

We have traditionally, in this House, voted in favour of increased

taxation on tobacco. We have done that because it's an easy thing. It's

motherhood. Sin taxes are the easy taxes to vote for. This year,

however, having thought about it very carefully, we have decided that

we are not supporting one single solitary increase in taxation from

that irresponsible government, period! A government which taxes and at

the same time withdraws services is not a government to be trusted, and

we'll be darned if we'll vote for this.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the minister with the mind, the

minister who travels through others' heads — failing on the whale, but

otherwise some little success — has the audacity to stand up in this

House and suggest that people withdraw from smoking and buy their

children more milk. What total hypocrisy! The fact is — and we will all

conclude — that people who smoke and who are poor or low-income earners

will buy their children less milk, and even less because of this

legislation. Who in the world is he trying to kid?

At no time has one member of the opposition stood in this House and

suggested that smoking was a habit that would be recommended. As a

matter of fact, each and every one of us has said that it is a bad

habit and not a healthful habit. However, let me tell that minister

that he does not bear the stamp of an economist. I have heard many

health economists, including the foremost health economist in North

America, at a seminar with respect to this whole question, suggest very

sincerely that rather than being a charge on the economy, smokers are

in fact the opposite.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Hear me through. You have all the answers over there. If you want to stand up and debate this, get up after I'm through.

[11:45]

The fact of the matter is that a smoker is more likely to walk down

the street and die of a heart attack and be absolutely no cost to the

system, other than the ambulance fare.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: He's talking economy. I'm just telling you exact what is said.

Also, they have a shorter life expectancy and are not likely to be a

very heavy charge on extended- and long-term care, etc. Meanwhile, back

at the ranch, they're paying a heavy taxation all of their lives on

this bad habit. So don't get your economics mixed up with some of your

scientific mumbo-jumbo.

Let me suggest why we have decided to vote against every increase in

tax that these people are putting forward this year. First, it's

totally dishonest, because during the election campaign the public was

promised there would be no increases in taxation. Second, an honest

government would put forward fair taxation, not regressive taxation.

The sales tax has been increased — a regressive tax; increased medical

premiums is a regressive tax.

MRS. JOHNSTON: All taxes are regressive.

MR. COCKE: Not all taxes are regressive. Income tax isn't, Madam Member. Income tax is the fairest method of taxation that there is.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Fair tax, that member says. Let me give that

member a little illustration in mathematics. A person earning $10,000 a

year and supporting a family of two or three, buying all of the

necessary things for that family, with an unfortunate smoking habit and

also having to pay sales tax, which has been increased, and all 4 those

other taxes.... Compare that to a person earning $100,000 a year with

the same family obligation and the same habits. You tell me that one is

not affected far more severely than the other. If you can do that in

your mind and put something on paper, then that member will agree that

the kind of taxation propositions put for-ward by this government this

time have been totally regressive and unfair.

Because this is a question of "sin." They called it sin tax in the

old days. Those are easy taxation propositions to put forward, because

you pretty well forced everybody to vote for them. We don't have an

opportunity anymore to vote with respect to increases in the other sin

that's taxed very highly, and that's alcohol. Having all this in mind

that these taxes are increased and the price of alcohol is to be

increased, we have withdrawn the only — and it was pretty weak —

opportunity for alcohol and drug education that this province has had.

They'll tell us they've done a dynamic job with Counterattack. The only

time when Counterattack worked, and I will give him credit, was when

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

introduced that proposition and when it was working full time. It

hasn't worked full time since he left that office. It's a mockery. All

you see from time to time is an ad or two, and once in awhile there's a

little bit of

[ Page 570 ]

a suggestion that people had better stay off the roads if they're drunk.

In any event, the kinds of taxation that we have reduce the income

of the low-income people to the extent that it reduces their purchasing

power. As the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

said, it reduces their opportunity to "buy their children milk, etc."

It does nothing for the economy, except that they hope it will bail out

a government that has been encumbered for the last number of years by a

group of people who put themselves forward as business people but

couldn't even run a pop machine if they were given all the instructions

in all languages.

Members who want out.... The Speaker smiles. This was a proposition

put forward by the minister of science and technology and suitcases.

That's the most interesting statement that I've ever seen. He suggested

somehow or other that the recorded divisions in this House must be

lying. He suggested that there were a large number of NDPers in the

House today. Every day we've been running well over the percentage that

the Socreds have. However, now that we've heard that, I'm going to

suggest at caucus this afternoon that some of my colleagues just do

exactly what the minister suggests. Let me suggest to the government

that you can't lose opposition, but you can sure as hell lose

government. So you've got to be here all summer, all fall and all

winter — as long as you put forward this kind of regressive situation

that we have before us and the kinds of bills that we have this time

that are the joke of the nation and have shamed us across the northern

hemisphere.

I would like to have heard the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications in his life-saving speech say one word about the arms

race that's going on right now, that will annihilate all of mankind;

not one word. The government does not put forward....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we've allowed a reasonable latitude but....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that there are numerous smokers who build nuclear bombs.

But I'm not joking. The fact of the matter is that government will

not call those kinds of resolutions. We debate this sort of situation

and then the minister stands up and tries to indicate that we're

suggesting or promoting smoking. We're not. We're opposed to smoking.

We are equally opposed to regressive government taxation, and that's

what we have before us.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest, as the minister did, that this is a habit

that should be avoided. It's a habit that does create some need for

increased services. I'm not sure whether or not those who take

part in

the habit are in fact paying for it because I'm sure that there are two

sides to the equation. When one economist makes a statement, another

economist comes along and rebuts that statement. I'm not sure if we

will ever conclude where we stand on that situation, but I'm sure in my

heart of hearts that it's time this government got to real grips with

the economy in this province and got to grips with the situation where

they're going to take

part in building an economy, rather than

destroying it by this regressive kind of situation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's what we're doing. You don't understand.

MR. COCKE: Doing? Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs — let's say of corporate affairs, since there's

little consumer situation left — sits over there and tells me that in a

province that's worst hit in the country in terms of employment,

they're doing a good job. Obviously we're in the trouble we're in now

because we've had that group in government for the last eight years.

It's because of their regressive thinking, and because of their

recessive genes or something, that we're in the situation that we're in

now. In any event, I am not suggesting to my colleagues that we should

vote for any kind of regressive taxation. I will vote against it, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Cocke moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved,

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada