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 )

FRIDAY, JULY 29, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

597 ]

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Nicolson –– 597

Introduction of Bills

Regulations Act — 601

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

Mr. Barnes –– 601

Mr. Skelly –– 605

Mr. Michael –– 610

FRIDAY, JULY 29, 1983

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

MR. CLERK: Pursuant to standing order 12, I advise the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm very pleased to be able to introduce

somebody who's in the gallery this morning, a young lady who worked

very hard for the British Columbia Social Credit Party in the last

election. She's the president of our B.C. Young Socreds, and I'd ask

you all to welcome Mary Hemmingsen.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have the

chairman of the St. James School Board, one of my supporters during the

last election, Jed and Ruth Astin and their three children Heidi, Jacob

and Simon, from Vernon. I'd ask you to make them welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing in your

gallery today the president of the B.C. Young Socreds from Surrey, a

young gentlemen who represents leadership and good government in the

youth. It gives me great pleasure to introduce Joe Webber.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder filed the 1982 annual report of the British Columbia Marketing Board.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of

the House to move a motion that will enable a special committee of the

Legislature to recommend the appointment of an auditor.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the Committee of Selection

appointed by this House on June 23, 1983, comprising myself and the

Hon. J.R. Chabot and Hon. H.W. Schroeder, and Messrs. Ree, Segarty,

Veitch, Howard, Cocke and Hanson, be authorized to appoint a special

committee of the Legislature to recommend a person to be appointed as

auditor-general as provided under

section 2 of the Auditor General Act.

MR. HOWARD: On the motion, I'm quite pleased, Your Honour,

that we asked the government House Leader this question the other day

and jogged his memory about a necessary function. We support the

motion. The minister has the right to close debate, and I would, if he

wouldn't mind…. While I don't have the motion in front of me and its

words, could he indicate that the content of the motion is the same as

the motion in 1976 –– I believe it was — when the first committee was

established? Can he assure the House that it is the same motion, with

the exception of the members' names on it? That would satisfy the

initial moves made to deal with the appointment or reappointment,

whatever the committee may conclude for the auditor-general.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe there is some understanding?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to assure the hon. House Leader

for the official opposition that the motion is parallel. To fully

satisfy him, I will read the one of June 22, 1976:

"By leave of the House and on the motion of the Hon.

E.M. Wolfe, it was ordered that the Committee of Selection appointed by

this House March 17, 1976, comprising Hon. Grace McCarthy, Hon. R.H.

McClelland, and Messrs. Chabot, King and Gibson, be authorized to

appoint a special committee of the Legislature to recommend a person to

be appointed as auditor-general as provided under

section 2 of the

Auditor General Act."

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[10:15]

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I certainly hope that satisfied and assisted the second member for Vancouver Centre.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 13.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. NICOLSON: I rise as a person whose lips have not touched

tobacco for some 30 years. I did start smoking when I was in grade 5.

However, I saw the light, Mr. Speaker. It came to me one day when I was

in grade 10 and my father went to borrow some of my cigarettes. Up to

that day I had thought that my mother, who is Italian, had been more

genetically responsible for the kind of makeup that I had, but I

realized that I did have some very strong Scottish traits; I realized

that this was going to hit me in the pocketbook, and I decided to take

a different way than my father had in this area.

I have no doubts about the ravages of tobacco. I've heard Linus

Pauling speak on a couple of occasions. I even had the pleasure of

meeting him on one other occasion at an airport and talking to him for

a little while. He's pointed out that studies done way back in the

twenties in California indicated that smoking one pack of cigarettes a

day increases mortality by 8 years, and two packs can increase it by 16

years. Unfortunately you don't avoid old age; you just get old sooner.

No one on this side of the House, either the smokers or the newly

reformed smokers, who are usually the most intolerant people, or those

of us who reformed even during our high-school years…. When I grew up

there was tremendous psychological encouragement to take up smoking.

Almost every movie portrayed the hero…unless it was a Roy Rogers movie

or something like that.

[ Page 598 ]

MR. REID: The horse didn't smoke.

MR. NICOLSON: No, Roy didn't smoke, Mr. Speaker. Gabby Hayes

took a chaw of tobacco, but in the main features, John Wayne would

smoke, George Raft would smoke, Humphrey Bogart would smoke, and one

wonders where some of those people are today. Most of those people died

some rather untimely deaths, but many others that saw the glamourized

lifestyle portrayed in the movies adopted this style. I must say that

it was probably part of the influence that led kids my age into

experimenting with cigarettes. I don't think a day went by that I

didn't have one of two when I was a very small child.

HON. MR. GARDOM: One or two what?

MR. NICOLSON: Cigarettes, my friend. They were not filter-tip cigarettes in those days; they were plain cigarettes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Tailor-made?

MR. NICOLSON: Mostly tailor-made, yes.

We also saw the lifestyle of cigarettes portrayed by war veterans.

Many people whom I know took up smoking during the Second World War.

Cigarettes were free. Schoolchildren took up collections so they could

send not just woollen socks and balaclavas and various things overseas,

but cigarettes as well.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Have you ever tried to smoke a woollen sock?

MR. NICOLSON: I don't know on the basis of what experience

the Minister of Finance is warning us against the dangers of smoking

woollen socks. That is one experience I did not have, but I'll take the

minister's word for it that smoking woollen socks can also be very

harmful to one's health.

Remember the ads for Camel cigarettes and "Lucky Strike Means Fine

Tobacco" — LSMFT — all those ads that would come over KIRO radio, KOMO

and so on? Of course that was a type of lifestyle advertising that

glamourized it. Yet this government has been saying that taxing

cigarettes, by taxing a group of people who comprise the very poor as

well as some of the very rich, is the way to discourage smoking. We've

been taxing tobacco for years and years, yet the use of tobacco

persists. I think its use by young people is on the increase,

particularly by young women as opposed to young men. There are some

relative changes in percentages of people using tobacco.

This government recently — I think it was last session — brought in

legislation which permitted lifestyle advertising for the companion

product we use: that is, alcohol. On the one hand they're deploring the

use of tobacco, saying that the secret supposedly is to price it out of

reach. But they have brought in lifestyle advertising for alcohol. When

we're talking about the principle of this bill…. If they really had any

health motivation in this particular bill, and if they weren't just

looking for an extra $18 million in the budget this year and an extra

$24 million for next year, we could do something absolutely different.

This bill is changing something that the minister brought into this

House a couple of years ago. He said: "We're going to a modern system

of taxation. We're going to index it." I thought we'd seen the last of

the tobacco tax bills in this Legislature, because we went to indexing.

We set a base and a formula, and we said, that is the way this tax will

grow. As the price of cigarettes goes up, the revenue to the Crown will

go up, and instead of just having a fixed cent–value on a package of 20

or 25 cigarettes it will be indexed; this was the last we were going to

see of this. That was a couple of short years ago. Here we are again,

and we're looking at changing the index.

I know a lot of people who, unfortunately, aren't going to stop

smoking. They've already gone from tailor-mades to rolling their own.

Because they are on fixed incomes — in many instances their disposable

income has been falling behind over the last four years — they are

going to be cutting into their disposable income; they're even going to

be cutting into the necessities of life. Because they will not give up

cigarettes — not for that reason.

Some people may have seen the very small item in this morning's Province ;

I think it's in the back of the B section. It points out that with

people who suffer a heart attack and quit smoking, 16 years later 36

percent of those people will have died; but if they keep on smoking 82

percent will have died. There's a tremendous increase in mortality

after suffering a heart attack.

Dr. Linus Pauling uncovered an old study in California, which

pointed out that the use of vitamin C helps to increase longevity. He

also points out that the use of tobacco is a negative factor in terms

of length of life.

I think we have to look at how we got where we are. We have to look

back to some of the attitudes in the early days when we didn't have the

health studies. In order to drive out a fever, a physician took a

pistol and fired it off by a person's car to drive out the humours and

biles and various other things, and to create a balance and so on. That

was the practice of medicine. You raise your eyebrows, Mr. Speaker. Two

hundred years ago that was very orthodox practice.

[10:30]

When Sir Walter Raleigh brought tobacco from this continent back to

Europe, where it found such favour, it inspired a great number of

thoughts. In fact, Oscar Wilde, who had something to say about just

about everything, said: "A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect

pleasure. It is exquisite and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more

could you want?" Of course, that man died rather young in a hospital

room, having paid the price of smoking, drinking and other excesses.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you know what his last words were?

MR. NICOLSON: I know what his last words were, yes. He looked

up at the ugly curtains in the hospital and said, "Either those

curtains go, or I go." And then he died.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I'll tell you what his last words were.

His friends were around him, complaining that they didn't have enough

money to bury him. His last words were: "I'm dying beyond my means."

MR. NICOLSON: I believe that was the second to last thing he said.

That was at a time when tobacco was being glamourized, and was

thought by some people to be fashionable. Of course, Mark Twain, whom I

recall seeing when I was a very

[ Page

599 ]

young man, made the claim that he came into the world asking for a light, and

he was going to go out of it blowing smoke rings. He said about tobacco: "So

it's been my rule never to smoke when asleep and never to refrain when awake."

You can see the attitude of these people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your research people really must've used the library over the last few days.

MR. NICOLSON: Some people never read anything except what

copy people put before them. They obviously didn't read some of those

things very carefully before making some ads that ran for a couple of

weeks over the airwaves in Victoria. Perhaps it's good that one should

read a few gems from the past and some of the great authors.

Mark Twain also said: "How well I remember my grandmother's asking

me not to use tobacco. Good old soul. She said, 'You're at it again,

are you, you whelp? Now don't let me ever catch you chewing tobacco

before breakfast again, or I'll lay my black snake to you within an

inch of your life.'" That is an admonishment that could be taken by the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), I should think.

Here is one — and I hope it isn't misunderstood — by another famous writer of the nineteenth century:

Tobacco is a dirty weed. I like it.

It satisfies no normal need. I like it.

It makes you thin, it makes you lean,

It takes the hair right off your bean.

It's the worst dam stuff I've ever seen. I like it.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Who said that?

MR. NICOLSON: Graham Hemminger said that in the 1890's.

There were others. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder) would recall this famous saying: "I want all the hellions to

quit puffing that hell-fume in God's clean air." That was said by Carry

Nation, after snatching cigars from the mouths of smokers.

MS. BROWN: Now that's leadership!

MR. NICOLSON: The use of tobacco then was, for many years,

glamourized. Believe me, my research led me to many comments which

would not bear repeating. Some of the comments showed not just

attitudes of the day towards smoking, but attitudes of the day toward

women, and don't bear repeating in this House. But this does come from

a time in which tobacco obviously was a fascination — not just with

the…. Well, it shows that tobacco actually was a fascination with

everyone. It knew no class boundaries, just as today it knows no class

boundaries. Mr. Speaker, what we're talking about here is imposing a

tax on a group of people and exempting others; a group of people who

are already fairly heavily taxed; a group of people who would see a tax

increase every time the price of cigarettes went up if this bill were

not brought in. Now we're simply going to see another extra burden

placed upon people who smoke.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a limit to what we can accept. There certainly

is a limit to what we can accept when we, as an official opposition, sought

to warn the government about the fact that it was expending public funds faster

than it was able to collect them; that we were spending beyond our means in

this province. Ever since 1980 we've been dipping into the liquid cash deposits

in the bank, which totalled, in terms of long-term investments, short-term investments

and actual cash on hand, about $2 billion back in 1980. We have seen that money

eroded until this year, when we really need that kind of money around, well,

there was only about half a billion left, and by the end of this budget we're

going to be $1 billion overdrawn at the bank.

Mr. Speaker, government did not heed those warnings of the past, and

now we see this as part of a denial of what was said during the past

election. We were told there would be no tax increases. Those of us who

were involved in politics knew that many taxes were already indexed.

Taxes such as gasoline tax are indexed and, therefore, if the price of

gasoline goes up we know there will be a tax increase. But we didn't

bother to play semantics with the government on that. We knew that

tobacco tax was indexed, and we fully expected that when the government

was saying that, they were…. Well, they were maybe avoiding being

absolutely candid, because, for the sake of simplicity, to talk about

indexed taxes just makes things very muddy. So when they made the

statement that there would be no tax increases — before the election,

Mr. Speaker — one just had to accept it and say: "Yes, a little bit of

generalization is necessary, because on an election trail, in a short

period of time, you can't get bogged down in detail, and one can speak

in some generalities." But certainly a promise that there will be no

tax increase means that we would not be changing the base for

computation of the tobacco tax. So that's really what is at stake here.

The government can talk about hope: "Let's raise the tax and hope that

if we raise it, less people will smoke. Let's hope we don't collect as

much money under this tax and hope that this will be

counter-productive."

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I would hope that. But, Mr. Speaker, those

words ring rather hollow from a government that has expressed the same

kind of arguments about alcohol. Yet it has done away with all

educational aspects in terms of alcohol and has allowed an

alcohol-lifestyle advertising, so we see that we now have ads that say:

"If you play rugby, and if you're macho, then you have a few beers

after the game." That's the kind of thing that we're being exposed to.

That is a way to encourage and to push alcohol; the two go hand-in-hand.

One realizes that prohibition would also be another way in which to

encourage the use of tobacco, but there are some reasonable measures

that can be taken for prohibition. My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace) has advocated for years in this House the banning of

smoking in public places. That could do a lot if you want to use the

health argument, because a lot of those health problems, a lot of those

lung problems, are not from people who, themselves, are smokers;

they're from…. A lot of the health and lung problems that we have to

look after…. A lot of the money that is spent on our medicare system in

this province goes to treat non-smokers who have to inhale second-hand

smoke, smoke that does not come through a filter but just spews off of

the end of a cigar or a cigarette — taking this in second-hand. There

have been many people — many spouses — found to be suffering from lung

cancer which at first glance would appear to have been caused by

smoking, but subsequent investigation finds out that, no, this

particular person was not

[ Page 600 ]

a smoker but that their spouse was a smoker. If we

were to ban smoking in public places, we might save a lot more than $18

million, which is what we are seeking to raise here in a year. We would

also remove this type of fascination which grew up in the eighteenth

and nineteenth centuries with the use of tobacco.

[10:45]

Mr. Speaker, the minister…. Well, the minister will be back; he's

probably gone to see whether it was the last thing that Oscar Wilde

said or the second last thing.

I say that this particular type of tax is a regressive tax. If there

has ever been a question in this House that has caused me some concern

in terms of voting, it has been on this particular issue. For years

we've come into the House, and most of us have accepted this…. This

will be the second time that I've voted against this type of bill —

possibly the third — in this House. I am convinced that this is the

wrong way. I'm convinced that this takes money out of the hands of

people that have an established dependence on smoking and who can ill

afford it. I am also convinced that when a government — a government

that has been government for seven and a half years, not an opposition

group that is out there and doesn't have all of the research and the

financial backing that comes with government; not a group that might

overestimate or underestimate some particular need and not have

complete knowledge of the financial state of things…. I say that a

government seeking a third consecutive term of office which says just

before an election that there'll be no tax increases and then brings in

a piece of legislation like this diminishes parliament.

Parliament is a very fragile system. Those of us who sought to come

here — the new members who've sought to come here — probably had a much

different view of what this institution does. I know that I've always

seen any organization that I have ever joined wrapped in some mystique.

When you really get into the heart of, it you find that it is a very

human organization with very human failings. It is a very fragile

organization, quite often with one or two people just pulling something

together and holding it together very tenuously.

This Legislature holds together very tenuously, and it only holds

together if there is honesty and honour. That's why the mother

parliament has held together for many years. When there's a mistake

made, such as the invasion of the Falkland Islands, a person of honour

like Lord Carrington resigns his position and accepts responsibility.

But in this Legislature we are very much in danger of losing the whole

thing. The people of British Columbia are in danger of losing the

really democratic institution that we have for governing this province.

We have seen promises, for instance, that this was the last time that

sales tax was going down, and that it was going to stay down. That's

when it went down to 4 percent. A little while later it popped back up

to 6 percent. Now it's been put up to 7 percent. The same thing here.

Just a few short months ago in the first couple of days of May the

members opposite were saying there would be no tax increases this year.

Here we are, just a couple of months later, facing one bill out of 26

which are doing all the things they were denying they were going to do

just before the election. This is a fragile system. It is dependent

upon people meaning it when they say something — particularly a

government that should have known the answers before the election, a

government that did know the answers before the election. The answers

that they knew were about some of the things on which they had been

polling but weren't telling the people. They had their plans and they

knew what they were going to do after the election; but what they were

telling the people they were going to do was absolutely opposite in

many instances.

We were told there were going to be no increases in health care

fees. They came in with this budget, of which this bill is part, and

turned their backs on that — an absolute denial, a rejection of

interoffice memos concerning tax increases. It was categorically denied

by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), but then, as part of this

legislative package, of which the tobacco tax is a very insidious

example, they turned around and increased the tax.

Was anyone told that if they voted for the Social Credit Party they

would increase the tobacco tax, that they'd hold all other taxes, but

they'd maybe increase the tobacco tax? You didn't even tell them about

the indexing that was in place at that time. As I said at the outset,

no, I don't expect people to be quite that fine or candid. But when you

say no tax increases it does not mean bringing a new bill into this

House in order to increase taxes.

It's been said, even in the budget speech and in the debate on the

Speech from the Throne, that you want to lead the rest of Canada. You

want to lead the world. I was talking to a person in the Council of

Forest Industries the other day about a function which they put on for

the government members and the opposition members. One of my colleagues

said to them: "You know, really, for all that we had to say tonight and

you had to say tonight, we probably could have had this meeting

together." And he said: "Well, that would have been true until this

year, but those people have a zeal, a mission, and they just lectured

us like zealots." He used the word "zeal." These people opposite feel

that they have a mission to change not just British Columbia, but the

whole world. These people feel so strongly about their mission that

they can justify doing anything. They can justify an absolute denial of

what they had to say only three short months ago, by bringing in an

increased tax on tobacco and all of the other measures that have been

brought into this House.

You haven’t just caught the attention of the World Council of

Churches by this action. I was surprised when I saw the considerable

space devoted to this legislative package in the Wall Street Journal . I was even more surprised when I saw it referred to in the Manchester Guardian , where they point out that this goes way beyond Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan.

They might feel that they have a very important mission, but we feel

that we have an important responsibility, and that is that we must

defend the democratic system to which we belong — a democratic system

that only works if people can be held to their word. If the word of a

minister of the Crown is not good for two months, then the system is

not going to work.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm glad to hear that the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) agrees with me. He just said:

"Agreed." On that note then — perhaps he does agree with me — I would

move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page

601 ]

[11:00]

YEAS –– 15

Macdonald

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 24

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

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

Introduction of Bills

REGULATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Regulations Act.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are now into debate on second reading of Bill 13.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. BARNES: 1, like my colleagues, rise to speak in opposition to Bill 13, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though we are having to review all of these

pieces of legislation in a similar vein. That is, they seem to all have

a common thread of cynicism that provokes one to dig deep to try and

find the honest commitment to try to represent and protect the rights

of all of the people of British Columbia. I would say that this bill,

with respect to taxation of tobacco products, is a bill that probably

is getting attention for the first time in such magnitude by the

opposition.

The opposition has tipped onto what seems to be a move by the

government to take advantage of those people in the community who are

unable to defend themselves. Whoever thought we would be defending

people who smoke tobacco? But it's about time those of us in the

Legislature came clean with ourselves and at least, if for no other

reason, be candid about the purposes for which we bring legislation

into this chamber.

If I might just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, reflect a little bit on the House

Leader's (Hon. Mr. Gardom'

s) problem, I notice he has a back problem,

as I do, and we are both sitting in very straight-backed chairs. I notice he

had to leave a few minutes ago. My back problem is from being very active in

contact sports over the years, and I'm now paying for it. I don't know

what the House Leader's problem is. Perhaps the House Leader is suffering

from an overburden of repressive legislation, and he just simply can't take

it anymore. I don't know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. The hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment is rising on a point of order.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, I know I may not be

that swift, but I'm trying to determine the relevance to this bill

that's under debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. All members are

commended, when in debate, to be relevant to the principle of the bill

before us, which currently is Bill 13, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act.

I'm sure the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre is well aware of

the rules of relevancy and will carry on in fine parliamentary

tradition.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the Minister of Environment's

interjecting to give assistance to this member. I certainly do not wish

to detract from the objectives of this bill, nor do I wish to pollute

the chambers with any irrelevance. I hope the Minister of Environment

will do his duty as well to ensure that the environment of British

Columbia doesn't become excessively polluted.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Before I begin, I'd like to reflect a little on this whole question.

The tobacco business is perhaps one of the oldest, most established

means of trading in society, and I think it's about time we began to

look at the role of government with respect to providing services for

the public and the strategies used to raise revenues. I would like to

relate the smoker to other consumers in society. We use the tobacco

smoker because that is a person who inflicts upon himself or herself a

health problem. We know quite well that smoking is potentially

dangerous to one's health. Why and how does it start, when does it end,

and whose job is it to correct these self-inflicted poor health habits?

When I was a very little kid…. I heard one other member

reflect on his early years as well, about when he started smoking. It

seems as though the industry is all-pervading in all societies; it's

such a huge industry that it's somewhat of a conflict for those of us

who want to do two things at once. We want to be objective and mind our

own business, while at the same time we want to criticize those people

who are offending their well-being. I wasn't sure why I started smoking

at 14, but when I think back I guess it was to be part of the gang,

like my peers who were smoking, and an opportunity to grow up. There

was no television in those days that I can recall, but the radio ads

and the printed media certainly did all they could to tell me that

smoking was one way to gain social prestige and develop some relevance

as far as being recognized among the "in" crowd.

These are real problems, and I'm sure the government has contributed to

the problem, perhaps inadvertently, by its initiatives over the years. I found

it a bit cynical and rather contradictory, for instance, when the Minister of

Finance introduced the bill and suggested that "although we're introducing

the bill to raise revenue, we would anticipate that

[ Page

602 ]

it will have a discouraging effect, be a disincentive to those people who are

smoking. They will perhaps smoke less as a result of the price going up."

Is that really the way the government operates? It has fiscal policy that is

supposed to address legitimate government requirements in order to provide services

for the public, which is supposed to be an objective, carefully devised system

to meet the overall expenditures of providing government service, and at the

same time it states that it hopes its fiscal initiatives will be unsuccessful?

I find that difficult to reconcile in terms of the government's overall

program for the public.

[11:15]

When the minister is speaking to close the debate, whenever he gets

that opportunity, I hope he will clarify whether this bill, the Tobacco

Tax Amendment Act, is a primary piece of social legislation that the

government is using to improve the health of the public through the

back door. The explanatory note states that the purpose of this bill is

to increase the rate of tax on tobacco products. In other words, we

seem to have a conflicting objective with respect to the purposes of

these taxes.

I was trying to relate this tax to some of the other tax

initiatives, and to put things in perspective in terms of how the

public is responding to the government's tax measures. For instance,

the 7 percent tax on food purchases of $7 and more has caused

interesting reactions, an interesting response from people who go to

restaurants or places that charge $7 or more for a meal. I find that a

possibility with this tobacco tax. Would it not be conceivable for

people finally to draw the line and fight back on this, as they are

fighting back on your attempt to discourage the restaurant industry

with the 7 percent tax on food? As you know, many people are starting

to play games when they go for meals; each person gets a separate bill

and they are passing the….

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I'm just drawing an analogy, because I think Bill 13 will potentially get a similar reaction.

The restaurant-goer will invariably try to save himself that 7

percent, and I'm sure the restaurateur will hope he finds a way to do

it in order to keep him as a customer. Some restaurants are

already….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're dealing with Bill 13. I would appreciate it if you would become more relevant.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate your concern, but

you must appreciate what I'm trying to state by comparing one piece of

taxation with another. With respect, I feel it's quite relevant. I'm

suggesting that the government is provoking the public with taxation

measures that are illogical, unfair and regressive, that are a

disincentive and are causing considerable reaction on the part of the

public, as though they were not willing to go along with the system.

When you have people pulling capers in order to avoid the tax, as they

are doing in the restaurants, that is not a good tax.

What is to stop the cigarette vendors from selling them one at a

time? Have you got a tax system for one cigarette? Isn't it ridiculous?

You are picking on these people; you are driving them up against the

wall. I suspect some of them will buy cigarettes one at a time, in

order to avoid this ridiculous tax. You certainly aren't doing anything

to help the economy.

We've come to a point where the government is forcing this side of

the House to look at every single action with skepticism and suspicion,

and with justified concern that you're undermining the economy. You do

not really understand what you're doing, or you are just reckless and

irresponsible; I'm not sure what it is. But the negative reaction you

are getting indicates to me that you have not really thought out your

plan.

As I've said, normally we wouldn't be opposed to this measure. As

you know, historically in British Columbia we have had very little

debate on amendments to tobacco tax legislation. Like most people, we

have accepted this unfair discriminatory measure. We've said people

shouldn't smoke, and if they're going to smoke, why not tax them?

People shouldn't drink excessively, and if they do, tax them; who

cares? So it goes with anything that is socially questionable or

unacceptable and for which we feel there isn't much political support.

But right is right, wrong is wrong, fair is fair — no matter how you

put it. Let's come clean. I'm not saying I do or don't support smoking;

that is not the point. The point is, what are we here to do? Are you

now saying that the government has taken on the responsibility of

determining the lifestyles of the people, and that it will take

advantage of those who are in a lifestyle that may not be too popular?

I suggest that if you really want to do something about that, you

wouldn't bother trying to tax them or frighten them; you would abolish

their right to smoke and, if they smoked, jail them. That might be a

more direct way of dealing with it, if that's your concern.

When you tell us in this House that your concern is with the

possibility of improving people's health as a result of higher taxes on

these products, I think you are being dishonest. You claim you expect

some $24 million next year from this extra taxation and, I understand,

about three-quarters of that amount for the remainder of this year. But

the $18 million which you may get this year will probably buy you that

much more grief and confusion in the marketplace, because this is an

offensive tax. It is unfair, and you have already riled up the ire of

just about everyone in the community as a result of your initiatives.

This particular tax is just one more example of a government which

is insensitive and indifferent with respect to treating people in the

community fairly. It is another form of class discrimination — those

people who smoke. It is really quite analogous to your discrimination

with respect to people who happen to work for the public service, or

with respect to people in any walk of life in society being singled out

for irregular and unfair treatment.

What about your real plans for employment in society? What about

your real initiatives to improve the economy and stimulate some kind of

growth? Why go back? What is the rush to go back? Where are you going

back to? What do you want to go back for? We should be moving ahead.

I hope that I'm not going to be out of order, but I would like to

ask if the government is on some kind of a holy crusade. The government

says that it has to have a great deal of courage to do the things that

it's doing, It didn't say that it had to have much gall, just courage.

When you say that, it indicates to me that there is a plan of some sort

that is much greater than what seems to be on the surface. We on this

side of the House are beginning to see all of the bills, and, as you

know, there are quite a few that concern us. The Public Sector

Restraint Act is one that we debated for a while.

[ Page 603 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are discussing the principle of Bill 13, and I'm sure you are aware of that.

MR. BARNES: Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the principle of this bill has to do with fiscal matters?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the principle of the bill is contained in the body of the bill, and the Chair can give you no advice on that.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. I'm using my best judgment trying to

achieve this…. I hope you will appreciate that sometimes there

are different viewpoints as to what is relevant and what isn't, but I

can assure you I am endeavouring to be as strictly relevant as I

possibly can, and I appreciate your assistance, sir.

The whole list of bills that the government has introduced seems to

be taking away the public's opportunity for fair treatment and

representation to defend themselves, and to feel that they can be part

of the government's strategies and planning. In other words, they're

losing the opportunity to advise and consult with the government, and

to be part of the whole process of good government.

We're very concerned, for the first time really, on a bill such as

this, which normally would have received about a five-minute debate and

then been passed. We're saying that if we're going to abandon the

cigarette smoker on this major issue, then really we're just allowing

the government to suck us into the same kind of discriminatory

attitudes it has used in bringing down its other legislation. I think,

Mr. Speaker, that you will appreciate that there is a point that I'm

making, and you must, I am sure, agree that cigarette smokers are

victims of public opinion and attitudes that are probably unfair. What

is the difference between a person who smokes cigarettes and takes

risks to his health and someone who eats certain foods that are

considered to be unhealthy, certainly if they're eaten to excess?

Cholesterol foods are known to be potentially dangerous, and, I

suppose, salt and sugar. That's true. Certain milks don't have the

correct components in them. Some foods have the right vitamins and some

do not. All of these are problems that experts are able to identify as

potentially dangerous to one's health. Some fast foods are described as

unhealthy. Some preservatives are used in them in order to give them

long shelf life, and these are unhealthy. So when you start using

taxation such as this….

You've found the way to pick out cigarettes, but you could do this

on all kinds of things. Why don't you do it? Why aren't you attacking

all of the food products as well? I'm not trying to pretend to be an

expert, but this seems so illogical. The only thing about it is that in

the past it has been politically okay, politically safe, because few

people have defended the cigarette smoker. In this case he's not being

defended because he smokes cigarettes but because he is being singled

out for smoking cigarettes — if you can see the difference. We're

saying that while this person may in fact be causing a burden for

society as far as health care services go and any kind of assistance he

may need as his health begins to deteriorate — and we can anticipate

that that may happen — does that require any different treatment of

that person than of anyone else who is eating or drinking too much, or

causing a problem for society in so many ways? We really should be fair.

Proper taxation policies in modern-day society should be based on

those people who have money, not those people who are trying to

generate revenue by trading in the open market, the so-called free

democratic marketplace, the place that that side of the government

feels is the place for free people living in a free and democratic

society to make their way and to realize their dreams through fair and

open competition.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But now, when you start to intervene in the marketplace as a free

enterprise government the way you are, one has to wonder if this is

your confused way of providing social services by taxing the people

instead of educating them and improving your communications system and

allowing people the free democratic choice to live their lives the way

they wish.

These are subjects that perhaps don't draw many headlines or attract

that much attention by having any far-reaching value for sale of the

news and so forth. The commercial value may not be there, but as a good

service to the public it would be far better to be fair. Not smoking

makes me feel more qualified to try to speak objectively about this,

because I'm not speaking to try to save myself those few pennies per

package of cigarettes. I'm merely saying that I can't see any

difference between a person offending his health in other ways and

doing it with cigarettes.

[11:30]

So why are we taxing cigarettes? That's really the question. Why are

we doing it automatically? Why are we retroactively taxing people who

smoke cigarettes? It's a blatant disregard for their rights. The

legislation is not even enacted. It's not even law. We have yet to vote

on the legislation and it has yet to be proclaimed, yet you will

retroactively legalize your acts today. It's very similar to the kind

of bungling — well, I don't like that word; miscalculation — on the

part of the government with respect to the income and renters' tax

credits that you disallowed before you had the legislation in place.

This is a similar situation, where you're taxing people without the

legal authority, and you're doing it unfairly. The question is, why?

Well, you can get away with it because the public probably thinks

you're doing a good job of taxing. But I think that that's a cynical

thing to do, myself.

I would like to reflect again on the holy crusade. I started to talk

about it a few minutes ago. The Premier and perhaps other members of

his staff before the May 5 election talked about cooperation and no

confrontation. I'm sure that most people will remember those slogans

and statements that were broadcast throughout the province by the print

and electronic media. But the Premier chided 20,000 people who came to

this capital city from all over the province of British Columbia to

make representations and participate in the government's decisions

respecting and affecting their lives and their futures. They came here

in good will, in peace, and quietly, and they asked for an audience

with the Premier. This is the same Premier, Mr. Speaker, who said:

"Cooperation, no confrontation." But he said in this Legislature,

unfortunately, as I understand it, under guard and police

protection…. It's the first time in the 11 years I've been here that this place

had to be guarded against the people who elected the government. It's

an interesting turn in history. Nonetheless, the Premier chided those

people, admonished them, and told them that if they really wanted to

impress him they would have to do much better, because he had had

larger crowds at his garden parties. That's why we on this side of the

House are

[ Page 604 ]

taking this bill, which normally would be a rather innocuous piece of legislation — and it would have passed….

When we look at the whole package — which I've been discouraged by

the Chair from doing, but I think the list is well-known — then we

begin to think: "How can we not challenge this government on its

overall initiative? What is it really doing?" It seems as though you've

decided to have a showdown with us. It seems as though you've got a

calling from places unknown, from outer space or from other

jurisdictions, or from sources unknown. I'm not sure what it is. I

sometimes feel that this government is a putative government. It isn't

really the elected government that is committed to helping the people.

It seems as though this government is the go-between. There's some

other government. There must be something else. I can't understand how

this government would have campaigned so vigorously, with such

determination, and so impressively and convincingly, to improve its

majority in the last election — despite the capers that were pulled by

some of those cabinet ministers, despite all the problems that it had

with respect to fiscal management and the charges of misuse of funds

and the auditor-general's report, which was very condemning of the

government's practices in the management of its business…. Yet

that government came back with an overwhelming majority. It is as

though they know something that others do not know. We've read that

Goldfarb report, that poll, very carefully, and we can't see how you

twisted it…. You seem to be on some kind of a crusade.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're straying quite a bit from the principle of Bill 13. Could the member please return to the bill.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate your interjection, but I would

remind the Chair that we are talking about fiscal matters; we're

talking about encouraging the public to support the government's

projects to stimulate the economy; we're talking about the government's

request that the public cooperate and avoid confrontation. Together —

the B.C. spirit is the way to go — we can accomplish great things. We

can see that everyone — all of us together — protects this fragile

recovery of the economy. But the Premier still admonishes 20,000 people

who took the time to come across the Georgia strait, at great

inconvenience, many of them losing a day's pay, standing in the rain

peacefully and quietly, trying to exercise their democratic right

without being accused of being offensive or unruly. But what did it get

them? It got them a chiding. It got them an admonishment. It got them a

challenge. In fact, they were confronted and told: "Go back and do

better."

When we look at Bill 13, a simple act having to do with a few

pennies more on a package of cigarettes and other tobacco products, we

feel that it's about time we stopped allowing the government to do what

we know has been wrong for a long time: that's singling out groups for

repressive taxation in order to steal a few dollars, when they have no

real initiative and no real economic plan. They have no real

understanding of the real fragility of the economy. Their plan seems to

be to frighten people out of the province by any means. We have had an

exodus of British Columbians leaving this province for some time. In

fact, one figure I recall — during the May election — was that

something like 60,000 had left the province since 1979. Those figures

are substantiated by various statistics that indicate people are simply

leaving the province; fewer and fewer people are around. You can get

that from tax rolls; you'll find that fewer and fewer people are able

to pay income tax.

I don't know where these people are going to get the taxes to pay

for these cigarettes. Most of the people who are affected by this are

going to be the people who are the most nervous, frustrated, uptight

and frightened, those who are smoking to fill the space because they

are not occupied in a productive way. People who are on low incomes are

spending long hours in recreational settings or settings where they can

do things other than have a productive job, because the jobs just

aren't there. We're looking at at least 200,000 people, with those

figures growing every day, who are in need of productive activity.

Smoking seems to be some kind of pacifier for many people — a placebo

of some sort. It's a part and parcel of society, of the way people seem

to be. Drinking is the same thing. But if you don't have too many

options, it seems as though there is a correlation. The more stress and

frustration you have and the less activities or outlets you have by

which you can divert your energies, the easier it is to smoke. So

you're going to make them pay.

In other words, those people who need to — and I say that with

respect, because I'm not sure what a person really needs…. But

those who seem to have the habit of smoking a lot can increase that

habit when under stress and in difficulty. So when you take it all into

account, you are contributing to the frustrations of society, and

you're doing it unfairly. As people begin to suffer the consequences of

your restraint program, there is probably an increase in the incidence

of smoking among those people you are now going to tax.

I'm not impressed with the turn of events, but I guess we're going

to have to live with it. It looks as though this holy crusade, which

seems to offend members on that side of the House, is well underway. I

say this after giving it quite a bit of thought. It seems to be

unyielding to any reasonable attempts by the public for consultation.

Professional organizations, people who've never been involved in

politics before, school teachers, the police, the clergy and all walks

of life have attempted to make representations to the government. I

have yet to hear of one single meeting on behalf of the government, the

Premier or anyone with the public to say: "We want to listen to you. We

want consultation, and we want your advice. Although we are an elected

government, we do not feel we have the right to exceed our mandate, and

we will do all we can to ensure you that we would not be comfortable in

doing so. We do not believe that we would feel very good if we did what

we wanted to do and had so many people unhappy." I think that has to be

the tenor or the balance that we need.

When you find yourself needing to have guards to protect you in a

democratic institution such as this Legislature, I would say that that

is an indication that you really should review the direction in which

you are going and begin to reach out to the people and ask them to

assist. It's strange that you're not doing that in light of what you

said during the campaign, but I guess the public has allowed things to

go for so long in this province that they had to be shocked. I think

the government perhaps took the view that these people were asleep.

After all, there were 85 percent working. Even though we were talking

15 to 16 percent unemployed, 85 percent were working. That's pretty

good. They're all smug and quite comfortable. And they know we've got a

tough job and we're

[ Page 605 ]

going to go ahead and do this. These changes are going to turn the clock back 25 or 30 years and slow things down.

But, Mr. Speaker, I realize my time has terminated. As I say, this

kind of debate has taken a turn, and I'm the first to appreciate the

difficulty the Chair has in trying to keep members strictly to the

legislation. But I don't pretend to be an expert on taxation. My

concern is fair taxation. My concern is relevant taxation. My concern

is that the government have a complete strategy with respect to the

total economy, not a makeshift kind of ad hoc discriminatory selective

system that you seem to be using for reasons I cannot put any logic to.

I would just say with regret that I've had to make some strong

charges about something that I realize is a social problem. All of

these things are social problems. But I cannot see how the government

can justify singling out a group such as smokers in a major initiative

such as this without recognizing the consequences — especially in this

time of a depressed economy when it's practically at a standstill. This

again is going to have a similar effect to the 7 percent tax on meals

in restaurants and is going to encourage people to play tricky games in

trying to avoid paying their taxes. Don't be surprised to find that

people will be buying cigarettes one at a time, because I don't think

your legislation is designed to deal with that. You're talking about

packages and units other than one. I would suspect that that might be a

tactic that you may run into, just as you've done in the restaurants.

[11:45]

1 still have some time, and I think that I should use it, so I would

suggest to you that people like the second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) and perhaps some of the others who have been unable

to stand up so far and justify the logic for Bill 13 should do so. I

found it curious, for instance, yesterday when the first member for

Vancouver–Point Grey made a very eloquent speech in describing how

important this bill was because it was going to cut down on smokers,

when we thought the principle of the bill was strictly to raise

revenue. He says he hopes that the bill fails. He hopes that it's so

good that we won't raise any money at all. All we want to do is improve

people's health, but isn't that cynical? What is it? Is the Minister of

Finance right or is the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications right?

I will be opposing this bill when the vote is called. I now move

that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Macdonald

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Brown

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 25

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SKELLY: I guess I'll wait until the House clears, and

then we can get down to debate, while the cabinet ministers go back to

their offices and back to the golf course.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Ten of you are gone. May I proceed now, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: By all means.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, my time is running at this point. Now that

there's nine Social Credit members in their seats, I guess I can begin

this debate.

First of all….

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Seven in their seats? Six, five, four….

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm standing to oppose this bill

for a number of reasons. As a number of other speakers have indicated,

this government, the Social Credit Party, when it was campaigning

during the last election, said that they would not be increasing any

taxes. Now, as in other ways that they have been a bit dishonest with

the electorate, they've turned around and they have, in fact, increased

taxes. This is one of those examples of a tax increase that this

government promised not to bring into effect.

This is an interesting tax, though. It's interesting the way this

government raises revenue. This is the eighth or ninth largest tax, in

terms of the dollar value to government revenues, that we collect. It's

even larger than all of the money we collect from the mining industry

in the form of taxes and royalties.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you going to shut them down again?

MR. SKELLY: They are shut down, Mr. Minister, in case you haven't noticed.

It's larger, Mr. Speaker, than the money we collect from the forest

industry in terms of stumpage, timber sales and other revenues. This

year in the province of B.C., we are going to get more revenue from

smokers than from all the revenues we receive directly from the forest

industry, so it's a fairly important tax in terms of the total revenue

of the government of British Columbia. It's the ninth largest tax, in

dollar terms, that we collect.

[ Page 606 ]

The government promised that they wouldn't increase taxes, but they….

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Is this the way the Social Credit Party carries

on its caucus meetings? We do know that the cabinet doesn't talk to the

back bench, but surely the cabinet could talk to cabinet in some other

part of the building.

As I was pointing out, Mr. Speaker, this is the ninth largest tax

that this government collects. This year they estimate they'll get $132

million from cigars, cigarettes and tobacco taxes. They'll get $108

million from motor vehicle licences. They will get only $85 million

from natural gas and petroleum royalties. This is 400 percent, four

times, the revenues we collect directly from the mining industry.

[12:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want us to tax them higher?

MR. SKELLY: You do tax them higher through water rates, but

you do it under the table. It's 400 percent of all the revenues you

collect from them directly.

As I was pointing out, it's a large tax. We tax smokers and they pay

a large percentage of the operating revenues of this provincial

government,

HON. MR. BRUMMET: And you're against it?

MR. SKELLY: Oh, no, I'm not necessarily against that. In

fact, in some other form of taxation it may be a good idea, but I'm

against this form. That's why I'm voting against this bill.

According to the 1982 report of the Finance ministry, there is a

social policy branch in Treasury Board whose purpose is to advise

Treasury Board on how taxes should be collected. The branch provides

advice to Treasury Board on alternative funding options for the social

ministries, particularly during the preparation of provincial estimates

and the budget. All legislation and submissions to the Cabinet

Committee on Social Services are reviewed by the branch for their

financial implications and to ensure consistency with other government

policy initiatives. Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) isn't in the House, I wonder if, when he reads Hansard ,

he might consider tabling some of the documents from the Treasury

Board's social policy branch that comment on this piece of legislation,

how it integrates with other aspects of the government's social policy,

and what alternative forms of fund-raising were considered when the

government was considering raising the tax on tobacco under the Tobacco

Tax Act.

HON. A. FRASER: Give us a progress report on the leadership.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, in this Legislative Assembly it's one at a time.

MR. SKELLY: But time is not a problem for us in this

Legislature, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to hear the comments; it's

cheaper than calling Ladbroke's or something to find out what the odds

are.

In any case, the minister failed to table any of the documents that

would support increasing the tobacco tax and show how this act relates

to other aspects of the social policy of the government ministries. So

we really don't know what the options are to raising the tobacco tax. I

thought maybe I would make a suggestion to the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's something new.

MR. SKELLY: No, it's not something new. If you'll look back in Hansard ….

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: A government should be able to take criticism,

Mr. Minister. A mature person should be able to understand criticism.

After all, what's the role of the opposition in a legislature, Mr.

Speaker? Its role is to criticize legislation, to propose alternatives

and to keep that criticism and that opposition off the streets, because

in a democratic system it should be in the Legislature, carried on by

the people's representatives. We have a duty to oppose in whatever form

it takes, provided it's acceptable in a parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a positive

suggestion. Let's see how well this positive suggestion will be

received by a government that seldom takes any advice at all but its

own, and gets into trouble a great deal because of that. It seems that

this government is always at its worst when it's taking its own advice.

So I'm going to assist the government a little bit by offering some

advice.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: This is leadership!

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure that when we change sides, I'll be

willing to take advice from the members who are left in the House after

the next election.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You never took any advice from the electorate, did you?

MR. SKELLY: We certainly did. We always listen to the

electorate. I'm here. I got 58 percent of the vote. I listen to the

advice of my constituents, and as a result, I guess, I'm here.

They're trying to prevent me from giving them some good, solid,

concrete, valuable advice. They're trying to stifle the opposition in

this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read the letter from the mayor of Port Alberni the other day?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we've had quite enough interjections, please.

MR. SKELLY: I would be only too happy to discuss the mayor of

Port Alberni with anybody. I don't know how you guys found that guy. He

doesn't even live in the city.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was elected by your people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. members not to interject, and

the member to return to the bill. Please proceed,

[ Page

607 ]

MR. SKELLY: That mayor is something to behold. Even the Socreds didn't want him, but I guess he's all they've got left now in Port Alberni.

I'm going to offer some concrete suggestions for the minister, even

though he's not in the House. The suggestion is that instead of taxing

tobacco and taxing it in the regressive form that it's being taxed in

under this legislation, we should consider adding an additional

medicare premium to each package of cigarettes, cigars, tobacco or

whatever.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Is that a user fee?

MR. SKELLY: No, this is an insurance premium, because we all

know — and there have been studies that show it conclusively — that

smoking is related to health problems. We can all go back to the 1966

surgeon-general's report in the United States, where he says that,

among other problems, smoking contributes to peptic ulcers. It causes

ulcers. It even causes dimness of vision, but the Socreds can't blame

that on smoking — not in all cases. It even contributes to cirrhosis of

the liver, and I'm sure most members won't blame that entirely on

smoking either. It contributes to lower birth weights for women who

smoke during pregnancy. It's associated with accidents and fires,

causing loss of life and damage to property.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How much tax? I'm jotting this down.

MR. SKELLY: Okay. Well, I'm just giving you the underpinnings

of the argument, so I think you should listen carefully, and I

appreciate the fact that you are listening and taking notes. I'm

willing to provide a copy of Hansard free of charge to the minister once it's printed.

Mr. Speaker, here are the reasons why we should attach a health

premium to each package of cigarettes, cigars, tobacco or whatever,

rather than a direct tax. Cigarette smoking is causally related to lung

cancer in men. It's related to cancer of the lip, larynx, esophagus,

and urinary bladder. It's one of the most dangerous things that a

person can do, to smoke. People who do not smoke and who are in a room

full of tobacco smoke caused by other smokers can also be affected by

those same problems. That's why I support the private member's bill

that was presented by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace),

and I hope it comes up for debate in the House and receives support

from all sides of the House.

Just an interesting anecdote here, Mr. Speaker: I have a cousin who

is the assistant chief investigator for the district attorney's office

in Orange County, California. His name is Robert Skelly. We should have

that kind of a guy up here, because when I went down to see him a few

years ago, he had every one of the county commissioners — or

supervisors, as they call them down there — except one up before the

grand jury on various dirty tricks charges. It would be nice if we

could have that up here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Is your relative like that down there too?

MR. SKELLY: No, he had the politicians up before the grand jury.

AN HON. MEMBER: What were they up for?

MR. SKELLY: They were up for graft and corruption; they were

up for the same kinds of dirty tricks that the Socreds get involved in

on occasion. They were involved in dirty tricks, letter-writing and

Lettergate kinds of things. You know the things that they were involved

in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill, please.

MR. SKELLY: The citizens of Orange County had a referendum.

You can get an issue put on the ballot in Orange County — it's quite a

democratic society they have down there, in some cases. They had a

referendum that said there should be no smoking in public buildings,

Now unfortunately all of those judges, county commissioners, district

attorneys and sheriff's officers in the courthouse in Orange County

ignored the wishes of the citizens and the legislation. So the citizens

had to come in and arrest them all. The day I went down to visit my

cousin, the judges and sheriff's officers and some of the district

attorney's staff and even a few criminals got arrested by the citizens

and charged with smoking in a public place. So it's good to have that

kind of legislation to protect the rights of non-smokers in society.

But let me get back to the bill, which also relates to cigarettes

and taxes on cigarettes. We all know through successive reports of the

United States surgeon-general Department of Health, Education and

Welfare and through the investigations of the federal Ministry of

Health in Canada here that cigarette smoking is an extremely dangerous

habit and does contribute to some fairly serious health problems. It

costs all of us money through the health system which we finance

through the provincial government. It is a serious problem, and people

who increase their risk of sickness or of dying through some of these

dread diseases which are caused by smoking are actually becoming a

greater drain on our health system than the average person who engages

in healthful activities and doesn't smoke. So there should be an

additional premium charged for smokers. And probably the best

way….

HON. MR. BRUMMET: But not an additional tax?

MR. SKELLY: No, this is an insurance premium, because it's based on the risk.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does the premium cost money?

MR. SKELLY: The premium costs money. It's like any insurance

premium, but it is not a tax. You would not call your automobile

insurance premium a tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: A user fee.

MR. SKELLY: Nor is it a user fee, because whether you park

the vehicle or not, you still pay the insurance premium. It is a

premium I'm talking about, and it's based on risk. So I'm saying that

the premium attached to a package of cigarettes or some unit of tobacco

should be related to the risk that the person who uses that substance

incurs in damaging his health.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: No, it's not a means-test, because it's strictly a voluntary premium, is it not, Mr. Speaker? I can

[ Page 608 ]

walk past a cigarette machine every hour of the day. I don't have to

put $2 or $1 or whatever into it, because I don't smoke. So I don't

increase the risk to my health that way, and I don't cause any increase

in the amount of money that has to be paid out through our health

system because of increasing the risk to my own health by smoking. I

may increase the risk by other means, and perhaps we should attach

premiums to those other means of increasing the risk to health. So

instead of having a tax, we should have people understand perfectly how

the additional money that they are paying relates to the additional

risk that they are causing to their own health, and how through the

additional money they are paying they will understand that that is

required by the government in order to fund the health system of the

province; in order to fund the medicare system.

The Socred government is talking about increasing user fees for the

system — perhaps additional billing by doctors; we don't really know

exactly what the plans are.

MR. MICHAEL: Bring that up under the Health estimates.

MR. SKELLY: Did somebody speak over there out of turn?

MR. MICHAEL: Yes, let's get on with the job.

MR. SKELLY: We're getting on with the job; we're making a positive suggestion here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will all members will come to order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, we're not talking about a tax, Mr. Speaker;

we're talking about a voluntary insurance premium, because it's based

on insurance principles.

[12:15]

We know that the medicare plan in B.C. is funded by premiums paid by

individuals. Sometimes those premiums are paid by employers on behalf

of individuals. Thirty five percent are paid by individuals; 65 percent

of health insurance premiums are paid under collective agreements or by

employers on behalf of their employees. In 1982-83 the Medical Services

Plan collected $310 million in premium revenues, or approximately 38.1

percent of the total cost of the Medical Services Plan. Sixty-one

percent, or $505 million, came from consolidated revenue, including

federal transfer payments, Of the $310 million — and this is the part

that I'm talking about — approximately 35 percent is paid directly by

subscribers and 65 percent is paid through employers. But we all pay

the same. Every individual or family group pays exactly the same amount

regardless of the risk they incur through their habits or their

lifestyles. This is probably one of the few areas where a user-fee

approach is justified in terms of medical premiums. By smoking you

increase your health risk; therefore you should pay a higher premium.

HON. A. FRASER: You're advocating that we soak the sick; that's what you're doing.

MR. SKELLY: No, I'm soaking people who make themselves sick.

You guys are advocating soaking the sick by user fees for health

services, and that's the difference, Mr. Speaker, as you can clearly

recognize. These guys want to charge additional fees when a person goes

into the hospital, regardless of how he came by the disease in the

first place. I'm saying that somebody who voluntarily incurs the risk

of disease from smoking or from some other unhealthful habit should pay

the risk at the time he buys the unhealthy substance.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's known as a tobacco tax.

MR. SKELLY: No, that's known as the health premium. The

health branch said that $505 million was paid out of general revenue

and into the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia. About 61

percent of the operations of the Medical Services Plan is subsidized by

the taxpayer. I'm suggesting that a good percentage of that $505

million paid by the provincial government should be paid by a premium

on cigarette smoking, by a premium charged to each smoker every time he

buys a package of cigarettes, because we all know that the risk

increases with the amount smoked. Somebody who smokes three packages of

cigarettes a day will pay the premium three times; somebody who smokes

six packages of cigarettes a day will pay the premium six times.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The minister doesn't really understand. He thinks

it's just a difference in semantics, but it isn't. People do not relate

the term "taxes" to health services, but they do relate the term

"premium" to health services. If a person buys a package of cigarettes

and is told the cost of that package of cigarettes and is then charged

an additional health premium, he's being told directly that he's making

himself sick by smoking those cigarettes.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey who spoke yesterday said that

maybe we should raise the tax on cigarettes so high that people will

stop buying them and that we will completely phase out the habit. Well,

it doesn't work.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much have you got left?

MR. SKELLY: I'm going to take all of the 40 minutes, and then I'm going to move adjournment.

First, I'd like to get this very positive suggestion across to the

government, if that's possible. This is the kind of government that

will never listen to positive suggestions. We've made a number of them

over the years. What we're talking about is a principle.

First, the government has done no analysis of the Tobacco Tax Act as

to how it relates to social policy in the province. If they have done

that analysis, they haven't tabled that information in the House.

According to the annual report of the Ministry of Finance, he has a

group of Treasury Board staff to give him advice on alternative means

of raising money and how they affect social policy, yet he hasn't

tabled the information in the House. He hasn't given us any good

background information on how raising the cigarette tax affects the

health of people in the province, which also affects the expenditures

of the province. But we do know from successive studies that simply

raising the price of substances like

[ Page 609 ]

cigarettes or liquor does not prevent people from buying those substances, because there's an addiction involved.

Information should be gotten across to the people who buy those

substances, not in the form of a tax — nobody likes taxes — but in the

form of a health insurance premium, so that every time you buy a

package of cigarettes you have to pay a health insurance premium.

Perhaps we're just changing the name from a tax to a premium, but

there's a lot in a name. People will realize directly that they have to

pay that additional premium, because they are incurring an additional

risk. That is a positive suggestion for the government. I realize that

positive suggestions to this government don't go very far, but that's a

suggestion — to change the name to "premium."

Now I think we should take a look at the cost to the people of

British Columbia of the Medical Services Plan. I believe a large part

of that cost should be transferred over to income tax and ability to

pay. The unfortunate part of that is that people who incur additional

risks aren't additionally penalized in that system. Changing the tax on

tobacco and liquor to a health insurance premium is, I think, a good

way to make those people understand that by incurring additional health

problems they should be paying for them.

Mr. Speaker, another problem was identified by the U.S.

surgeon-general in the department of Health, Education and Welfare in

the United States; the problem was that smokers incur about 20 percent

more hospital days than non-smokers. Smokers take 20 percent more time

off work than non-smokers, and they cause a significant decline in the

productivity of industry in Canada and the United States. They spend 20

percent more of their time disabled, or unable to perform their regular

functions. We are talking about a large group of people in our society

who are reducing the productivity of our society as a whole, are

reducing the productivity of industry and, in fact, are a drain on

society. As a result of that they should be forced to pay more. I agree

that additional money should be raised from smokers and that they

should be forced to pay more. But we should call it by a different

name; we should call it a health insurance premium.

Mr. Speaker, this government, in tabling legislation such as this,

never gives the House or the opposition sufficient explanation as to

why this revenue needs to be generated. Twenty-four million dollars

will do virtually nothing to reduce the deficit that this government

has incurred, or the deficit it's accumulated over the last four years.

It will do very little in terms of balancing the budget; in fact, it

raises very little revenue in terms of what the government actually

spends. It does very little to encourage people to protect their

health, which would actually save the government money. Perhaps that's

the direction we should be going, rather than just generating more

revenue by encouraging people to smoke

The government really has no policy basis behind the things that it

does. You can't relate one aspect of government legislation to any

other aspect. It looks totally chaotic over there. What we're asking

for is some type of relationship, some type of justification from the

government as to why they want to raise this tax at this time, and what

they hope to accomplish in terms of social policy. Yet we have

absolutely no information coming from the government's side which

relates or explains these things adequately to the public and to the

opposition.

HON. A. FRASER: That's a poor leadership speech. You're going to run fifth.

MR. SKELLY: But I have another speech on the Annacis

crossing. Remember, they promised a six-lane bridge or a two-span

bridge, and now they've cut it down and put in traffic lights — totally

reneged on their promise.

This is terrible. I have to continue for how many more minutes?

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Eight more minutes? In any case, all I wanted to

do was get that positive suggestion over to the remaining minister in

the House. Oh, there are two ministers in the House — two ministers and

a maverick, and a couple of newcomers. Six Social Credit members in the

House. Well, it's very difficult….

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House will come to order. To the bill please.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, I'm getting back to the bill here. Let me

recap what I've said before. I should be able to recap what I've said

before in eight minutes.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, the people in the gallery should know why

we're doing this. The government has presented some of the most

unbelievably retrograde legislation that's ever been introduced in this

province. In order to prevent the passage of that legislation, we

intend to discuss these bills to the maximum extent possible, to the

extent that we have a right to discuss them in this Legislature. The

government's bills, which are totally retrograde, threaten to undermine

and destroy democratic government in this province. That's what we're

concerned about. This is a government that brings in a budget, then

eliminates debate on the budget speech, brings forward legislation that

can fire people without cause, and undermines individual, civil and

human rights in the province of British Columbia. Not one of its

members will stand up and speak on these issues. They want to ram this

legislation down the throats of this Legislature, and somebody has to

stand and block it. That's the mandate that we have from the people of

British Columbia — to prevent that type of legislation going through,

which moves civilization in this province back decades beyond decades.

That's why we're standing here preventing the passage of this

legislation.

Ultimately the power of the government will have its way, but it's

an obligation on the part of the opposition to prevent the passage of

that type of legislation, which tens of thousands of people on the

streets have indicated they do not want; legislation that was not

presented to the public during the last election so that they could

make a proper decision as to how to vote. We have an obligation here to

prevent the passage of that legislation, and that's why we're here and

speaking on this bill.

[12:30]

HON. MR. FRASER: Are you saying they didn't make the proper decision on May 5? That's what you just said.

[ Page 610 ]

MR. SKELLY: What I am saying is that if you don't tell the

people the truth, and then come in with legislation that you didn't

tell the people about, you have no mandate for that legislation. If

he's trying to divert this Legislature from debate on these critical

issues, what we're saying to that minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

is that you have no right to do that — absolutely no right. You did not

tell the people to this province the truth before May 5, and you have

no right to present legislation without going to an election again and

telling the people what your real intentions are with respect to what

you plan to do in this province. You do not have a mandate.

HON. A. FRASER: You sure don't like the defeat you got on May 5. You don't accept it, do you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, there are tens of thousands of

people on the streets out there who don't like the kind of legislation

that this government has presented, and who wish that the clock could

be turned back at this time to before May 5, because they were lied to

and deceived. For that reason they do not feel that this government has

a mandate to present the type of legislation they're presenting today.

That is why we feel obliged, as an opposition, in respect to the wishes

of those people, to prevent the passage of this legislation, even if it

means taking up a great deal of time in this Legislature and giving the

government some time to think over its legislative program and the

actions it's taken and to reconsider some of the harsh anti-individual

and anti-human rights legislation that it has presented in conjunction

with the budget speech.

So, Mr. Speaker, I've made a positive suggestion. The minister wasn't here, but I'm sure he can read it in Hansard .

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That's right: the aspect of having a premium will

discourage smokers, because they'll relate it more directly to the

health effects of smoking.

Mr. Speaker, I've almost come to the end of my 40 minutes. It's been

a great pleasure to stand up in this House and to address the seven

Social Credit members who are here. I'm sure that they'll carry away

with them a great deal of wisdom, and a great deal of information, and

even some positive suggestions as to what the intentions of this

opposition are. There were some positive suggestions as to how they

should structure the tax — or the premium — on cigarettes, and some

kernels of information as to the health effects of smoking. I think 40

minutes is a small price to pay for the weight of that valuable

information.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Only 38 minutes? Was it only 38 minutes, Mr. Speaker? Three minutes. In that case. I'm going to wind up.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In conclusion, let me say this about that.

MR. SKELLY: You took the words right out of my mouth.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in order to give the government

additional time to look over the legislation that they've presented,

and to take that famous second look…. I don't know why they're so

famous for the second look, because they very seldom do it, if ever.

But in order to give them a little extra time, Mr. Speaker, I will move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 11

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Brown

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

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

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to

pass Bill 13. I disagree with the members of the opposition who allude

that this government made promises to the electorate in the last

election campaign that there would be no tax increases. The cabinet

ministers who visited my constituency during the election campaign, and

the Premier, made no such reference to there being no tax increases if

we were re-elected. If anybody has any evidence of that, then I would

indeed like to see it. It certainly escapes my recollection as to the

issues and items that were debated during the election campaign in

April and early May of this year.

[12:45]

The thing I do recollect, Mr. Speaker, is promising my constituents

that there would be a lot of tough decisions, hard decisions, and a

further restraint program if this government was re-elected. I have

very vivid recollections of promising that if we were re-elected we

would give encouragement to the private sector rather than the public

sector in pulling this province through its economic recovery period. I

further recollect promises that we would give strong support to Crow

rate revisions, contrary to the opposition, to bring about massive

development in the interior of British Columbia. I recollect making

promises that there would be amendments to the labour code; I recollect

standing on the past practice of support for the northeast coal

development, B.C. Place, rapid transit and very many other issues in

the last election campaign. We stood on those, and we should perhaps

remind the opposition that we won the last election on that campaign

and that program. They lost.

I listen to the opposition debating this bill, and hear suggestions

that we should increase services and decrease revenue. How those two

could mix when we're budgeting for

[ Page 611 ]

a $1.6 billion deficit, how we expect to pull this province through

this economic recovery program without cutting government services of

the government and increasing taxes, I don't know. It's the only way I

know to work towards a balanced budget, as this party and government is

committed to in future years.

The opposition should not get carried away with that rally that was

held here earlier this week. I suggest that when they go home to their

constituencies on this long weekend, they should have a lot of broad

discussion with their constituents. I expect they will find, as I am

certainly finding, that by a ratio of about 20 to I we have solid

support back in the constituency for the economic recovery program of

this government. I suggest that we all go home this weekend and have a

deep thought-process within ourselves about where we're going. Let's

think about the amount of time being wasted in this House day after

day. Let's think of all the opportunities over the future weeks of

debating all the bills that are on the table, all the estimates that

are going to be brought forward by the various departments in the

ministries. Let's think of all the opportunities we'll have to get into

a really good debate in these areas. Let's think of the amount of time

that we are wasting here, and the taxpayers' money — valuable dollars —

that could well be spent on social services as the opposition claims.

Let's get on with the job next week.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada