1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th 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, MAY 23, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2583 ]

CONTENTS

Succession Duty Amendment Act (Bill 24). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Barrett

— 2583

Division on second reading — 2584

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 29). Second reading. Hon.

Mr. Barrett — 2587

Gasoline Tax

(1958) Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 30). Second reading. Hon. Mr.

Barrett — 2589

Gasoline Tax

(1948) Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 31). Second reading. Hon. Mr.

Barrett —

Division on second reading —

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it seems there are

more and more Conservatives in this House every day. Today I

would like the House and galleries to welcome Mr. Frank Oberle,

who is the federal Conservative MP for the riding of Prince

George–Peace River.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, visiting

Victoria today is a group of 150 young people, some of whom are

in the gallery now and a few more of whom may be in the gallery

later, from the Mennonite Educational Institute in Clearbrook.

They are accompanied by their teacher, Hugo Friesen. On behalf

of the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and myself, I

would like the House to bid them a warm welcome.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we have the

pleasure of having with us seated in the gallery this morning a

young lady from Prince George who is in charge of the Social

Credit storefront office in that location, Miss Leslie Ongman.

I wish the House would make her welcome.

Orders of the day.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to move to

public bills and orders.

Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

SUCCESSION DUTY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Succession Duty

Act now provides generous exemptions from duty for bequests to

families. In addition, an unconditional request to a charitable

institution for use in the province is exempt to the value of

10 per cent of the estate. This was a matter raised by a number

of Members of the opposition and the government back bench, and

the government has accepted the proposition.

This bill proposes to extend the exemptions from duty

allowed to include any bequest to Canada, this province or any

municipality or regional district in the province. By this, it

is hoped that persons with items of historic value will be

encouraged to give them to government for the future benefit

and enjoyment of all the public.

We have had the phenomenon, Mr. Speaker, of more and more citizens of British

Columbia, as they reach a time of decision in their lives about historical artifacts

that they may have in their possession, turning these over to the province for

the enjoyment of all the people. We want to encourage this particular trend.

I now move second reading.

MR N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Our policy is that we will

approve the bill. But we have always felt, and I would like to

repeat, that both it and the Gift Tax Act should be repealed

completely. It would encourage investment in the province. I

think that this Act does not raise a great deal of money, but

it does discourage people. There are a number of people from

other provinces who would move here and bring their money with

them, but are staying away for obvious reasons.

We don't think that this bill goes far enough, but we will

approve it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): While we approve the principle

of this Act, I don't personally and the party as a party does

not approve of perpetuating inherited wealth. I think

succession duty is a good thing and I think this exemption to

allow gifts to the Crown is a good thing.

I would urge the Minister of Finance to look most closely at

a matter which I have raised with him previously, namely

charitable organizations. This would make it possible for a

person to pass property to a city or a municipality, regional

district, the province or the Canadian government. There are a

number of people who take considerable interest in charities of

one sort or another which are recognized as doing beneficial

work to indeed relieve the public....

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is an exemption of up to 10 per

cent.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I realize there is an exemption of

up to 10 per cent, but the Minister of Finance just explained

we are now lifting the 10 per cent level for certain

organizations, namely the province, the Canadian government,

the municipality or regional district. I would simply urge —

while not opposing this bill, naturally — that the same type of

consideration be given to certain charities in the future.

Many of these charities and many of these what you might

call "volunteer" organizations relieve the public purse of what

would otherwise be enormous expense. For example, there was the

question I asked the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi) a short time ago about the Easter Seals and the fact that

the province only contributes 14 per cent to the transportation

of the handicapped in the province. I know there are people who

take a very special

[ Page 2584 ]

interest in this particular area, people who might well be

willing to leave substantial amounts of their estates to

services such as this one which, indeed, as I pointed out to

the Minister, is supported to a very minor extent by the public

purse and supported to a very, very large extent by private

contributions for the individuals who are in the fortunate

position of requiring the services.

So my only plea at this time is that the Minister of Finance

will consider many of these worthwhile private and voluntary

organizations who do interest certain individuals in our

society very much and who, if the Act were changed to include

charities, might well be even more generous when the time came

to draw up their wills.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we would certainly

support the principle of this bill. I think society as a whole

is more aware these days of the value of land and the

importance of various greenbelt properties and other

privately-owned assets which can be of more value to the

community as a whole than perhaps to the inheritors of an

estate.

I just would add that I hope both federal and provincial

governments can work together in encouraging it to be easier

and easier for people to make this kind of decision before

death, rather than to enter into disputes at different times

after the event.

There have been examples of this government receiving land

by donors. In Oak Bay the other day we just received some

ground from a private donor which helped to enlarge about the

only park area we have in Oak Bay. This kind of example by Dr.

Elkington, a long-time resident of Oak Bay, is the kind of

action that we hope will become much more frequent in our

province. Certainly any ways in which this government can make

it easier for people to do this under the terms of the

Succession Duty Act are most welcome.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): As our spokesman has

said, we certainly agree with this. But I have discussed in

this Legislature on several previous occasions about passing of

farmland and farms on to sons or relatives, while the owner is

still living, without succession duty. I feel this would do a

great deal to retain family farms in British Columbia. The

government has stated their policy on keeping family farms. Now

the farm cannot be passed on to the working partners or the

sons or the daughters, as it were, until the death of the owner

without taxes.

The Premier and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) has intimated to me that there was going to be a

change, and I am disappointed that there haven't been some

changes brought in, both in the Gift Tax Act and the Succession

Duty Act.

Maybe the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, would be able to give me some more

reassurance that this is on the priority list, because it will do a great deal

to retain family farming in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is a method. If there's a gradual

succession of passing of the farmland, the method can be

handled now. But it's true that the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) and I are looking at the whole matter raised

by the Member. We aren't able at this time to go the whole way

but we're certainly seriously looking at the suggestion.

The question of charitable institutions, Mr. Member, is

something that I've made note of and something I'll ask the

department to take a look at to see what impact it has. We had

that unfortunate case of the Woodward estate, as you recall,

where there was a great public fight between the former

government and the Woodward estate. There is the question here

about the nature of some charitable institutions. I'm sure that

almost all of them are valid. The question of a charitable

institution, say, overseas or in the United States for service

perhaps there unrelated to British Columbia, where the wealth

of the deceased was created — there's that whole area that we'd

have to look at.

On the question of succession duty itself, we have very

generous exemptions. But we are not a party of the rich; we've

made that very clear. I appreciate the statement made by the

Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson). People start talking about

distinctions between parties ... once in a while they come up

clearly in this House, despite the argument of free enterprise

of democratic socialism. In this instance, here's a clear-cut

demonstration that the Liberal Party is saying that the very

wealthy people must pay a fair share while Social Credit is

saying that the rich must be protected.

There are many ordinary citizens of this province who work

very hard for the Social Credit Party who are not aware of the

fact that that party has as a deliberate policy the protection

of privilege. The Social Credit Party, unlike the Liberal

Party, has said that the very wealthy people in this province,

regardless of where they come from, will be protected by that

party by succession duties. It is a device, I think, to

indicate to people of this province who are looking for a range

of choices to decide who it is that actually represents perhaps

the middleman or the little guy and who it is that's a party

for the privileged few.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: The record indicates that

[ Page 2585 ]

the party for the privileged few is Social Credit. The

Social Credit Party, while espousing an argument that they

fight for the average little guy, is the only party on record

that I know of that wants a complete abolishment of succession

duties on the multi-millionaires, the super-rich and the

super-wealthy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who take their wealth to Alberta.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let us talk about taking their wealth to

Alberta. Anybody who wants to go to Siberia with their money is

welcome to go, but if anybody wants to live here in this

province they have a responsibility to pay their fair share

here in this province.

Those people who run around and say the free-enterprise

argument against us... The Liberal Party has had the courage

to take the same position. I want to read you some statements

by someone else who was in public life in this province.

"The government is aware that thrifty, industrious and

prudent citizens in our society need encouragement and are

entitled to encouragement to continue their contribution to the

economy of the province. The British Columbia succession duties

therefore apply to very large estates as a basic exemption

outlined above and eliminate most beneficiaries."

This was a public citizen speaking in British Columbia

saying that the average guy was okay and the middle guy and the

upper middle was okay. But the super-rich, this citizen was

saying, should be taxed by the Government of British

Columbia.

This citizen went on to say further:

"I don't wonder at all that some of these representatives

of the fat cats are preaching their doctrine."

Some of these representatives of the fat cats that are

preaching this doctrine!

"I'm going to tell you this" — this citizen went on to

say.

"They talk about double taxation, about the federal income tax — that

we wanted larger exemptions. As long as I am..." — blank — "...I will

never agree to tax the people with low

income and let the people with wealthy estates off scot-free,

my friend."

Oh, who was it that used to say, "my friend"?

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Mini-WAC! Mini-WAC!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what he said: "The fat cats."

AN HON. MEMBER: Maxi-WAC!

HON. MR. BARRETT: He continued:

"That might be the new policy of the Tory party of this

province, but I want to say that's the reason I left the Tory

party."

Three guesses — the first two don't count! (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Hugh Curtis? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. You're rarely wrong.

"I want to say

that's the reason I left the Tory party and that's the reason

the people will not vote for the Tories. That's the reason...."

And then the hands went up like this. (Laughter.)

"We found out today the reason why the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) left our grass-roots movement — because he

doesn't believe in the principles of Social Credit, which is

for the ordinary people, my friend. That's the difference."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that? Who said that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Those were the days.

HON. MR. BARRETT:

"The principle of this bill, my friend, is to reduce

taxation. (Laughter.) I don't want to withdraw reducing

taxation and I certainly will not. I want to say that if this

bill isn't passed today it means taxes would be higher than

they would be if this bill passes."

In other words, you're close. (Laughter.)

"I want to say this. As far as these people, when they share

the money in this country, who made this money in this

province, if they want to go to Barbados or Nassau or somewhere

else" — like Alberta — "for tax havens, then let them go. And I

agree, for the first time this session, with the First Member

for Vancouver East — good riddance, my friends, because we want

only people in this province who are willing to take their fair

share of responsibilities to pay their fair share of taxes to

build this country."

Quote: W.A.C. Bennett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then known as maxi-WAC. And what did he

say? He said: "Social Credit believed in the little guy." Those

were the days, my friend. Who was it who called them "fat cats"

who could go to Barbados and Nassau? It was the same Social

Credit Party that the independent is now looking at,

(laughter), the party that's now moved and shifted its policy

to protect the fat cats. I

[ Page 2586 ]

didn't say fat cats. Who said fat cats? My predecessor, Big

Daddy.

MR. FX Richter (Boundary-Similkameen): What are you

mimicking him for?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not...Well, oh, oh, oh! What am I

mimicking? I am reading one of his speeches. This one is even

coherent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I just want to tell everybody in

British Columbia what young Bill is saying. March 10, 1975,

Social Credit leader, Bill Bennett, says that if his party

forms the next government, succession duties and gift taxes

will be abolished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But Daddy's older now, and Bill will

inherit — that's the difference. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Vancouver Province , that great

newspaper, on March 10, 1975, he said:

" 'It is obvious Alberta has attracted large amounts of B.C. investment capital because the province does

not have succession duties and gift tax. If B.C. had not

instituted the taxes, the rate of unemployment in this province

would not be as high as it is', added Bennett."

He's blaming his own father for high unemployment. But he's

wrong. No son is responsible for the sins of the father. On the

other hand, the father shouldn't be responsible for the sins of

the son. In this case the son is wrong and the Social Credit

Party is wrong. As long as we are living and breathing, and I

respect the position of the Liberal Party, we say that the rich

must pay their fair share in British Columbia.

There are literally hundreds of people who adhere to the

belief that Social Credit is somehow going to look after the

little man. The only party on record that says to protect the

fat cats, as defined by the former leader, is Social

Credit.

Now I have to go and tell the people that. I have to go and

tell all those people out there that if you vote Social Credit,

the rich are going to get off without paying a fair share of

taxes. So change your policy; be more like your former leader.

Don't sell out to the fat cats. Let them pay their fair

share.

Now I want to say one last thing which one of the independents was talking

about — that Pharmacare might cost too much money. The Pharmacare programme

costs approximately $18 million. It is financed by the income received from

the succession duties. Let the rich pay for the medical prescription bills of

those people who have reached an age where they suffer heavy medical expenses.

In 1975 we took in $25 million in succession duties. In 1976, $26 million....

MR. PHILLIPS: And you wasted $36.4 million on ICBC, and $25

million on the ferries.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If your policy is to double the premiums

on ICBC, say so, Mr. Member.

In 1976 it is an estimated $25 million in succession duties.

Now when people go around saying: "Where are we going to get

the money from to pay for the drug bills of ordinary

citizens?", we say: "Let those who made their wealth from this

wonderful province pay their fair share so that we can be

brothers and sisters, we can be more loving and more charitable

in our society." You can't take your money to the grave with

you, Mr. Speaker. It's not like the old Egyptian pharaohs who

buried their gold and their slaves with them.

Mr. Speaker, we believe in respect to the dead, but also in

obligations to the living. It's because of our obligations to

the living that we support this bill. I now move second

reading.

MR. PHILLIPS: Empty office space, loss on the ferries, loss

on ICBC, loss on the railway, loss on the transit services —

waste, waste, waste!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is that Bill 24....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It is the rule of the House that when we are putting a vote, the Members remain silent.

Motion approved unanimously on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Barrett

Strachan

Gorst

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Lockstead

Skelly

Lauk

Young

Lea

Cocke

Williams, R.A.

Lorimer

Levi

Steves

Barnes

Rolston

Wallace

Anderson, D.A.

Gibson

Fraser

Chabot

Phillips

Smith

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Liden

Lewis

Kelly

[ Page 2587 ]

Bill 24, Succession Duty Amendment Act, 1975, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the corporation capital tax

was introduced in 1973. At that time I stated that the tax was

imposed to raise the contribution of companies to the costs of

providing government services to the people of British

Columbia. A change is now proposed in this bill as a result of

our recent study of corporation contribution. This bill

proposes to increase the rate from 0.1 per cent to 0.2 per

cent and to exempt companies with taxable capital of under

$100,000 instead of those under $25,000. This new rate, 0.2 per

cent, will then be the same as Ontario and Quebec and will

result in a company with $1 million taxable capital paying a

tax of $2,000 a year instead of $1,000 as previously.

The increase in exemption is part of our policy in assisting

small businesses so that they will be able to start, grow and

compete in British Columbia.

I move second reading.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, we support the position that the

capital exemptions should definitely be increased, because

$25,000 was far too low. We think that the definition of

"paid-up capital" should be redefined because under the

definition of "paid-up capital," earned income and other

surpluses are included and reserves, loans and other securities

are also.

We believe that small businesses won't be hurt that much,

given that they started some time ago and their real estate is

based on the date of purchase and use and deprecative value.

But anyone entering a business today, with inflated values, is

going to find that his start up costs are considerably higher,

and he will more rapidly get into that limitation of $100,000.

Because of levered assets — money which is borrowed from banks

or other sources — the definition suddenly puts a small

business above that limit very rapidly because of that

leverage. We think it is a bit of a nuisance tax, all right,

but I think that the small operator would like to have some

more consideration as to the exemptions and to that definition

of how that exemption is arrived at.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, something I

would particularly like to ask the Minister of Finance to comment on in closing

the debate is the fascinating reference he made to a study

of the proper corporate contribution to the tax structure of

British Columbia. The quote here is: "... a recent study of

corporate contributions." I think those were the exact words

the Minister of Finance used in putting this bill.

It is a fascinating, complex field, just to what extent corporations do contribute

and should contribute. Of course, in British Columbia where our larger corporations

and particularly our export corporations are founded on natural resources, most

of our tax revenue from them comes at the cost-of-natural-resource level and

we thereby capture the profits which otherwise might be exported or accrue into

the hands of those corporations. Other corporations which do business within

British Columbia, of course, simply pass their taxes on. That will be the main

impact of this corporation capital tax, one of the dangerous features of which

is, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that it is so apparently low that it can be doubled

— here is a tax being doubled — with relative impunity. I appreciate that what

we are doing here is coming up to the Quebec and Ontario levels. I would not

be surprised in future years to see this tax doubled and redoubled again under

the current government.

But what I would particularly like the Premier to speak

about, in closing debate on second reading, is his concept of

the proper tax contribution of corporations and some details of

the study that he referred to in opening the debate. Do you

have a copy of that study?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The study is internal, Mr. Speaker, and

relates essentially to the impact on small businesses of the

corporation capital tax. It received some inquiries with points

raised similar to the ones discussed by the Member for

Victoria. The study was confined essentially to an examination

of revenue from the smaller businesses and what relief we

should perhaps consider under this. Then we came up with the

present formula. We are considering even further ways of

assisting small businesses.

This administration is the first one in Canada's history to

have a two-rate structure of corporation income tax. We are

giving a lower rate of corporation income tax to small

businesses, the first province in Canada to do that, So what I

am saying is that our concern is for the indigenous small

business that has major social impact in the community as well

as economic impact.

In many instances, large multinational corporations tend by

their nature, not by their intent, to be absentee participants

in a country. The social consequences sometimes can be severely

difficult on a

[ Page 2588 ]

community. I think a classical example of the modern

company-town impact would be in the town of Houston where the

Bowater corporation came in and, under the centralized

programmes of the former administration, developed a major

forest facility in that community.

The use of deep roots in a community through the indigenous

development of the business was entirely overlooked. They

skipped the natural range of progression of community

involvement. As a result, that which within that structure

looked good on paper here in Victoria and in New York.... In

actual fact, the community itself, because there was no

indigenous auxiliary businesses establishing with it, became

very fragile and the whole operation eventually collapsed.

Just one aside, Mr. Speaker, related to that — and I do

think it is part of what we are trying to do in the sense of

philosophy: the corporation came in in a community that is

very, very relaxed, very informal, as the northern part of

British Columbia is. They came in, set up their sawmill, put a

fence around the sawmill, then hired guards to patrol the fence

and to check the employees coming in and coming out.

Now the northern part of the province is, as I say, very

informal and the relationships between people in those

communities are quite intense, fairly close. Except for the

transient labour force, which has no roots at all, the

established families know each other. The communities know each

other. The presence of guards and a fence immediately put in a

whole concept psychologically of adversary roles between the

employees, who are the indigenous people, and the company,

which is the foreign interloper — and production decreased.

Now related to this bill we have recognized that that was a

problem; so our government deliberately set out to assist small

businesses.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you taxing fences?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we are not taxing fences. I'm saying

how the fences tax the ability of the employers to have a good

relationship with their employees. You may laugh, but as a

matter of fact it was a serious problem in a community that had

never known this kind of supervision before.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It was a pun.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, a pun. Okay, purely a pun.

As a matter of fact, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano's (Mr. Gibson'

s) father's success had as part of its ingredients the relationship he had intimately

with his senior staff and generally with the employees. He was one of the few

employers in the province who could go through the staff and call the employees

by their first name and have that kind of relationship, without the clock-punching-syndrome

kind of relationship. So when labour problems arose, or social problems in the

community arose, there was a oneness in terms of goal — maybe not of getting

there, but in terms of the goal. Small businesses, we recognize, play that role.

Unlike the former government we've set up the corporation to

loan the money. A democratic socialist government, for first

time in the history of British Columbia ... it is the

socialists who are lending money to small businesses. How

ironic! You rarely read about that in the newspapers. It's the

socialists who are giving the small businesses the corporation

tax reduction. How ironic! It never happened before. It's the

socialists who are giving the small businesses the best

taxation break. How ironic that it never happened before.

We are not interested in big business. We are interested in

small entrepreneurs. That's the reason for this. I know that

story will never be told by the official opposition, and I

doubt very much if it will get beyond the precincts of this

particular Legislature, but it is a fact, and that's the

direction we are moving in.

Well, I don't want to carry on to great debate, but how many

sawmills closed through Omineca and through Skeena because of

the centralist policies of the former Minister of Lands and

Forests (Mr. Williston)? Burned-out sites of small sawmills in

Shuswap, where 20 and 30 and 40 men, including native Indian

people who were involved in indigenous jobs, all were wiped out

by the centralist policies of the former administration. But

that is a matter of fact, and of course fact is rarely

discussed in political rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I accept the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it's a shocking admission, but I

have been seeing what the independents have been saying lately.

I thought that the independents were going to be different, but

they are more of the same, only worse. You are well rid of

them, Mr. Leader. You are well rid of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: The feeling is mutual.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The feeling is mutual. (Laughter.)

I listened very closely to the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson). I accept his suggestions and, Mr. Speaker,

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 29, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act,

[ Page 2589 ]

1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr.

Speaker.

GASOLINE TAX

(1958) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is essentially administrative. Since

1928 the province has had two gasoline taxation statutes, one

of which is operative, the Gasoline Tax Act, 1948, and the

other, the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958, which is subject to

proclamation in the event the operative Act is ever

successfully contested in the courts.

The present operative Act is more economical and efficient

to administer, but it is deemed advisable to keep this reserve

Act up to date. Accordingly, amendments are hereby submitted

which will bring this Act into conformity with the operative

Gasoline Tax and Coloured Gasoline Tax Act.

MR. MORRISON: We notice that you finally have got around to

defining exactly what a gallon of gasoline is. But we notice

that the definition now of motive fuel is very broad. It

appears that it would apply to anything that is a derivative of

coal or naturalized gas or petroleum. It would appear from that

wide definition now that even if we got into steam cars and so

on, this Act could apply to them. I can see why the Premier

wants to bring this Act up to date; we concur with the act of

bringing it up to date.

We object to the increase in the taxation of gasoline very

strenuously. We think the extra 2 cents applied on the tax is

excessive and that the taxation should have been reduced rather

than subsidizing ICBC. We oppose that principle completely.

MR. GIBSON: I'll put my 2 cents in on the operative Act, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: Since this is the inoperative Act — since it's

been here on a standby basis just in case the 1948 Act gets

knocked out — I just ask the Premier in closing the debate if

he would tell the House, in view of the fact that Bill 31 is in

court, if he is going to bring in an inoperative Act there,

too, just in case.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That question is out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: So are you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have this curious provision that

the government is so doubtful about its own legislation that it brings in other

Acts which it tells us that it probably won't proclaim unless the courts....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They've been doing it for 20 years.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, they may have been doing it for 20

years.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It must be about 25 years.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, it's more than that. It's 1958; the

other one is 1948. So it's a long time.

But it is a really curious departure, and I think the

Premier should say something about the workings of the

committee that makes up its mind as to whether to bring in

these backup bills or whether to draw up bills which, indeed,

are legal. Wouldn't it be better to make sure the Act is itself

legal or else amend it so that it is legal rather than bring in

backup legislation?

I have the suspicion that maybe we're going to hear the same

type of argument when Bill 61 comes up: "Maybe we won't bring

it into form — only in case it's necessary." It'll be rather

like that famous phrase of a former Prime Minister:

"Conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription."

That's what we have with this particular bill: Bill 30 if

necessary but not necessarily Bill 30.

I just think the whole business is curious. I wonder whether

the Premier could indicate whether this is to be the exception or whether or not they have fallen upon a great new scheme for

making sure that legislation which may well be invalid or

illegal can be held up in the courts, and then a second bill,

which again would take a substantial amount of time in the

courts, could then be introduced to further tie up the process.

Surely we should be having legal counsel to the government and

legal counsel for this chamber drawing up bills which, indeed,

are legal. If they have any doubts about it, take it to court

right away and check it out. Don't have 1948 bills that may not

be legal and then have 1958 bills — we're not sure whether

they're legal either — to back them up. Let's have, as the

Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson) correctly puts it,

legal laws.

We had the experience yesterday where I had to question the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), who simply abandoned

the piece of legislation that is on the books and refuses to

pay money to people who are entitled under laws passed in this

Legislature simply because he has the suspicion that some time

in the future the laws on the books will be changed.

I think the principle which we should be discussing at this

time should be that of having legislation which

[ Page 2590 ]

actually will stand up in court or, indeed, if there's any

doubt, have the thing checked out at once and then amend the

Act which is invalid so that it therefore becomes proper law.

We live in a bit of a topsy-turvy world where Ministers can

ignore laws as they see fit, as the Minister of Housing is

doing with the renter's grant. Then the government introduces

backup legislation sort of like — I'm sure the Member for North

Vancouver won't object to this term — a suspenders-and-belt

syndrome...

MR. GIBSON: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...whereby you bring in legislation

which really is going to be totally redundant if you made a

good job of Bill 31 here, the Gasoline Tax

(1948) Amendment

Act.

Perhaps the Premier in closing could confess to the House

something of the workings that went on in drawing up this

particular bill. In principle this is a bad approach; we think

that he should give some reasonable explanation for it if there

is one.

Further, as a final point — I know I'm anticipating a little — we would like the No. 31 sweater retired. It's confusing to

have to talk about Bill 31 when dealing with the Gasoline Tax

(1948) Act. We think certain historical numbers, just like in

the hockey teams, should be retired when that particular player

has sort of adopted that number as his own. We trust that Bill

31 will not appear again in subsequent years because we think

that has a certain historic significance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think this and the next one are

essentially administrative — perhaps the comments are related

more to Bill 33.

In any event, I have listened very closely to the Liberal

leader and suffered what happens on occasion when listening too

closely — I'm confused. Nonetheless, I think I'm....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm confused by the legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm confused by your speeches, but I

try to make some sense out of them. I think I got the gist of

your argument. I'll discuss it with the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald.) I now move second reading.

Bill 30, Gasoline Tax

(1958) Amendment Act, 1975, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 31, Mr.

Speaker.

GASOLINE TAX

(1948) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the so-called oil crisis

affecting most of the world has not really caused much of a

disturbance to the lives of most British Columbians, or

Canadians, for that matter. However, we should not ignore this

oil crisis but, like others, take steps to conserve this

valuable resource. One of the best methods to conserve the

supply is to encourage low-cost public transit. To this end

this bill proposes to raise the tax on gasoline from 15 to 17

cents, effective February 28. This will supply additional

revenues which then can be used to assist desirable low-cost

public transit systems.

In spite of the high construction costs of our highways, due

to our rocky and mountainous terrain, at the new rate British

Columbia's gasoline tax will still remain substantially lower

than most gasoline taxes in Canada. Sections to allow the usual

gas collection procedures are also proposed, Mr. Speaker. I now

move second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it was

interesting to listen to the remarks of the Minister of Finance

who has just taken his place. I'd say that was a very, very

weak defence for a bill that he knows will not do anything but

increase the inflationary pressures that every other government

in Canada is trying to defuse throughout this country.

He suggested that the 2 cents increase was required to help

people practise some restraint in the use of automotive fuels,

and perhaps encourage them to use public transportation to a

greater degree. What nonsense!

The reason the price of gasoline is being increased at this

time by 2 additional cents per gallon is a direct result of the

mismanagement of ICBC, and make no mistake about that. This is

the corporation, the crown jewel, that was going to be financed

without one cent of taxpayers' money going directly from the

tax coffers into the operation of ICBC. And what happened?

We witnessed the government do a complete about-face and

direct 10 cents tax out of every gallon of gasoline to support

an inept corporation — a corporation which has been badly

managed, a corporation which, to date, has lost millions of

dollars on behalf of the taxpayers of this province. And how

was it covered off? It was covered off by channelling the

dollars and the funds out of general revenue to that source,

which the government stood in this House and repeated many

times would never happen. That's one of the problems

involved.

It has now created an avenue for the government to subsidize other Crown corporations

which may be in financial difficulty by channelling off tax dollars by one means

or another to make those corporations appear profitable or at least operate

close to a

[ Page

2591 ]

break even point.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The question we have to ask is: how much more revenue from

the sale of gas, or from whatever other source the government

may deem necessary, will be required to finance bungling

ineptness on the part of some of the Crown agencies of this

province? The 2 cents is a direct reflection of the money the

government must now take from the gasoline tax to operate ICBC.

It would have never been required, Mr. Speaker, had ICBC been

able to live up to the government's pre-election promises that

a Crown agency on a monopoly basis would be able to be financed

properly and carry all the insurance requirements for the

motoring public in the Province of British Columbia without

subsidy.

I suggest to the Premier that instead of fighting the fires

of inflation, he is contributing to them at a time when we

should all be practising restraint. I further suggest that this

is a case in point and certainly one that we must look at with

respect to the management of the operations of government in

this province.

Had the departments of government, including Human Resources

and the Crown corporations, operated with some constraint

within the confines of their budgets, it would not have been

necessary for the government of this day to increase the taxes

on every citizen in this province. You must say that it's

almost every citizen in this province, because most people

today have some form of transportation.

I think that instead of increasing the tax on gasoline, the

government would have been well-advised to have looked into the

management and the mismanagement of the funds they had

available to them. At a time when tax revenue is certainly high

in comparison to other years, what have we seen? We've seen

millions upon millions of dollars thrown away — non-productive,

non-returnable to the people of the province in terms of

benefits or services. And the Minister of Finance's answer to

the problem is to increase the tax on gasoline by 2 cents a

gallon.

Mr. Speaker, until this government can show the official

opposition a record of competence, a record that is far better

than what we have seen laid before us in the operation of

government departments and of Crown corporations, there is no

way that we'll support a bill which increases the price of

gasoline or the tax on gasoline by 2 cents a gallon which

contributes to the inflationary pressure in this province, only

to have that money thrown away in useless ventures by Crown

corporations and by this government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was really very surprised to hear the

Premier introduce this increase in the gasoline tax from 15 to

17 cents and then the 3 to 5 cents and then the 10 to 12 cents, depending on the various

taxes — an increase of 2 cents across the board — without

making any reference to the enormous losses of ICBC. I don't

want to repeat what has been said a moment ago, but ICBC has

lost a substantial amount of money and it is, of course, coming

out of the gasoline tax. I can remember about a year ago

suggesting to the Premier that he put a sign on every one of

the gas pumps saying: "Part of your gasoline payment will go to

pay for your insurance." And he, at that time, thought it was a

first-class idea. He said that he was thinking of having it

introduced, to make it clear every time you buy your three

bucks worth of gas, 20 or 25 or 40 cents was going to pay for

insurance. Yet we come to

an Act to change the tax rate and he

doesn't even mention the fact that we need more revenues

because of the substantial losses in the insurance area which

previously, under private enterprise, paid its own way and now

is in the most horrible deficit position that we ever could

have imagined.

So I was very surprised, and I trust when he is closing the

debate he will give us a little bit of information about how

much of this money from the gasoline tax will be going to

insurance, because certainly this increase won't cover the

unexpected losses on insurance. I say unexpected because time

after time we informed the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) that losses were inevitable,

and time after time he denied it vigorously. Indeed, he denied

it in very unfair and derogatory terms in referring to us, and

yet later on he had to eat his words and admit that it was

true. So when the Premier closes the debate I trust he will

point out how much of the tax revenue is going to subsidize

that great monster, the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia.

That aside, I would like to say a few words about what the

Premier mentioned in introducing the bill. He talked about the

need to have the extra money for low-cost public transit. I

would certainly endorse that concept. The average driver of a

private automobile should subsidize public transit so that he

in turn has more space on the road and has a better

opportunity, if he wishes to use his private car, of getting to

wherever he is going. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)

agrees and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

applauds and I am very pleased to see that, because there is no

question that the persons who use public transit are doing a

favour to the rest of the travellers who use their private

automobiles. There is no reason why the driver of a private

automobile should not pay to subsidize public transit.

Certainly in this interim period as we are changing social

attitudes towards public transit, I think that the use of this

money in that way is desirable and I applaud efforts made to

improve public transit and to make sure that the private

automobile drivers

[ Page 2592 ]

such as myself and others in this room pay their way.

While I agree with the Premier on that, I am amazed that this is

such a timid bill. If we are trying to encourage public transit and if

we have these enormous deficits in terms of the bus services in greater

Vancouver, greater Victoria and elsewhere in the province where these

deficits with B.C. Hydro are running up, I don't think 2 cents a gallon

is going to do the trick.

I would like to know whether the 2 cents a gallon will be

applied directly or whether this is simply going into general

revenue and the subsidies coming out of general revenue in some

other area. It is a timid approach and I am surprised that the

Premier puts it forward. I am surprised also that he puts it

forward and then essentially backs off his own argument by

talking about how low taxes are in the gasoline area in British

Columbia in comparison with other jurisdictions.

On the principle of this bill I had expected from the

Premier, in light of his bold statements elsewhere, some

analysis of the effects of the taxation on gasoline on the use

of the private automobile. I expected some analysis on the

effects of taxation on gasoline on the consumption of a

non-renewable resource. I expected some analysis in terms of

price levels and tax levels with respect to the need or

otherwise of a new refinery programme.

Are we embarking on a course of action which is designed to

curb consumption, which I have to say I trust we are? I know I

differ again this morning with the Social Credit Party in this

area, but surely we should be embarking upon a conservationist

programme. Taxes should be used to encourage conservation. It

is contradictory to on the one hand say we want to raise taxes

to encourage public transit and then on the other say: "Gee,

aren't we lucky? It is so much lower than anywhere else in the

country." So it is not going to achieve the object which the

Premier first named — namely, discouraging the use of the

private automobile and encouraging the use of public

transit.

I know the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) will probably

get up and contribute to this because he is looking most

serious, if he ever looks serious behind that beard. It is hard

to really see what his feelings are, but I know he would like

to get up. He is just itching to get up and talk about how much

money we could save in terms of highway construction through

this very, very difficult terrain in British Columbia, which he

has talked about so often, if indeed we could curb the use of

the private automobile and encourage proper public transit.

We had statements in the House a short time ago about the E&N Railway.

I looked into the E&N Railway business very closely back when they applied

to the Canadian Transport Commission for discontinuation of passenger services.

I discovered that on the average only 17 people a day used that train in either

direction. What we had was a situation where everyone was yelling about what

a great thing it was to have public transit, what a great thing it was to have

a train service, what a great thing it was to have a totally different roadbed

maintained at enormous expense to get people to Courtenay — and yet 17 people

a day went north on the average and 17 people a day came south. Really and truly

we were talking about a trivial number of people in terms of the number of people

in 20 minutes who would use that highway. Indeed, on the average, I imagine,

if you stood by the highway and waited for two minutes, you would have more

than 17 people pass you by going in either direction.

So you are talking about alternate transit systems, you are

talking about public transit systems, and yet, really and

truly, we are doing absolutely nothing to really grasp the

parameters of the overall problem. I am delighted that the

Minister of Highways is going to leap to his feet and support

what I am saying.

Back to the question of taxation. I know it is not

frequently that Members of the opposition encourage the

government to increase taxation, but surely in an area such as

this, the government should be analyzing the advantages of

increasing taxation on gasoline and such things — non-renewable

resources in other words — encouraging smaller vehicles and

encouraging vehicles that get between 40 and 50 miles to the

gallon on the highway which are feasible. Such vehicles are

being constructed today. At the same time, the government

should be discouraging vehicles which get between 8 to 12 miles

to the gallon on the highway, which unfortunately, as the First

Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) knows from his experience in

the car business, are being purchased all too frequently by

British Columbians.

There is an opportunity here for making some real effort to

use taxation policy to achieve social goals. The government

appears to have dropped the ball. They have only talked about

this minor subsidy to rapid transit without giving us any

indication of what the effect will be.

Let me put a proposition to the Minister of Finance and the

Minister of Highways, who is happily taking notes, I hope, with

which to take

part in this debate. That is, what would happen

if we did manage to lower by taxation policies the average

weight of the average family vehicle in British Columbia by

1,000 pounds? What happens if we can get British Columbians to

drive cars on the average of 2,500 pounds instead of 3,500

pounds or more? I believe it is above that now. The Minister of

Highways will of course give me the exact figures, which he

keeps in his head at all times.

What would happen if we did that? What would happen in terms

of conserving non-renewable resources? What would happen in

terms of saving the

[ Page 2593 ]

province future capital expenditures on refineries? What

would happen in terms of making ourselves more self-sufficient

in oil and what would happen in terms of extending the known

reserves of petroleum products in the Province of British

Columbia?

These are all major questions, and I know that in discussing

them under the Gasoline Tax

(1948) Amendment Act, perhaps it is

stretching the intent of this Act. But you cannot simply put

financial bills forward which have social ramifications and

fail to even mention social ramifications.

I'm astonished by the Premier. He really is a man who enjoys

exploring some of the greater issues of politics and policy. In

this instance, when he had the opportunity of telling us what

would happen, how it would affect policy, how it would affect

the future of British Columbia, what it would do to the

lifestyle in the year 2000, he failed completely. He just gave

us a 2 cent speech on a 2 cent tax. That's the wrong

approach.

Taxation can be used not just for the raising of revenue but

for social policy. I think perhaps the Minister of Finance, and

certainly the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) when he

speaks in this debate, will talk about the difference between

an increase, a substantial increase in the gasoline tax and, on

the other hand, a reduction in the sales tax. Let's drop the

sales tax from 5 to 3 per cent, or from 5 to 4 per cent, and

let's make it up on the other hand by an increase in the

gasoline tax. Let's use the gasoline tax as a source of revenue

for general purposes.

We in this province have been infected by the American

disease known — well, I won't say it is known necessarily by name.... It is that insidious advertising campaign put out by

essentially the trucking industry, the gasoline interests, and

in particular the road-construction companies, suggesting that

everything raised from the road should be spent on the road.

And there was legislation in the States, in many states, which

required by law that every penny that ever came from the

gasoline tax be spent in turn on highways. The Minister of

Highways knows how wrong the policy would be, but for many

decades that was the policy, the law, of many American

jurisdictions. It was supported constantly by an advertising

campaign, and it was supported constantly by contributions to

political parties and candidates. He knows that that took place

in the States.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): They're in trouble

now.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You bet they're in trouble! But what have they switched

to? Remember the new ads? The operative word is "trust" — the highways "trust"

— how it is a breach of trust to use this money for anything but building more

highways and covering more farmland with cement and concrete and blacktop. Now

they are talking about it in the moral sense — "trust." You know, somehow if

a politician suggested that the gasoline tax money should be used for Mincome

or Pharmacare or anything of that nature, for a social policy, somehow he is

violating the trust. This advertising campaign went on for two years, and I've

never seen anything quite as sickening in advertising campaigns until I started

to hear the advertising campaigns that came into this province — but that's

another subject, It was a deplorable policy with, I think, inaccurate, misleading

advertising and it resulted in a really sick public attitude towards the question

of taxing gasoline, taxing automobiles and taxing components. It went right

back to the Eisenhower days of the highway trust, and it is time the thing was

buried once and for all. It has done enough harm in the United States, and the

spillover effect has done enough harm in Canada.

So when the Premier closes this debate, and when the

Minister of Highways gets to his feet and endorses all that I

have said, I trust they are going to point out what the effect

would be of a doubling of the gasoline tax in terms of use of

automobiles, in terms of encouragement of public

transportation. I trust he will talk about what would happen in

the regional sense. I trust he will suggest, or I trust he will

at least explore, if not suggest, the concept of differential

taxation for different parts of the province.

Clearly this bill is absurd for the Member for Peace River

who is about to speak. He comes from an area where the

increasing money that will be taken from the motorists in his

area will do absolutely nothing to create a public transit

system. What they are doing is robbing the Peace River or at

least taxing the Peace River, to be accurate, to pay for a

system in Vancouver, Victoria and other major centres. When he

gets up to oppose this bill, as I expect him to do — I may be

surprised, but I expect him to do so — I am sure he is going to

point out this discrepancy in the legislation.

I am sure that he will echo my thoughts that we should be

taxing areas which have congestion problems, which have the

possibility of a rapid transit system. We should be taxing them

more, and we should be taxing less the areas which have no

possibility whatsoever of a public transit system and which,

because of their very sparse population and spread-out nature,

never indeed will get public transit in the foreseeable

future.

Anyway, those are a number of the questions in terms of

policy which I think should be explored, and I trust they will.

This Act is a pussycat Act. It just has this trivial increase

in gasoline taxation. It is putting a pussycat in the tank

instead of a tiger — to quote Esso, now Exxon.

It does really nothing to deal with the question of

[ Page 2594 ]

public transportation; it does really nothing to discourage

the use of the private automobile. It does really nothing to

encourage the purchase of smaller more efficient vehicles. It

does really nothing at all except raise a couple of pennies

more per gallon, and in this respect I just don't think that

this Act makes a great deal of sense.

I trust we are going to hear proper debate on this. I am

just itching to hear the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)

get up and give his contribution because outside this House,

outside of the baneful influence of the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), he has spoken out

vigorously in terms of concepts on transportation. I know that

he is inhibited here, but I realize he would perhaps be able to

get up and say a few modest words about how correct the

approach of the Liberal Party is in this particular

instance.

MR. WALLACE: As I said in the budget speech, we have found

this 2 cent increase in gasoline tax somewhat puzzling,

contradictory, and even if we listened to the reasons the

Premier gave for introducing it, we find that he hasn't really

backed them up with any kind of real conviction. For these

three main reasons we will oppose this bill.

In the first place, all that the budget speech and debate ever told

us from the government's side was that we have a buoyant economy and

that the figures speak for themselves with an anticipated increase in

revenue of 48 per cent over the figures of 1974-75. So, first of all, we would have to ask the question: why any tax increase of

any nature with the economy in a buoyant and optimistic condition, as reported

by the Minister of Finance?

Secondly, was inflation the primary problem which

the Minister of Finance himself pointed out in his budget speech? The increase

of 2 cents on the cost of gasoline to the consumer has to be an inflationary

influence.

I'll mention in a moment the whole question of transit on a

wider basis, but whether the Minister of Finance likes to admit

it or not the automobile is an absolutely essential part of

living to many citizens of this province. We can all wax

eloquent about the desirability of less pollution, conservation

of fuel and all the other desirable goals, but the fact is that

many people in this province require their automobile not as a

luxury but as an absolutely essential part of their day-to-day

living in their capacity to get to work and get back from work,

and in their capacity, in many cases, to carry out their

business. Commercial salesmen, detail men, and various persons

are those whose basic occupation depends almost entirely upon

the availability of their automobile.

To just glibly make the statement that a piddling tax increase of 2 cents will

get people out of their cars and into the buses, to me represented a very flimsy

and superficial reason for this particular increase. It's quite clear, particularly

when one travels in other parts of this province other than the lower mainland

and the metropolitan areas, that there are vast numbers of people who depend

very much on their automobiles. If you put 2 cents on each gallon of gas for

these people, all you are doing is making life more difficult for them economically

in the face of inflationary costs over which this government has no control.

So why put up the costs of the elements in our budget, the individual's budget,

which we can control? It's just adding another burden to the economic problems

of many citizens in the province. So, if for no other reason, we find that that

is a very sound justification to oppose this bill.

The second main reason that we would oppose this bill is

that even on the so-called merits presented by the Premier, we

find the whole situation very contradictory. We find a 2 cent

increase in gasoline tax is reported to be necessary or to be

desirable by the Premier to get people out of their cars and

into the buses. In the metropolitan areas, if this were

feasible and practical, there is some strength in that argument — not a lot, but some.

But then we turn around, Mr. Speaker, and what do we see? We

find this government subsidizing automobile insurance to the

tune of $34 million bucks a year. Now how can you possibly run

in opposite directions at, the same time? One minute we are

being told that the gasoline tax has to go up to try and

discourage people using their automobiles by economic

pressure.

At the very same time we are giving them unrealistically low

automobile premiums for insurance subsidized by some other form

of government revenue. I just can't reconcile these two factors

in any way at all that makes sense.

That leads into the more general discussion on the point

raised by the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson). To what

extent should taxation policies be used as an instrument to

determine public behaviour and the public's attempt to conserve

depleting resources or the public's behavioural response to

pollution control or mitigation of existing pollution that we

have? I personally feel that it is all rather pointless.

I am of the opinion that the North American society, the

people of North America, have become accustomed to a certain

style of living. That style of living means two or three cars

in every driveway, a boat, a dishwasher, a garburetor,

wall-to-wall carpeting, and a whole slough of luxuries which

intimately influence the problems that governments have to

face. We have already been all around this race track once on

the whole question of housing. It seems we can't convince

anybody to build a basic, simple house for a husband and wife

and a couple of children, 1,000 square feet with no frills,

because

[ Page 2595 ]

there is practically no market for that for a variety of

reasons.

By the same token, we are talking here about a very minimal

increase in gasoline tax, and apparently the opposition is

expected to swallow the argument that such a very minimal

increase will encourage people to decrease their use of their

automobile and get into the buses. I just think that in the

face of the general affluence in North America, the style of

living to which the individual has become accustomed, the

competitive nature of our society — if you don't have a second

car, if you don't have a cottage or if you don't have a boat,

you are just not keeping up with the Joneses — that pervasive

influence is far more to be reckoned with than trying to appeal

to the social conscience of people by saying to them:

"Tut-tut-tut, you shouldn't really go downtown to do your

shopping and use your car; you should take the bus."

If we want one screaming example of how valid I think that

argument is, just look at downtown shopping at Christmas time.

It is just an absolute nightmare. The people who drive into the

downtown area to do their Christmas shopping are not dull and

they've got a memory. They know very well that last Christmas

they went through the same miserable, time-consuming,

frustrating experience and arrived back home ready to climb the

walls or punch their husband on the nose or beat the kids or

something. Yet Christmas, 1975, comes around and you could have

all the buses that have ever been made; do you think you will

have any effect in getting the Christmas shopper to get out of

his car and get into a bus and go downtown to do the

shopping?

All I am saying is that if the government really believes.... I respectfully differ with them. I don't feel that to any

appreciable degree you can mould public behaviour or public

response unless, instead of a miserable 2 cent increase, you

make it a 20 cent increase. Then you are no longer whistling

Dixie. You are really making it hurt to the consumer. All I am

saying is that if the basic premise in the government's

argument holds any water at all, it has got to be effective. A

2 cent increase ain't going to change anything. All it is going

to do is penalize the consumer who really needs his vehicle for

his work and act as an inflationary factor and add just one

more burden economically to the personal budget of these

individual consumers.

I certainly feel that in attempting, as I think every government does, to achieve

a fair distribution of different types of taxation, it is almost inexplicable

that although this government has legislation on the books to take 10 cents

out of each gallon of gas in revenue to subsidize ICBC — and I don't buy that

argument at all that there should be a subsidy, but we have touched on that

in other debates and I won't be repetitious — the final indignity is that annual

report of ICBC in which we discover that the government has not carried through

on its commitment that that is where the subsidy would come from.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not yet.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if we don't know by this time, Mr.

Premier and Minister of Finance, how it's going to be

subsidized, I think only one of two things: either you people

over there don't know yourself what you're going to do, or you

know what you're going to do and you won't tell the House. I

think that's reprehensible.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We passed legislation; we had a debate on

it.

MR. WALLACE: Sure, you passed legislation and we've had

debates until we're all blue in the face. But the point is that

the annual report of ICBC stated, as close as I can paraphrase

it, that at this time it was not decided "desirable" or

"convenient" — I can't remember the exact word — to utilize the

subsidy from gasoline to make up for the $34 million deficit.

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) very conveniently is looking up the annual report as

I am talking — maybe he can give us the precise wording. I

remember reading it and thinking to myself how very careful and

cautious and noncommittal and totally political that paragraph

was. In other words, it left the option open that maybe they

will take the money out of the gasoline tax. But on the other

hand, the way it's written, there is certainly no promise or

commitment by the Minister that that's where the money will

come from.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that in debating such matters as

gasoline tax and Autoplan insurance subsidy, in my mind it

would be most unfair if that $34 million came out of general

revenue because that general revenue is contributed by many

citizens in this province who don't drive a car, who don't own

a car and who probably never get into a car from one year's end

to the next. Yet, lo and behold, some of their tax money is

going to be used to subsidize automobile premiums for the car

driver.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Finance is looking very

unhappy, shrugging his shoulders, screwing up his face and

looking very unhappy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! I have not screwed up my face or

shrugged my shoulders!

MR. WALLACE: He's smiling now — that's better. When you

shrug your shoulders, Mr. Premier, you might be mistaken for

another leader in this country; you would never want that to

happen.

[ Page 2596 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. I didn't shrug; I'm too young

to shrug.

MR. WALLACE: While we appreciate a little bit of humour here

and there in this House — we haven't had enough of it this

session — I do feel that this is a very important subject far

and above whether it's 2 cents, 3 cents or whatever number of

cents we're talking about. The principle involves not only the

raising of government revenue by a certain method but the whole

question of how tax revenue, once raised, should be used by

government to achieve certain desirable community and social

goals.

I just feel that the evasive paragraph in that annual report

of ICBC leaves the door open so that the government may not

utilize its own legislation to take money out of the gasoline

tax revenue to subsidize ICBC.

The Premier interjected the words "not yet," which

suggests to me that that's where the subsidy will come from. If

that government decision has been made, I think the least that

the Premier might do in winding up this debate would be to

assure the people of this province that at least the deficit

will be met out of sources which relate to the use of the

automobile. We object to subsidizing automobile insurance in

the first place. That is an absolute objection and there's no

way we're ever likely to change our position on that. But we

will be even more concerned if the subsidy is to be derived, as

was suggested by one of the other speakers, from sales tax,

income tax or from some other source of general revenue.

I listened with interest to the Liberal leader, who talked

about the old concept that money derived from one source need

not necessarily be spent in some associated expenditure.

Gasoline tax need not specifically be dedicated to highway

construction, as an example. I agree that not only is that not

desirable but it's obviously quite impractical. Yet it's just

amazing, the amount of correspondence that I receive — I don't

know about other Members — on the whole question of the sales

tax, which originally went from 3 to 5 per cent in order to pay

for hospitals. I get a constant influx of letters complaining

that the money raised for that source has not been spent on

that kind of social service. That's a whole debate in itself

because, as it happens, we've spent a great deal more on

hospital facilities than you would ever get from 2 per cent of

the sales tax. But that's another debate. I just interject it

to demonstrate that there is not a simple or feasible way to

relate the source of taxation revenue to the kind of

expenditure that the government uses it for. That principle

certainly holds very little water.

Perhaps the last note I would choose to finish on is that not only do I reject

the 2 cent increase for the reasons I've mentioned, but also I'm quite distressed

to notice that — and I haven't statistics to back it up —

while this government has created a large number of buses and

has expanded the bus service, it really bothers me to see how

often the buses appear to be either almost empty or totally

empty. Now I acknowledge that on the peak periods the reverse

applies and the buses are well filled but that is such a very

small fraction of the total hours that the bus service

operates. And I'm so impressed by the number of times I see two

or three buses in close succession, either all empty or almost

empty.

I think that before we go any further in this whole area of

trying to settle taxation based on matters such as gasoline

tax, the government has to take a more co-ordinated and a more

comprehensive total look at the whole situation. Because if we

are spending a lot of money on new buses, and if we are

providing a bus service which is not succeeding, for whatever

reason, in persuading citizens to use that service, then maybe

it's time to consider whether or not this rather facile

argument that if you make car driving more expensive you

automatically encourage more people to use the bus service....

While one of the advantages of being able to debate

estimates to some greater degree will be to have more

information from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for

example, on the whole picture — because some of the statements

I'm making right now, admittedly, I can't back up with

statistics and financial data regarding revenue and expenses,

but there are a whole lot of important things in life you can't

just show on a graph or measure in pounds or ounces, or in

grams — as we now have with the metric system.

I'm simply saying that to the average observer, in our

streets these days there is certainly a much larger number of

buses visible, but what is equally visible is the fact that it

seems that nine-tenths of the time they are completely empty. I

just wonder if this government with this bill and its 2 cent

increase isn't adopting too much of a piecemeal approach to the

overall problems that are encompassed in this bill, namely the

raising of tax revenues, the conservation of depleting

resources, control of pollution and all the other factors that

we've mentioned already in these comments about the total

impact of this kind of legislation — or its failure to have

much impact.

I think in winding up the debate the Premier should try to

differentiate specifically what the primary purpose was in this

bill. Was it to raise more revenue? Was it to attain the other

social goal of a greater conservation of fuel and a control, a

better attempt to mitigate some of the effects of pollution

from our numerous automobiles? I think the other question which

it would be fair for the Premier to answer when he winds up the

debate, particularly because of the interjection of the words

"not yet".... Would he tell the House and tell the people

[ Page 2597 ]

of the province that, in fact, the $34 million deficit in

ICBC will come out of money which the government derives from

taxation on gasoline?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill comes

through to me loud and clear. The principle of this bill is

increased taxation on the people of British Columbia so that

the government can carry on its programmes of extravagance and

waste and reckless spending which has been the pattern of this

government since it came to power in this province in August of

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Nonsense!

MR. PHILLIPS: Some of the best years in revenue known in the

history of Canada, and in specific, in the history of the

Province of British Columbia, were the years 1973 and 1974 when

our resource industries were demanding on the world markets the

highest prices ever in the history of the sale of those

resources — when not only was the demand the greatest, the

price was the greatest and the revenues from those products to

the Minister of Finance were the greatest. And I guess he had

the attitude that this was going to continue for ever and a day

without ceasing.

Now the government finds, after its years of waste and

extravagance and reckless spending, it is caught in the pinch,

and a lot of the wasteful programmes which it instigated are

now costing money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which ones? Name one.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to name a few, just a moment. You

just give me time. I'm going to name a few instances of your

waste and extravagance — you better believe I am.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I haven't spoken against Mincome and I haven't

spoken against Pharmacare. How much does that cost? I'll tell

you in just a few moments.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The government gets very touchy when you start

talking about their programmes of waste and extravagance,

instances of waste and extravagance and reckless spending of

the taxpayers' money. Reckless spending of the taxpayers' money — that is why they brought in closure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: They brought closure into this Legislature so

that we wouldn't be able to properly scrutinize...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...their reckless spending methods. Yes, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before the Hon. Member proceeds, it would

seem to me that the speech on which he has already embarked

would appear to be more appropriate on the budget debate rather

than under this particular bill. I would ask him to be a little

more specific in relating his remarks to this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, not only you but the rest

of the government seem to get a little bit touchy when we talk

about the reckless spending of the government. I have listened

to the debate very carefully this morning on several issues, We

are talking about taxation here, pure and simple. Taxation.

That is exactly what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker: taxation

and the punitive measures of taxing the people of this province

to find money to spend on their own reckless programmes.

What I was saying was that during the years 1973 and 1974,

the revenues to the province were never higher from the

resource industries of this province.

I see the Premier has to leave the chamber because he can't

stand the pressure of listening to people talk about his

incompetence as Minister of Finance in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not the salary vote

for the Minister. I would ask you to confine your remarks to

the bill, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this not a bill brought in by the Minister

of Finance?

The only reason this bill has to be brought in, and the

principle behind this bill, as I explained to you a few moments

ago, is strictly because of the incompetence of that Minister

of Finance in being able to manage the taxpayers' money with

discretion. That is the reason we have to have this bill to add

another 2 cents to every gallon of gasoline. 'That is the

reason we have to have this bill.

The tax from gasoline is not going to build roads in this

province. The highways and the byways of this province have

seen a continual, steady deterioration since this government

came to power. This money certainly is not going to be used to

improve the highways in this province. What we have now are not

highways. You have to look for the highways in between the

potholes. You know that, Mr. Speaker. I've been up in your

area. You know the condition of the roads.

[ Page 2598 ]

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) said last year that

he wasn't going to build any new highways. They were going to

consolidate and they were going to fix up the existing

highways. Well, I will tell you, if that is his method of

fixing up the existing highways, I would like to see what he

would do if he was going to build new highways.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member has a

tendency to stray away from the principle of the bill. I would

ask him if he could try to keep his mind on the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully when

the Minister of Finance introduced the bill. What did he say

the principle of the bill was? He didn't delineate what this

money is going to be used for; so I take it for granted that it

is just increased general revenue to the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did

specifically state what it was for. Didn't you take any

notes?

HON. MS. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): He

wasn't listening.

MR. PHILLIPS: I listened very carefully to your remarks.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll read it again if you like.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'll just carry on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think there is no point of

order. I think the Hon. Member should know what the point of

the bill is.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is always amazing....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Some latitude is allowed as long as the Hon.

Member relates it to the principle of the bill reasonably

frequently.

MR. PHILLIPS: The principle of the bill is increased

taxation. What concerns me is where this money..... I

listened to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talk about

where the money was going to be spent. You were very lenient.

But you get very touchy, Mr. Speaker, when somebody talks about

the waste and extravagance that is prevalent in British

Columbia today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time.

MR. PHILLIPS: You get very touchy, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LIDEN: The Oak Bay Member makes sense; you don't. The

Oak Bay Member makes sense.

MR. PHILLIPS: At the present time, through punitive taxation

on the petroleum industry, we have literally driven the

petroleum industry out of British Columbia. Money could have

been derived from taxation on the petroleum industry which

would have eliminated the necessity of bringing in this 2 cent

a gallon tax on people. The money could have been derived from

the natural resources. But the government, in their great

haste, and led by their philosophy, drove the petroleum

industry out of British Columbia. Now they are taking a look

and they are going to offer incentives to bring the petroleum

industry back to British Columbia because they need the

revenue.

They need the revenue and they are reassessing. If they had

listened to the opposition in the first place, Mr. Speaker, the

petroleum industry would still be a thriving industry in

British Columbia.

They have driven out the mining industry, and you can

recognize in the budget that the revenue from the mining

industry is down, down, down. This is why it is necessary for

the Minister of Finance to bring in punitive taxation measures

like 2 cents a gallon on gasoline. We used to, Mr. Speaker, at

one time have the. lowest gasoline prices of any province in

Canada. What has happened now? We're among the highest.

The reason that we need these punitive taxation measures is

because of the increased cost of running this government.

That's why we have to add 2 cents a gallon to our gasoline.

It's another people tax to pay the 227 per cent increase in the

cost of running this government that has been incurred by that

Minister of Finance and the bungling and reckless spending and

wasteful spending by that government. That is the reason this

bill is necessary.

Now it was amazing to me, Mr. Speaker, to hear the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) of this province, when

speaking about the loss of the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia, and the loss in the ferry system of British Columbia,

and the loss in the transit system of British Columbia, say:

"Well, when these corporations lose money, the people of

British Columbia gain." Well, if that is the type of theory

that this government uses, it is no wonder that we have to

bring in bills like this to increase taxation, because when

Crown corporations lose money because of mismanagement and

because of waste and extravagance in running those

corporations, the people do not gain. The people lose. That is

why we have to have this punitive taxation.

The Attorney-General says that when we mismanage a Crown

corporation, when we spend

[ Page 2599 ]

thousands and thousands of dollars on useless advertising,

the people of this province gain. How stupid can you get, Mr.

Speaker? How stupid can the Attorney-General be to think that

he is going to sell such a bill of goods to the people of

British Columbia?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On the matter of the comments

regarding the Attorney-General, I think the Hon. Member should

make a distinction again between commenting on the

Attorney-General's comments and on the Attorney-General

himself.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I am saying the Attorney-General's

comments were stupid — absolutely stupid. To try and tell the

people of this province that if a Crown corporation loses money

they gain, when the Crown corporation loses money because of

mismanagement and bungling, is just stupid.

HON. MR. BARRETT : Should we up the ferry prices?

MR. PHILLIPS: No.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Double the ferry costs — that's Social

Credit policy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, you come back with your old cliché —

double the burden. Why don't you manage the ferry like it

should be managed? Why don't you use some decent business

techniques in running the ferry?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We should close them down, then.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, your mismanagement of the ferry system....

HON. MS. YOUNG: You lost money every year on them!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Are we on the Ferries Act, or is this

Bill 31? I just came in.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, this is not the ferries amendment Act;

this is

an Act to tax the people of British Columbia to the

point where their backs break. That's what it is. It's

an Act

to break the backs of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The only back that's broken in here is

over there.

MR. PHILLIPS: My back isn't broken.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, the guy who isn't here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes. Act funny. Try and get off the

subject. We're talking about the management of the taxpayers'

dollars. The taxpayers of this province who are sick and tired

of you putting on the clown act while you gloat and

deliberately waste their dollars! The people of British

Columbia are sick and tired of it! As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, that Premier will probably go down in history as the

most hated Premier that the Province of British Columbia has

ever had!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is in

financial difficulties at the present time. We know that the

government can't pay their bills. They are running 90 to 120

days behind time in the payment of their bills, so we have to

increase taxes.

Where is the money going? The revenues to the government in

'73 and '74 were never higher in the history of the province.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the government overran their

budget in two years by $719 million. Is this the reason that we

have to bring in this bill to increase the gasoline tax — because of the waste and extravagance of that government? Yes,

$719 million that never came near this Legislature was spend in

overruns by that government. There was $103 million in one

department alone.

Do we have to increase taxes on gasoline to pay the wages of

Mason Gaffney, who was supposed to be the economic adviser to

the cabinet, or is he just the economic adviser to the Hon.

Robert Williams, Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources? Has the Premier shut them out after taking $5

million out of general revenue to set up an economic planning

branch at the University of Victoria? And now we hear nothing

from them. I can't think of one solid, single, solitary piece

of advice that Mason Gaffney has given this Legislature — not

one single, solitary piece of advice — and yet there was $5

million taken out of general revenue to set up a think tank,

Williams, and Gaffney. But Williams and Gaffney have been

pushed in the background by the Premier now.

We have another department — $262,000 of the taxpayers'

money going to pay Mark Eliesen, the exorcist from Winnipeg,

who is supposed to be giving economic advice to the Minister of

Finance. If this new advice that the Premier is getting, which

the taxpayers are paying $262,000 for, is advice to increase

taxation in British Columbia, we would far

[ Page 2600 ]

sooner go back to Gaffney. At least we paid for him and he

didn't say anything. But if Eliesen is giving us this kind of

advice, that kind of advice we can do without because we don't

need increased taxation. So we would rather go back to the

Williams-Gaffney economic planning consultants because at least

they weren't giving the Premier this kind of advice.

We just have to wonder why this government cannot pay its

bills. Why is it running 90 to 120 days behind? Is that the

reason for bringing in this punitive taxation measure in

British Columbia? Why is the government broke when the Premier

says that we still have surpluses? Why can't the government pay

its bills? We had two instances in the Department of Highways

where the bills were four months old, and the accountant in

that department says that he can't really find out why. Why

didn't he come out and say that the government is broke? The

Government of British Columbia is broke today. And if it wasn't

broke, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't have to be bringing in punitive

taxation measures like we are seeing tabled in this Legislature

today.

Mr. Speaker, you remember just a few moments ago, if you

were in the House, the Premier, in glowing terms, talked about

protecting the small people in British Columbia. I want to tell

you that this 2 cents a gallon plus the 10 cents a gallon on

gasoline that is going to shore up that broken company called

Moscow Mutual works a greater hardship on the small individual,

common, ordinary people whom the Premier was talking about a

little while ago, than it will those rich fat cats that he was

talking about. It doesn't matter to them. They can buy their

gasoline, but the ordinary, family man who has a family and who

has a three- or four-year-old car — one of those cars with a

lot of the pollution equipment on it that burns more gas than

one of the later models — they are the people who will be

paying the bulk of this gasoline tax. They are the little

people whom this government purports to help, who will bear the

brunt of this 2 cents a gallon plus the 10 cents a gallon to

shore up the insurance company of British Columbia.

I believe that this government spends money because they

believe in the old saying. I remember when I was a kid and I

used to spend money and my mother used to say: "Are you afraid

it will burn a hole in your pocket?" So I think the government

is afraid that if they have some money in the bank that it will

burn a hole in the bank. As soon as they get a little money, if

they haven't got a programme, they go out and they create one

to spend it. They invent a way of wasting the taxpayers'

money.

I remember not too long ago when we were talking about spending the taxpayers'

money and I was condemned for standing in this Legislature and fighting on behalf

of the taxpayers. They said that I was costing the taxpayers of this province,

I believe the figure was $2,000 an hour. That's what it costs to run this Legislature

— $2,000 an hour. Now what exercise did we just go through, Mr. Speaker? For

nearly three weeks this Legislature stood at a complete standstill....

MR. SPEAKER: I wish the Hon. Member would return to the

principle of the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about the principle of the bill.

I am talking about taxation, if you would just let me finish my

comments. How many thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money

were wasted in this Legislature in the last three weeks simply

because of the childish attitude of the Premier over

closure?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's that got to do with the gas

tax?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's got a lot to do with gas tax because the

taxpayers' money was wasted in this Legislature at the sum of

$2,000 an hour, Mr. Speaker — $2,000 an hour — and think of the

number of hours that we spent in this Legislature!

MR. SPEAKER: I wish the Hon. Member would get back to the

question of taxation rather than the question of expenditures,

particularly when it doesn't have anything to do with this

particular measure, which is Bill 31.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about

taxation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The gasoline tax.

MR. PHILLIPS: As soon as the money is taxed it goes into the

general revenue, into the hands of the Minister of Finance, and

he spends that money.

How many gallons of gasoline and how much revenue from this

2 cents per gallon of gasoline, how many people are going to

have to buy gasoline to pay for running this Legislature during

the last three weeks? Think about it. It wouldn't be necessary

to have this bill at all, maybe, if we hadn't wasted three

weeks spinning our wheels in this Legislature strictly because

of the childish attitude of the Minister of Finance. That's why

I say that this government is a past master at wasting

taxpayers' money.

MR. SPEAKER: It sounds like a detour; I wish the Hon. Member

would get back to the question of the tax itself.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as I said when you were not in

the chamber, this is a punitive taxation measure to give more

money to the Minister of Finance so that he can carry on with

his programmes

[ Page 2601 ]

of waste and extravagance.

How much of this money, Mr. Speaker, is going to be used for

the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, a corporation that is

probably the worst-run corporation in North America? As a

matter of fact, it's run so badly that they had to spend

three-quarters of a million dollars to try and tell the people

of the province how well it was being run. Waste....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, they didn't believe it; it was a complete

waste. Operation Turnabout — a complete waste of money. A

complete waste of the taxpayers' money.

As we go through the budget, we see time and time again

tens of thousands of dollars for advertising and brochures to

try and tell the people of British Columbia what a good job the

Minister of Finance is doing. I don't care if they spend $1

million or $1 billion on advertising. The people of this

province are not stupid; they know that taxes in British

Columbia are going up. This is just one instance of increased

taxation in British Columbia this year. Let's look at some

others.

There will be an increase in school taxes this year — the

notices will soon be out — after this government promised to

remove school taxes from family homes and farmland.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure — we've seen the ads in the papers:

increase 29 per cent; increase 50 per cent; increase 40 per

cent; increase 20 per cent. Mill rates for school taxes are up

all over the province — this is from a government that promised

to remove school tax from farm property and homes.

Municipal taxes will be up in practically every municipality

in British Columbia. Why? What are some of the increased costs

to municipalities? One of, them is gasoline tax — right here.

You passed this on to municipalities; they in turn have to pass

it back to the taxpayer. It's the taxpayer who in the end has

to pay. It's the taxpayer who has to pay.

We talked about a loss on the transit authority. Why is

there a loss on the transit authority? Is it because of

mismanagement? I have to think it is mismanagement. The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) says: "Oh, but the people

win." The people don't win when the government mismanages their

money.

We had just recently in this House an exposé of empty office space — over one-third

of a million dollars of empty office space. The only reason I'm bringing this

up, Mr. Speaker, is to point out to you that if the government were prudent

and were able to manage this province, we wouldn't have to have this bill today.

Had they been prudent in managing the affairs of this province, we wouldn't

be faced with an increase in gasoline tax today.

Mr. Speaker, you can't go around buying $92 stacking chairs

from Denmark and expect to keep taxation down. Ninety-two

dollar stacking chairs — about three times what you'd pay for an

ordinary stacking chair in an office. This is why the

government has to bring in this taxation bill today, because of

the waste and extravagance on behalf of those weak government

Ministers over there who couldn't run a peanut stand and make a

profit on it.

I was reading an

article in the paper this morning, an

interview with the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson), the Liberal leader, who gave instances of people in

Victoria cashing welfare cheques with California driver's

licences — this is the type of waste in the welfare department

we're talking about. How much of it is waste? How much of it is

going for a bureaucracy, and how little of it is getting back

in true benefits to the people?

Mr. Speaker, had this government been prudent and managed

the affairs of this province, we could have $1 billion in

surplus today, and the necessity of bringing in Bill 31, a bill

to increase gasoline tax, would not be necessary.

The Premier is talking about going out and building an oil

refinery. He's going to take $350 million of the taxpayers'

money to build an oil refinery.

First of all, he is away out on the $350 million, because

the last plant that was completed in Edmonton, 125,000 barrels

a day, cost $500 million. The one they are planning in either

Edmonton or Red Deer is going to cost close to $1 billion. This

is another way the Premier has of misleading the people of

British Columbia. I will bet that before the refinery finishes,

it is going to cost closer to $750 million, or maybe never be

built. But if it is built, he says the money is free because we

got it from the United States. We got it from the increased

price of natural gas.

How much, Mr. Speaker, did the homeowners of British

Columbia contribute? How much are they paying for their natural

gas? Another little tax was snuck in last year, a 30 per cent

increase, which all goes into the B.C. Petroleum Corp. — goes

back into revenue to allow that Minister of Finance to waste

some more money, because he is on an ego trip to build an oil

refinery and a steel mill and a copper smelter.

Mr. Speaker, had we not gone out and purchased tens of

thousands of acres of land which was unnecessary to purchase,

we would not have to be bringing in this punitive taxation

measure today.

The government seems to think that they can spend and spend

and spend and waste taxpayers' dollars without the taxpayers

becoming aware of it.

[ Page 2602 ]

When the taxpayers don't buy their policies, they say: "Oh,

it is because we are not getting our message out; we are not

telling the people what a good job we are doing." How much of

this money from this bill is going to be used to buy the people

with their own money? How much of this 2 cent a gallon tax on

gasoline is going to be used for advertising, for pamphlets, to

try and tell the people what a great job the Minister of

Finance in doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against this bill?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am against waste and extravagance, wanton

spending of taxpayers' dollars; that is what I am against.

Waste and extravagance with the taxpayers' dollars: that is

what I am against. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)

should be the last one to speak because he can't even pay the

bills in his Department of Highways. I don't know whether the

Treasury Board has cut him off, but he allows his bills to go

sometimes four and five months before he pays them.

The people of British Columbia are sick and tired of seeing

one measure after another brought in by this socialist

government to increase taxation. One measure after another. Oh,

they are small, but they all add up. In the near future, if we

continue on the same trend on which we are now going, people

who live in British Columbia will be the most highly taxed

people in Canada. Instead of being a have province, we will be

like the Maritimes; we will pay the highest taxes of any

province in Canada.

It was interesting to note just a short time ago when the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) was comparing unemployment

rates; did he compare unemployment rates with Ontario? Did he

compare unemployment rates with Alberta? No, he compared

unemployment rates with Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick. So the Minister of Labour already realizes that we

are fast becoming one of the have-not provinces of Canada

because of the punitive taxation measures of that socialist

government.

Mr. Speaker, there are tax increases nearly everywhere you

look. The cost of natural gas is up. The cost of hydro is up.

School taxes are up. Municipal taxes are up everywhere you

look. What is next, Mr. Speaker? Is it going to be an increase

in the SS&MA tax? Are the people of British Columbia going

to be faced with a 7 per cent social security tax as the next

measure? Is that what we are looking forward to in British

Columbia in becoming a have-not province from a have province?

I have never in my wildest dreams anticipated that this

government could lead this province from one of the

lowest-taxed provinces in Canada to fast becoming one of the

highest-taxed provinces in Canada.

It is not necessary, Mr. Speaker. If we had a government that had the ability

to run this province and the ability to run a corporation, we wouldn't be faced

with this increased taxation. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I don't care how

much money the Minister of Finance tries to spend on selling his product. The

people realize what is going on. They know about the waste. They know about

the increased cost of government — over 227 per cent in three years. They know

that they are being indebted to countries we don't know where. We don't know

who they are indebted to. That is a conspiracy of secrecy. We don't know where

we are borrowing this money, but it is the taxpayers of British Columbia who

are going to have to pay the interest on it. While the Premier continues on

his ego trip and builds oil refineries, the bureaucracy of British Columbia

frolic around British Columbia in real estate.

Mr. Speaker, it makes me sad to see what is happening in

British Columbia today. All of those little people that this

government was supposed to be working for are the ones who are

paying the bulk of the increased tax — the little people that

this government is supposed to help.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when the Premier closes this

debate he will advise the House that he's going to put a

curtailment on spending, that he's going to try to get rid of

some of the waste and extravagant cabinet Ministers that he's

got before they break him and the province, that he's going to

reshuffle his cabinet. I don't know whether he's going to get

any better material than what he's got in there right now, but

he's going to have to make some changes somewhere.

The first change he should make, Mr. Speaker, is to get rid

of the Finance portfolio — himself. It wasn't too many years

ago, Mr. Speaker, that the present Premier was condemning a

dual portfolio of Premier and Minister of Finance. And now what

does he do, Mr. Speaker? He carries both those portfolios

himself. And he doesn't do a good job at either one of them! He

doesn't do a good job at either one of them, Mr. Speaker.

So we have Bill 31. Yes, it's a bad number. We had another

Bill 31 which hurt the people of this province, and here's

another Bill 31. It's sort of unique that they both have the

same number. We have increased taxation, punitive taxation,

while the waste and welfare continues on in British Columbia.

I notice that the Premier is smiling in his usual manner,

because he revels in increased taxation and he revels in waste,

and unfortunately he's dragging the province down, down to

depths of taxation that we've never known before. Where it will

all end, Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I don't know whether it

will end. But I'll tell you the people out there, the taxpayers of this province, realize what's going on. They know.

Interjections.

[ Page 2603 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the Minister who's born to

lose! Everything he touches his hand to automatically becomes a

loss. And he's over there groaning. No wonder he's groaning,

Mr. Speaker. As I said last year, you never take a race horse

and put it in front of a plough. That's what the Premier did

when he put that Minister in with such heavy responsibilities.

He hasn't been able to live up to its continual loss, loss,

loss. Everything he touches ... and then he wants to take over

television.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't lose it fast enough.

MR. PHILLIPS: He can't lose it fast enough now — he wants to

enter into yet another field. It's a sad and sorry day for

British Columbians, Mr. Speaker.

I would advise the Minister of Finance to get rid of the

portfolio. I don't know who you're going to give it to, but you

certainly can't handle it.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's going to be a cabinet reshuffle. Maybe

that's what's in his plans.

I just want to close on this note, Mr. Speaker. People of

British Columbia realize that there is waste in government

They know that the Minister of Finance is unable to control the

spending of his cabinet Ministers. We know that he has lost

complete control of government spending. We know that the

government is practically broke today because they can't pay

their bills. I don't know how we're going to get out of it, but

I hope when the Minister of Finance closes debate he will give

us some little bit of reassurance that we're not going to be

looking at more taxation when the next budget comes in, as we

have in the past three.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening

to the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). In fact, I

think, our subconscious sometimes brings up things.

Psychologists tell us that we sometimes dream things that maybe

we actually deeply feel. I have had a dream occasionally of the

end of the fescue season in the Peace River. A fescue farmer

drives through a snowstorm in the South Peace and he comes to

the Member for South Peace's used-car lot. There's a great

fleet of convertibles — last year's convertibles. I don't think

they make convertibles any more. And that Member comes bounding

out of the used-car lot salesroom to sell that fescue farmer a

convertible in the snow.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for the people to

realize that this government until now hasn't changed the

diesel and the gasoline price. The gasoline price of 17 cents,

except for Alberta and Saskatchewan, is as low or lower than all the provinces in

Canada. It's considerably lower than the big provinces like

Quebec and Ontario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order! You are bringing facts into the

debate. That's not....

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, it seems okay for the federal

government to spend millions and millions of dollars on the

Montreal airport, the world's largest airport, which is going

to involve transportation and fuel and a tremendous amount of

federal money on this gigantic airport. Yet this government is

struggling to provide services to people, transportation to

people. That Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)

and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and the

Hydro board members have not really hit the GVRD for that 2

mills which I thought they were going to hit them for transit.

We are providing $17 million worth of transit in the lower

mainland, Mr. Speaker. We have not hit up the GVRD, to my

knowledge, for that 2 mills that you were talking about.

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: Seventeen million dollars worth of transit

provided for people in the lower mainland and the Victoria

area.

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about taxation on

fuel which is donated to transit and transportation — a

fantastic programme for the people. I understand the senior

citizens can travel in the metro Victoria and metro Vancouver

areas for $5 for a pass — am I right? They can travel with a

pass for $5 in Victoria. I think that is responsibility; that

is stewardship; that is prudence. That is directly related to

this discussion today on this Bill 31.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Yes, right. We try to provide a system of

hourly bus service up to Haney or Maple Ridge and eventually

out to Langley and Hope. We are trying to rationalize a

reasonable rate structure, but it is a subsidized rate

structure, Mr. Speaker. Hydro, your electric light bill has

paid for that, and I think that is a deliberate, responsible

policy of a democratic socialist government which has not

really raised more than 2 cents — in fact I think for many

years there has been no change in the gasoline tax.

I remember the previous government used to send this to our

household, and think of the other have

[ Page 2604 ]

provinces, provinces like Quebec, who must be getting, what,

$100 million for that airport, the world's biggest airport?

That's our money, too, you know. That's transfer payments into

that gigantic airport. What kind of transfer payments are we

really getting when it comes to talking about transportation? I

think this is very responsible.

If everybody is going to do their job on taxation.... The

tax notes for our house came this week and my wife tells me

there was about an 11 per cent increase on school taxes. School

taxes were $233 less the homeowner's grant plus the school tax

removal grant and I pay $3.20 for school taxes. He talks about

an increase! We have excellent schools in Mission, excellent

schools. We are barely paying 11 per cent increase on municipal

taxes in Mission, so let's not hear that stuff.

All the Members can read the second

section of The

Province paper this morning when it comes to the average

municipal and school taxes and the GVRD, and there is hardly

that great an increase, about $600 in Vancouver. You know what

has happened to the appreciation of houses in Vancouver. That's

sure not reflected in school and municipal taxes, So let's not

hear that kind of stuff from that Member.

He doesn't say that in municipalities like Mission there was

a 35 per cent increase on insurance costs, which is not a

reflection of ICBC; protective services, police services and

that — a 24 per cent increase; transport — 72 per cent; roads

and streets — 98 per cent increase. This is not the only

budget, Mr. Speaker, that sees increases. The municipality of

Mission, which is trying to do a good job, sees a 98 per cent

increase in roads and streets. Environmental health — 90 per

cent increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: He ran out of the House.

MR. ROLSTON: Yes, he can't take it. We're in a time, Mr. Speaker — I

really regret this — a time of inflation. I think we all seriously have got

to deal with that. But, by George, to leave the impression that our budget,

unlike the federal government's budget.... They spent $17 million in their

co-ordination service in the east block in Ottawa — $17 million. We were told

on television last night Mr. Diefenbaker's government spent about $550,000 on

that east block planning and co-ordinating a privy council facility. Seventeen

million dollars is spent in this budget, so let's not hear about our modest

$230,000 in Mark Eliesen's planning office. By George, one thing this government

is trying to do is co-ordinate the services of government! With 20 departments

that become complex — there have to be checks. You do have to see that there's

a rationalization to what one department does with another department. I'm quite

prepared to spend that kind of money.

I just want to make it very clear that in the town where I

live — I'm sure you could make this trip right around the other

towns — I think that the municipal or what we call the general

taxes have been quite reasonable, despite the fact that

municipalities like Mission are hit with inflationary and

higher labour costs. So let's not hear this.... A modest 2

cents.

Personally I am not here to promote the automobile, and

maybe I had better say that quite honestly. I feel that the

automobile should stay home as much as possible and that we

should use buses. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) I understand has, for a decade, been using the

blue bus in West Vancouver. This government provides half of

the losses for that blue bus system in West Vancouver. This

government this year has picked up subsidies on five new

municipal transit systems, and every year we are increasing the

subsidies on municipal transit systems. So let's not hear any

of this cynicism about Bill 31. I think it's a very prudent,

responsible, but timely and modest increase — 2 cents on

gasoline tax.

MR. GIBSON: It was really kind of the Hon. Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) to tell this House how good the

government has been to the public transit rider. I think he

used a figure of $17 million, which I guess he gets out of the

B.C. Hydro transit deficit and he has maybe added a couple of

million dollars from the budget of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs — $17 million, Mr. Speaker. Kind.

What is the projected revenue of the gasoline tax and the

motive fuel-use tax that is coming in? He didn't mention that

because it is $196 million. There hasn't been much of that

taken and deployed to the needs of the people in public

transportation in British Columbia.

The real principle of this bill that ought to be debated is

the question of conservation — the conservation of a scarce

resource in this province, far scarcer than natural gas. We are

a deficit area in oil and therefore in gasoline; We produce

less than 50 per cent of our own oil.

In his opening remarks the Premier suggested that

conservation was what this bill was about and he took little

sideways steps and said: "The way you get conservation of

gasoline is by putting money into transit." We all know that

that's not what this bill is about. This is the ICBC bail-out

bill. This money is going into the ICBC deficit. It is an

accounting entry. It is taking some money from the motorists at

the gas pump and giving it back to him on the other side with

his ICBC premiums, Nothing to do with transit, Mr. Speaker.

It's a nice line, but it won't work.

If the Premier was really interested in conservation of

gasoline and oil supplies in this province, he would have done

a lot better than 2 cents. This is the

[ Page 2605 ]

Mickey Mouse motive-fuel tax. That's what it is, Mr.

Speaker. It should be going up a lot more than 2 cents if the

Premier is really interested in the conservation of oil and

gasoline in this province. There should be a system of regional

taxation whereby people in areas where there is no public

transportation, where they simply must use their cars, will not

be hit as hard as the people in the areas where there is public

transportation. If the Premier really wanted to encourage

public transportation and he really wanted to conserve oil and

gasoline in this province, that's the kind of thing he would

have done.

One of the Hon. Social Credit Members had an important

argument — all of the Social Credit Members are honourable —

but one of the Hon. Social Credit Members had an important

argument. The argument was that...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why did you have to explain that?

MR. GIBSON: It's a technical point, Mr. Premier, and the

people outside the House might not understand.

The argument was that a rise of 2 cents in the gasoline tax

at this time is a contribution to inflation. That is, as I say,

an important argument. However, governments are able to get

around that kind of thing. They use the revenues they pick up

in one area to lower the taxes they would otherwise have to

charge in another area and, therefore, on a net basis

government is not taking any more out of the income stream. But

what they are doing is changing the consumption patterns of

scarce natural resources to more accurately reflect the needs

of our society. That's what this government should be doing in

the case of gasoline taxes. They should be going up far more

than 2 cents a gallon, Mr. Premier. For that reason, as my

leader said, our party will be voting against this bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you have an amendment to suggest? How

much do you want it to go up?

MR. GIBSON: I don't have an amendment to suggest at this

stage, Mr. Premier. Of course, as you know, such an amendment

would have to come in by message from His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll speak to His Honour. How much do you

want it to go up?

MR. GIBSON: If you will certify that His Honour will sign my amendment,

I will have one signed by His Honour. I will go out there first just to check

that it's right, and I will have it on your desk on Monday morning — if you'll

tell me that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How much do you want to put it up? What's

the Liberal position on gas tax? Do you want to double it?

That's what your leader said.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, holy standing orders! He can't do

that!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why?

MR. GIBSON: He is asking me to reveal in advance of proper

notice a matter of Liberal policy! (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, we

have a policy conference this weekend. Does he want me to scoop

our own policy conference?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You'd better do it now while you still

have a party.

MR, GIBSON: Mr. Premier, that wasn't right. But if you want

to look back in the Hansard proofs for today, you will

find that my party leader did suggest a figure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Double, that's what he said. And we will

have to tell the world what the Liberals said.

MR. GIBSON: Ah, you tell them the whole story! You tell the

people in the parts of the province that are going to be hit by

your 2 cents but wouldn't be hit by our suggestion because they

have to use cars. There is no public transit in those

constituencies — you tell those people why they should have to

pay those 2 cents when they wouldn't have anything more to pay

under our proposal.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not even cars.

MR. GIBSON: That's right. You tell them that.

No, Mr. Speaker, this proposal isn't good enough. I say to

you that it is nothing to do with rapid transit, public

transit. That is the essential idea to get across in this

debate. It is an accounting entry. It is taking of 2 cents out

of one of the motorist's pockets for every gallon and

putting it back in the other pocket through his ICBC premium.

It is just as simple as that. Therefore I say it is just a

piece of flim-flam political bookkeeping that shouldn't be

supported in this House. We don't propose to support it.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few short words on

this bill. In opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to

make my position abundantly clear at the outset. I hope that

the Premier realizes that there is nothing in the bill that

suggests where the money will be directed. I wouldn't doubt for

[ Page 2606 ]

moment that the Premier would say that maybe we need it for

the Columbia River overrun of $137 million. He uses that

argument on every new tax measure and every loaning bill that

comes before the House. I hope that when he closes the debate

he will give us assurances that this will not be utilized for

that Columbia River overrun.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious as we debate this new

imposition of taxes on people that what we are looking at is a

tax-oriented government, a government which in 1972 suggested

that the bulk of their revenue would come from the resources of

this province. We know full well from the examination of their

budget that the bulk of revenues does not come from resources;

the bulk of revenue comes from income tax from the back pockets

of the taxpayers of this province. There is anticipated growth

in income tax of over $200 million. That is what this

government believes in — taxing the people, taxing the wallets

of people, not taxing the resources of the province. The

anticipated resource revenue is down substantially this year,

but you better believe that income tax is up substantially.

This bill here is a bail-out bill for tragic extravagant

mistakes made by that government which started shortly after

their election to office. The No. 1 mistake was made by the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) when he paid over

$150,000 too much for the Glenshiel Hotel. Is this bill going

to pay for the mistake of the Minister of Public Works?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for

Columbia River be seated? Do you have a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: No, he doesn't have a point of order.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Publ