1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

793 ]

CONTENTS

Motion

Time of next sitting. Mr. Lauk — 793

Mr. Speaker — 793

Mr. Lauk — 793

Mr. Gibson — 793

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 793

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 794

Point of order

Clarification of Mr. Speaker's ruling. Mr. D'Arcy — 794

Mr. Speaker — 794

Mrs. Wallace — 795

Mr. Speaker — 795

Mr. Gibson — 795

Mr. Speaker — 795

Mr. Nicolson — 795

Mr. Speaker — 795

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 796

Motion

Time of next sitting. Mr. King — 799

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 799

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 799

Division on motion to proceed to orders of the day — 799

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

On the amendment to postpone second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 800

Mr. Cocke — 802

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 805

Mr. Macdonald — 805

Hon. Mr. Williams — 806

Mr. D'Arcy — 808

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 810

Mr. Barnes — 810

Mrs. Dailly — 815

Mr. Levi — 817

Mr. Skelly — 819

Mrs. Wallace — 821

Ms. Sanford — 822

FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday next.

In speaking to the motion on....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, you've moved a motion.

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker,

MR. SPEAKER: The motion, if it were in order, would not be debatable, Hon. Member...

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr....

MR. SPEAKER: ...and I'm puzzled to know why you are rising at this particular moment.

MR. LAUK: Well, may I refer the Speaker to standing order

45(1)(k)? I couch this motion as being a "motion, made upon routine

proceedings," which is, by virtue of standing order 45(1), debatable.

In addition, if the substantive motion itself is not debatable, then

I'm sure I am able to debate the time of the motion, being 2 p.m.,

which paragraph (

k) states is debatable. "The fixing of sitting-days,

or the times of its meeting or adjournment" is debatable. I submit that

that question, at least, is debatable and motions made under routine

proceedings are debatable as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, there are two or three things that I would like to point out to you.

First of all, at adjournment this afternoon at 1 o'clock it was

ordered by the House that we reconvene at 2 o'clock this afternoon.

That was an order of the House and it was passed that we sit today at 2

o'clock. The other point is that we are now in session. We have started

to sit. The rule 45(

k) that you speak of would have been a debatable

motion at 1 o'clock, but it is not debatable now.

The other thing is that there has been no intervening business and

it would be an abuse of the House to move a motion of adjournment after

the House has decided that we will sit at 2 o'clock.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that's not my motion.

My motion is that the House in its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday

next. For the point of argument at this point, that could mean that we could

sit for another two or three hours. The intervening business was clearly the

adjournment of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: That motion is tantamount to adjourning the House.

MR. LAUK: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker, with great respect.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest to you, in further debate on the

matter, that such a motion has clearly been, for many, many years, the

prerogative of the House Leader.

MR. LAUK: Oh, Mr. Speaker, that is not a prerogative of any member of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: To set the time of adjournment and the time of reconvening?

MR. LAUK: Yes. It's for the House to decide, Mr. Speaker. It's not the prerogative of the Crown.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, as

to the admissibility of this motion, first of all there is no question

as to the fact that it is debatable if it is admissible. In that

context I refer Your Honour to Votes and Proceedings

for March 30, when just such a motion was debated. The question that

remains is, I assume, the question of its admissibility at this time.

Standing order 45(1)(

k) is, in my opinion, the relevant standing

order in this case. I will read it out. It is speaking of motions which

are debatable.

"And such other motion, made upon routine proceedings" — I underline those words, "made upon routine proceedings" —

"as may be required for the observance

of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the

appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business,

the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the

fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

These are motions that may be made upon routine proceedings."

I would suggest to Your Honour that there are at least two periods

in the day, and perhaps more, when the House is engaged in routine

proceedings and that that time occurs at least at the commencement of

each session and at the termination of each session. So I would submit

that we are in routine proceedings now and that therefore this motion

is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The question for the Speaker to decide is

whether the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) is in order at this particular time. I refer the hon.

members to standing order 44 first of all.

[ Page 794 ]

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the

Whole House, shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a

debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do

report progress, or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and

privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon

from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

I would also refer to May , 18th edition, page 370, which reads as follows:

"When a motion for the adjournment of the House or the

debate has been negatived, it may not b e proposed again without some

intermediate proceeding. Furthermore Mr. Speaker has power under

standing order No. 28, if he believes that any dilatory motion is an

abuse of the rules of the House, to decline to propose the question on

it to the House."

I submit to the hon. members that when this House passed a motion

when we adjourned at 1 o'clock to reconvene at 2 to conduct the

business of the House, that is what we are here to do, and that a

motion to adjourn would be an abuse of the rules of this House, I so

order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of respect for the Chair and the good order of this House, I wish you would hear my argument.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, I have heard your motion. I have heard debate on the motion.

MR. LAUK: You have not, Sir. Mr. Speaker, I moved a motion

that the House at its rising do sit at a particular time. I did not

move a motion of adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will you please take your seat?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the manner in which you couch the terms of your motion is such that it is an abuse of the rules of this House...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: ...inasmuch as it is clearly a motion to

adjourn, which the House has already decided upon. They decided at 1

o'clock that our business would be conducted again this afternoon at 2.

There is no business before the House that has taken place at this

time. It is not a proper motion at this time, and I so rule.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There has been a challenge of the Speaker's ruling; there is no debate on the challenge.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Shelford

Chabot

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Veitch

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

King

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

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

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask you, on a point of order: since you have ruled, and that ruling has

been sustained by the House, that the motion by the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is out of order at this time — and I was

very careful to note that you repeated "at this time" several times —

could you perhaps tell the House at this time, or what times, such

motions would be in order? Because if they are out of order at this

time and we don't know when they would be in order, in theory the House

could never adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Speaker can only deal with

questions of order and points of order as they arise in the House. At

this time it is the duty of the Speaker to deal with the business which

[ Page 795 ]

before the House.

MR. DARCY: Mr. Speaker, there have been motions to adjourn,

of course, in every parliament since it's ever been constituted. You've

suggested that motions to adjourn are in order by members of the House,

one of the 54 private members of this House, at some times and not at

other times. If they're out of order at 2:35, when are they in order?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! You are now reflecting on a vote which

has just taken place in the House, which is improper. The Speaker deals

with matters that are before the House when they are before the House.

I cannot contemplate what action may be taken or what particular matter

may be put before us during the remainder of this afternoon.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, you are, I

presume, proceeding now to orders of the day — that is the next order

of business. On a point of order, I don't have a copy of orders of the

day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, there is a long-standing tradition in this House....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Speaker is standing. Will you please remain silent for a moment?

There is a long-standing tradition in this House that where an

adjournment is of a short duration we proceed into the business on the

basis of the order paper we have worked on this morning and through to

this afternoon. The orders will be called by the Clerk at the table on

the same basis and in the same manner as if you had an order paper

newly printed and before you.

I think the hon. member can understand the impossibility of getting

a new order paper printed in a matter of a one-hour adjournment. This

is not something that is unusual; it has happened many times, in many

sessions, on many days before in this Legislature.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think on that point of order, Your

Honour has just given an excellent reason why one-hour adjournments

shouldn't be contemplated to unusual hours by this House. I would draw

Your Honour's attention....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It was not the Speaker's decision of an hour adjournment, it was the House's decision.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate it wasn't your decision, Mr. Speaker; I didn't suggest it was.

I am drawing your attention to standing order 33 which suggests that

a motion for reading or proceeding to the orders of the day shall have

precedence to any motion before this House. I ask how there can be a

reading of the orders of the day if there are no orders of the day

printed.

It's an elementary principle of any parliament that orders of the

day are printed, and I would ask Your Honour how that standing order

can be carried out.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I just explained what happens on a

short adjournment, as we have been involved in today, and how the

orders of the day are presented by the Clerk from the table of the

House. For further clarification I'll now read to you from Beauchesne,

4th edition, 1958: "In the

interpretation of the rules or standing

orders the House is generally guided not so much by the literal

construction of these orders themselves as by the consideration of what

has been practice of the House with respect to them."

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, on looking at

standing orders it's normal practice for the House, of course, to have

question period on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday — there not

being a 2 p.m. sitting. On orders for the day for Friday, oral

questions by members does appear on orders for the day. It says, in

parenthesis: afternoon sitting — Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and

Thursday. It anticipates we would follow the practice of the standing

orders, and not have an afternoon sitting on Friday because, of course,

an afternoon sitting on Friday is prescribed to be from 10 o'clock to 1

o'clock. So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest oral question period is in

order at this time, following introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, dealing with your point of order:

question period is not in order on Friday. It was dealt with very

thoroughly by the previous Speaker of the House, and in recommendations

that were handed down to this House. The question period will occur on

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and there is no oral question

period on Friday. That was the report, and that was adopted by this

House.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to take it a step further, if you would bear with me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

[ Page 796 ]

MR. NICOLSON: The standing orders did not anticipate afternoon sittings separate....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It is not a matter of debate, hon.

member. It is a matter of the rules that have been adopted by this

House. The rules clearly state that there shall be question periods on

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; there shall be no question

period on Friday. That was a matter that has been adopted by this

House, and it's not now a matter of debate this afternoon.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Take your seat, please. I have just said,

hon. member, that that is not a question for debate now; it's a matter

of prolonging the issue by trying to bring up points that are not

debatable at this particular time. If the matter you wish to talk about

on a point of order has anything to do with the question period on

Friday, it's out of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you take your seat please. It

is not a matter of debate to discuss oral question period on Friday.

There is no oral question period on Friday — period! That ends the

matter.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I might

say that I am quite happy to take my place in the budget debate here

today, even if some people in this House don't want to work on behalf

of the public.

I am very happy to be, back representing the people from the great

riding of Cariboo. I might say that I had less difficulty getting

re-elected this time than I did in prior times.

I would, first of all, Mr. Speaker, like to congratulate you on your

elevation to Speaker, and the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) to

the office of Deputy Speaker. I wish you well during your term in

office. I would like to extend to all MLAs who were re-elected, or

elected for the first time, my congratulations and wish them well in

this new parliament.

I would particularly like to say a few words to the members elected

for the first time. I understand there are 19 MLAs elected for the

first time, 17 from the Social Credit Party and two from the New

Democratic Party. I want to extend to them a special welcome to this

Legislature and hope that they enjoy their term of office. As a matter

of fact, over a third, of the members of this parliament are new and I

think that bodes well for public life in British Columbia.

I'd just like to review with you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of

the House, the results of the election held on December 11. Statements

have been made and I've been sitting here observing, but I think it

would be well to relate what really happened on December 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, you should know, Mr. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). You certainly should know.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not even being....

HON. MR. FRASER: Your running mate put his running shoes on and where is he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Quick.

HON. MR. FRASER: The Social Credit Party were elected

government with 49-odd per cent of the popular vote, one of the largest

popular votes given to any government for a long period of time in this

province. With 49-odd per cent of the popular vote they elected 35

members to this House.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Not popular now.

HON. MR. FRASER: The NDP got 39 per cent of the popular vote

and elected 18 members to this Legislature. The Liberal Party — that

great Liberal Party that used to be — got 7 per cent of the popular

vote and the Progressive Conservative Party got less than 4 per cent —

as a matter of fact, I believe, about 3.8 per cent.

I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of

the House that the Social Credit Party increased their popular vote 50

per cent from the 1972 election to form the Government of British

Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: And what did the NDP do that were a government from 1972 to 1975? They

[ Page 797 ]

stood still. They spun their wheels. That's all they did.

As far as the splinter parties are concerned, their vote pretty well disintegrated.

MR. MACDONALD: They're all over there. You got the splinters.

HON. MR. FRASER: And also what happened to the former party

that was government, the NDP, was that they lost their leader. He lost

in his own riding and, of course, lost the government as well.

The second member — a running mate for the first member for

Vancouver East — he was able to cling on and get elected but he

couldn't face the music in the House and he put his running shoes on

and resigned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sneakers.

HON. MR. FRASER: So we now have the situation, Mr. Speaker,

where we have this disorganized NDP over there, leaderless and they

don't know where they're going. I can just assure them that they are as

far in this province as they'll ever go right now in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Knock, knock.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, getting on to the budget. This

is a face-the-facts budget. 1, first of all, in case I forget, want to

congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) for delivering

this balanced budget to the people of British Columbia.

The Minister of Finance, the irresponsible opposition we have over

there have tried to zero in on him, but I want to say that he was under

very difficult circumstances when he had to come up with this budget.

And I think he's done a wonderful job with the financial fiasco that he

had to correct.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House that

when the NDP were elected in 1972 they took over with the budget and

the money of this province building, and we took over when it was all

gone. So that made it doubly difficult for the new Minister of Finance.

In this budget, Mr. Speaker, it emphasizes services to people. Three

departments of government — Health, Human Resources and Education —

account for 64 per cent of this budget of $3,600 million-odd dollars.

It certainly does put emphasis on services to people.

I would make an observation, Mr. Speaker. It's the first time since

the Depression that money is provided in this budget in the form of

interest on debt to run the province of British Columbia, and that is

most unfortunate.

You know, the last budget brought out in 1975 predicted revenues of

over $3 billion and they missed this projection — the prior

administration — by some $400 million-odd dollars.

Mr. Speaker, when that budget debate was taking place, the then

opposition, of which I was a member, pointed out to them that they had

miscalculated at least $100 million of that $300 million on forest

revenues alone. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly where $100

million of their miscalculation took place.

They not only had less revenue than anticipated, Mr. Speaker, but

their expenditures exceeded what they had budgeted for by some $200-odd

million, which is the situation that we found the province in

financially when we took over the government on December 22.

I might say that even while the estimates were being debated during

the 1975 session, Mr. Speaker, they were not factually presented,

because right at the time they were being discussed — and I'm thinking

of the month of June, 1975, when we were discussing estimates of

certain departments — orders had already been given out to the

departments to cut back a minimum of 10 percent.

We found the medical plan with no funds in it; ICBC bankrupt, with

$175 million debt; the B.C. Building under construction in downtown

Vancouver, the B.C. Building fund almost expended and another $90-odd

million required to complete the structure.

I would just like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I don't know what

would have happened if that inept group over there, the NDP, had been

re-elected. I would think that we'd be in the same position today as

the people in New York find themselves at the present time. They did

not have any idea where they were going, Mr. Speaker. They had taken no

collective action to set the province back on a proper course, and

there certainly was.... That was the situation we found ourselves in

when we took over.

The people of this province, though, saw through the charade put on

by them when they were government. They lost confidence in them and

threw them out of office. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that they gave our

party a mandate to come in and clean up the mess, and that's what we

intend to do.

We said, Mr. Speaker, and members, that we would get B.C. moving again, and that is also what we intend to do.

First of all we will restore confidence in this province by

investors and the like who will create industry and jobs and they will

not be afraid of being taken over as they were under the prior

administration.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that B.C. is already

moving again. There have been a lot of events happen since we formed

the government and I'd just like to quote from an item in the Times of just the other day. This wasn't an expert or anything, just an ordinary citizen quoted, and the heading of it

[ Page 798 ]

is: "New Firms Booming in B.C."

"New companies are starting up or expanding in British

Columbia in record numbers since the Social Credit government came to

power, according to the office of the registrar of companies.

"In the first three months of this year the number of

companies formed was up 35 per cent from the same period last year, and

the number of companies expanding into British Columbia upped 26 per

cent.

"In March, a record of 1,142 new companies were

incorporated in British Columbia. Victoria Chamber of Commerce

president Jack Hutchings said the number reflects a feeling of

confidence among businessmen that they will get better treatment under

the new government than they did under the socialist New Democratic

Party. Hutchings said there was no economic news that justified the

present expansion, and it must be due to the political change in

British Columbia."

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that B.C. is already starting to move again.

In the mining field — in which exploration had come to a standstill,

and those that were operating mines wished they hadn't been operating

them — I am sure there is new confidence in that field, and as

government policy is spelled out further confidence will follow,

creating more jobs in that sector.

I might say to you, Mr. Speaker and members, that it has already

happened in the forest industry. Not only has the price of lumber and

that advanced — and we certainly don't take credit for that — but again

confidence has been restored to the forest industry and announcements

have already been made by existing companies to expand, and we didn't

have one expansion in the forest industry from the years 1970 through

to 1975. Not one expansion, other than what government themselves have

done, such as Plateau Sawmills and that. But in the private sector of

the forest industry that had no confidence and now they have and I'm

sure we're on the road to recovery in that industry.

Just a few other items, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to mention.

What we inherited: we inherited a lot of holes from the NDP. I guess

the biggest ones that we are trying to correct are the holes that they

left in the treasury of this province. The holes were so large the

treasury was empty. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this new

government is taking measures to fill the treasury so we can create

jobs and get B.C. moving again.

Other holes were left, referring now to the Highways department; all

they left there were holes and potholes throughout all the roads in our

province. There has been nothing done on them of any major nature in

the last three years. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when

finances are available we'll correct that and fill those holes as well.

Last but not least of the holes they left in the ground were where

now government buildings were to go. I refer to holes in the ground in

the city of Victoria and, of course, the famous downtown Vancouver

Building. Really, what we inherited there were immense holes in the

ground where buildings were supposed to go. Lo and behold, in downtown

Vancouver, particularly that on.... The prior Social Credit

administration had set up the B.C. Building fund — I believe it was in

the session of 1969 — and the NDP had pretty well spent the $25 million

set up in that fund. We are now told that we have to find another $90

million to fill that hole. I assure you again, as time goes on we will

fill that hole with a building which will be a credit to the great city

of Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention one other item that I was amused

at. The opposition got hold of orders-in-council and criticized the

Minister of Finance regarding certain orders-in-council. I just want

to, on that subject, relate to you an order-in-council that.... I don't

know whether it had any legality to it or not, but it was passed by the

prior administration. I want you to take particular note of the date —

December 19, 1975.

This order-in-council number is 3832 for the record of the

opposition over there. It is to loan to the Village of Lillooet the sum

of $173,500 to purchase a piece of land.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this order-in-council was put forward by the

former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hartley). He knew then that the

Department of Public Works — he must have known — didn't have enough

money to carry out their own projects, and here he brings forward to

the executive council of that time an order-in-council to loan money to

the Village of Lillooet after he had been defeated. Also, there was a

fellow around here who was the presiding member of the executive

council called Dave Barrett, and he had also been defeated. They were

the ones who signed this order-in-council to loan money that they knew

they didn't have. This land was being purchased by the Village of

Lillooet — I see nothing wrong with that — but they had made

application to the Department of Housing and had been turned down by

the Department of Housing. This land was for housing.

So they go ahead, these two defeated cabinet ministers, and process

order-in-council 3832 to further put this province in debt. I should

tell you, Mr. Speaker, the cheque hadn't been issued following this

order-in-council, and when we took over this jiggery-pokery was stopped

in its tracks.

I'd like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Village of Lillooet...

[ Page 799 ]

MR. KING: Misleading the House.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: ...is in the riding of Yale-Lillooet which

was represented by the former Minister of Public Works. Was this a

political payoff? I don't know why he had to do anything like that,

because they had rejected him.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): What's an order-in-council?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I know there is lots of

business to be conducted there, but I want to reiterate that I fully

support this budget and hope to see — and it has already started — B.C.

moving again back to where it was in 1972.

On behalf of Hon. Mr. Williams Hon. Mr. Davis moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope no hon. member of this House would

suggest when the Speaker consults with his Clerks that there is

anything peculiar about that situation.

Hon. members, before I discuss whether the motion is in order or

not, I think that I should point out for the benefit of the members of

the House some of the terms that are used within not only this House

but every house of parliament and some of the significance of those

terms. When I address the hon. Leader of the Opposition I do that

traditionally because that is the role and that is the title assigned

to the person who is recognized as the Leader of the Opposition. By the

same token, when I address the House Leader it is a tradition and a

term that is used to single out that person in government who has the

responsibility and has been so designated. They are terms which are in

common usage to describe the position, so I refer to the Leader of the

Opposition or the House Leader. Now by tradition in this House of long

standing, the type of motion that has just been moved by the Leader of

the Opposition is out of order in that it is the prerogative of the

House Leader to set the time of the next sitting of the House.

It has been established for many, many years and I am prepared for

the benefit of the members of this House to bring in a written report

on why it is so, not only in this jurisdiction but in others. I am

prepared to do that as quickly as possible but I must now say to you

that the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition is

clearly out of order and I so rule.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Shelford

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Veitch

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

King

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Gibson

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Wallace, G.S.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I move we proceed on orders of the day.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Shelford

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Veitch

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

King

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Barber

Mark SobolewskiWallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

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

[ Page 800 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there's a motion that has precedence

over all orders of the day and is included therefore: adjourned debate

on the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to

go into Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: We have been in and out of Committee of Supply in this session, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: No, we haven't.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we have.

MR. LAUK: Not this afternoon.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Highways adjourned the

debate at 1 o'clock. He resumed his place at 2 and spoke in the debate.

Then a motion was moved to adjourn the debate until the next sitting by

the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). We

have, Hon. Member, been in and out of Committee of Supply for this

afternoon.

MR. LAUK: Well, my understanding was that the House sat this whole afternoon and that we didn't move into Committee of Supply.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're mixed up.

MR. SPEAKER: You're incorrect, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: We argued the motion that we go into Committee of Supply, but we weren't in Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Is the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) going to speak in this debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the minister has already delivered his address.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I'm sorry. It went unnoticed. (Laughter.)

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

I wonder if I might ask, for those of us on this side of the House who

can't anticipate what's coming on, if we might have a list of the

nit-picky motions we can expect so that we can be here and....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's out of order.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad we can get on with a little business this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Hon. Minister, before you

start I think I should advise the House that we're on the amendment to

Bill 11, which is to hoist the bill and read it six months hence, so

the debate that takes place now will have to be on the amendment. You

adjourned the debate, Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes I did, Mr. Speaker, and I was aware of

the motion I'd adjourned and other business in the House this

afternoon. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that before we go home for the weekend

we'll be able to make some progress.

We would not be making any progress, however, Mr. Speaker, if we

were to accept this amendment, which I can only describe as mischievous

on the part of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

who, in recent months, seems to have lost his sense of responsibility.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that he has become

overwhelmed once more with the fiscal ways of that government back

there in Ottawa that he was so closely associated with. He doesn't seem

to understand that fiscal responsibility is the cornerstone of good

government.

Mr. Member, I've sat in opposition to the former Social Credit

government and criticized them generously in this House, but never, Mr.

Speaker, for fiscal irresponsibility, because that was the cornerstone

of the former Social Credit government, just as it's the cornerstone of

this government.

MR. GIBSON: If there is a $100 million surplus, will you resign your seat?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well....

[ Page 801 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The Minister of Education has the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER: If there is a surplus, I can tell you this:

it will be because this government has done even better than we think

we can do, and because, Mr. Speaker, the confidence of British

Columbians, which has been indicated by the Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) earlier this afternoon....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, you weren't listening then. You missed a

good speech, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), because in

that speech he gave the kind of hard data that means something.

Hundreds of new companies are being established here in British

Columbia; hundreds of new companies are being established on the basis

of confidence.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Member, if this government did not have,

as the cornerstone of its philosophy and policies, fiscal

responsibility, these lifts in the economy of British Columbia would

not be taking place. If we brought before this assembly, as the member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) seems to think would be

desirable and responsible, a deficit budget or, worse yet, brought in a

deficit budget as the NDP did, without declaring it, then we would be

guilty of fiscal irresponsibility and the kind of confidence which is

growing in British Columbia would never come to pass.

What I find difficult, Mr. Speaker, to accept is this kind of a

motion from the opposition coming on top of motions of alleged

privilege being brought before you of leaks of budget information,

which it turns out were totally false and irresponsible in their

substance.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, in terms of intent here

comes the opposition protesting that budget measures should be brought

down in this House...

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...not passed by legislation to take effect....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Minister,

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the breach of the standing orders of

this House is that the hon. minister is anticipating debate on a motion

that's on the order paper. That's the first point.

The second point is that the minister, that member, sat in this

House as the leader of the Liberal Party and as a member of this House

for years, and he should know better, and I suggest to you he does.

He's just trying to deliberately fly in the face of the rules of this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: I should advise him right now, Mr. Speaker, that his Air West flight is leaving in 10 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got his own plane now!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, you know the rules all right well

enough, I would think, to know that you can't reflect on a motion

that's on the order paper.

HON. MR. McGEER: Of course not, Mr. Speaker, but....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. NICOLSON: In addition, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Wait until you are recognized, Hon. Member. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: In addition, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you

have a matter to which the member has referred under consideration, and

I would ask you to admonish him on that respect as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Proceed, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that those

two members, particularly the one from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk),

never knew the rules before he was in government, and he doesn't know

the rules now he's in opposition. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that he won't

have been the first member sitting in this House who didn't know the

rules, but he's certainly the member who is wasting the most time of

the House because he doesn't know the rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[ Page 802 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if there's any juggernaut here,

it's the juggernaut opposition with the wind that blows across here to

the government side.

MR. LAUK: It's a breath of fresh air! (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Would you get back to the amendment now, Hon. Minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think all responsible members

would recognize that once tax changes are proposed by a government, it

would be totally irresponsible to let those proposed tax changes lie in

front of the public while the bill was being debated. It is absolutely

essential that when tax changes are brought down they take effect as of

the moment that news is broken. This is standard practice, Mr. Speaker,

in the House of Commons in Ottawa for good reason, and it is standard

practice in every provincial legislature across the country. Once

having brought that budget information down in confidence, Mr. Speaker,

as it was by this government and by the present Minister of Finance,

the responsible way to act is to have that tax take effect as of the

moment the information is available.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), who associates

himself with this frivolous amendment, was suggesting otherwise. There

are times, Mr. Speaker, when that member makes economic sense but most

of the time he makes economic nonsense. By suggesting that this bill be

hoisted for six months he is not only advocating nonsense; he is

advocating irresponsibility.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: That is sound fiscal management, Mr. Member,

which is going to be the cornerstone of the policy of myself as

minister as well as the government, to a man.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that when the federal government some

years ago brought down its White Paper on taxation, without standing

behind that White Paper with definite and immediate legislation to take

effect as of the day the intent was declared, it created in this

country uncertainty and economic chaos. That went on for years, that

kind of habit. If there was anybody who had been in doubt before the

federal government brought down that White Paper on taxation, the

unfortunate results of that move should have been indelibly impressed

upon them — the consequences of irresponsible action of that kind.

I mention it particularly because the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano, who was associated with the federal government at

the Prime Minister's office during that period, should know better than

to come into this House and advocate and support the kind of

irresponsible amendment that is before this House this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear I intend to vote against this amendment.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, probably one

of the best arguments for the amendment to date has been the fact that

the hon. Minister of Education and all things wonderful in this

province (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is opposed to it.

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood in his place and said it would be

irresponsible to set the bill aside by amendment. Mr. Speaker, I

suggest to you that there are a lot of little people in this province

who don't share that opinion — a lot of little people in this province,

Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), through you, Mr. Speaker,

that have already been smitten by this 2 per cent additional sales tax.

Setting the bill aside for six months might give that government,

who haven't really gone into anything to date, an opportunity to study

the finances and the potential of this province to produce revenues.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): What did you do in three years?

MR. COCKE: A great deal, Mr. Shovels and Tulips.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you get yourself a haircut!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we don't feel it at all

irresponsible, because what the Minister of Education was saying was

that people might anticipate that the bill would certainly be brought

in in six months' time. But the reason that that amendment was put

forward was that the member for Capilano and many of the members on

this side of the House anticipate just the opposite — that it wouldn't.

be required. We suspect very strongly that the government, which has

been on a spending spree ever since they were empowered by the

Lieutenant-Governor.... Obviously, we went through a debate; I think we

pretty well sorted that out. But, Mr. Speaker, that government would

like to have an opportunity to have all the scope they want. They

wanted to plunge the province into debt to begin with. Now they're

asking, Mr. Speaker, to plunge the people of this province into debt.

We are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that it's not the least bit

irresponsible to take a second look, to give this government, this new

government, this government that requires a great deal of bolstering, an

[ Page 803 ]

opportunity to at least study what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Education talked about.... I

believe he was talking about the Carter commission report coming down,

and chastised at that time....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, he was talking about the White Paper on

taxation. Oh, well, in that case, I agree. I appreciate the fact that

there were some problems around that situation.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is not a mischievous amendment, for the

following reason: we anticipate that these funds are not required.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, he went on to call it a mischievous amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Frivolous!

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that is rather a serious attack on a

person whom even that minister a few short months ago felt had done

enough in this House to present himself in such a way as to be

acknowledged by all sides of the House as to be anything but

mischievous.

So, Mr. Speaker, how did that member suddenly become mischievous in

the eyes of the minister? I don't know what his claim to fame might be

around being mischievous, but I know there's a lot of

25-year-old-and-under males in this province who suspect him of being a

little mischievous. In any event it was not a mischievous amendment

brought in by a person who is not mischievous.

MR. LAUK: Was that the minister that raised the rates on insurance?

MR. COCKE: Mr. member, you are so right. That minister who

just a few moments ago was pontificating.... Do you know how he

pontificates? He said: "We've brought confidence in the province." But

that's pontificating for this reason: if this government had truly

brought confidence to the province, then they wouldn't be raising a

sales tax; they would know that the confidence would have given a

regeneration of revenue. He knows. In the back of his mind he's

worrying. He's worrying about the 109,000 people who are unemployed in

B.C. and they're going to have to pay this sales tax — 109,000 people.

You know, they were screaming across there when we had 80-something

last year.

MR. LAUK: He said: "Work and wages."

MR. COCKE: Work and wages, that's what they were going to

produce, Mr. Speaker. Instead of producing that, they reject an

amendment to assist those 109,000 people who are having a difficult

time making ends meet on sometimes unemployment insurance, on sometimes

welfare and sometimes nothing.

So I wonder at the confidence of British Columbians. I wonder if the

confidence of British Columbians is going to be eroded — confidence in

a government that refuses to take a second look, a government that even

today broke the rules, upset the normal conduct of business in this

House, and seems to be creating a continuing pattern in that regard.

I think that when the Minister of Education stands up and says in

this House that fiscal responsibility will be the cornerstone of this

new government, and then they go on to put forward a bill that doesn't

reflect fiscal responsibility in the eyes of by far the majority of the

informed economic experts and political scientists in this country and

other countries....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker, they should be accepting,

particularly the backbenchers. I don't know what kind of discussions

you've had with your people back home. You're not getting back home

this afternoon; maybe some time when you can make a phone call, ask

them whether or not they would like to see this amendment accepted.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, so the north is heard from — Skeena; the voice

of Omineca. Mr. Speaker, we heard some great, glowing reports coming

out of the north from that member, and those glowing reports will be

even more glowing, I'm sure, when the people up in Omineca find out

that that member did not support an amendment that would at least give

this government an opportunity to take a look at one or two things,

including their conscience. Mr. Speaker, I think that's what this

debate is all about.

You know, I have to smile. When the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) was discussing this question, what did he say? He said that

hundreds of new companies are forming in this province. I don't know

how relevant that was to the amendment. It strikes me that if it was

relevant at all then he would be confident enough and accept this

amendment, because if it in fact were true, then he could anticipate

those increased revenues. But that minister, Mr. Speaker, knows full

well that in the last three or four years there has been a real

increase in confidence in the economic climate in B.C., and I'm here to

hope

[ Page 804 ]

that this government doesn't ruin it.

Mr. Speaker, he also made a charge when he was standing there that

the NDP brought this province into a deficit without declaring it. That

was an argument that we had around Bill 3 and I think it was quite

unfair of him raising it, but since he raised it, I think we dispatched

it from this side of the House. While we can't win the votes, it

strikes me that there are a great many people who have a far, far

better understanding of that now than they did prior, and the fact that

most people, I'm sure, are confident that this government cooked the

books in that regard.

I also noted that the Minister of Education, during this same period

of his speech, got up and talked about the Member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk).

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Where is he?

MR. COCKE: Probably making a phone call breaking a bunch more

appointments, Mr. Minister of Health. Incidentally, did you clue your

backbenchers in on this charade this afternoon?

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't even know it was a charade.

MR. COCKE: The charade that's going on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, if that Minister of Health works as

hard as this Minister of Health did while in office...we will see and

we'll be checking your output. So far you are not doing too good.

You're breaking up everything you're touching. But, anyway, Mr.

Speaker, getting back to the amendment....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I note that with a great deal of humour....

AN HON. MEMBER: Smile then.

MR. COCKE: I'm smiling as hard as I can smile.

Mr. Speaker, not one of that Mickey Mouse bunch — is that on the

list? — has got up and discussed either the amendment or the bill in

principle.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, I draw your

attention the second time to the fact that the member for New

Westminster has the floor. Please don't presume upon my patience.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, naturally there is a great feeling of

resentment in this House at the present time around the fact that the

government will not even countenance a hard look at an amendment that

says, as follows: "Save the people the burden for at least six

months...." You've heard the arguments and you know yourselves that

there's a tremendous increase, even without increasing sales tax, in

the revenue that you can anticipate. There is a suggestion that one of

the things you will be doing by increasing this sales tax will be

reducing that margin and therefore you have not really accomplished

what you wanted to do. We suggest, Mr. Speaker, that theMinister of

Finance take another look, a serious look, on behalf of the people in

this province.

The Minister of Finance smiles. Let that go on the record. Take it

seriously, Mr. Minister of Finance. Take it seriously, There was a

serious, reasoned amendment put forward asking that you take a second

look. This government suggests that they wouldn't mind doing some work,

and the backbenchers say they don't mind working. I suggest to you in

that case you bring it back in the fall. Six months from now if the

revenues are not as you would hope and will not balance, then you can

start putting forward this kind of legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, now

is not the time. We suggested to you a few days ago that it wasn't the

time to plunge the province into debt, and on top of the debt now you

have to bring forward a 2 per cent increase in the sales tax, a most

regressive step indeed.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing I'd like to say before I sit down is

with respect to a few accusations made by the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer). He suggested that there's been wasting of time in

this House.

Mr. Speaker, we recall a different kind of wasting time, and we are

not going to go back into those bad old days. I wish he wouldn't make

those kinds of charges here. I wish that he would try to understand

that where we are talking in terms of the rules of the House, the

anticipated work load and all the rest of it, that he wouldn't try to

turn this House, or turn the rules of this House, into a dictatorship

that is working against the effective use of opposition time. Don't

forget, Mr. Speaker, that member must know that 51 per cent of the

people in this province voted for the opposition in total.

So it is not a mischievous amendment; it's a reasoned position taken

by a very reasonable person. I would hope that the Minister of Finance

will really give it some thought. And in order to give him that

opportunity, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting

of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 805 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Macdonald

King

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Mark SobolewskiD'Arcy

Barnes

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 26

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Shelford

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Veitch

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure rising to support

the amendment that this bill be hoisted for six months. I think,

perhaps, that we can recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill, so far

as the people of the province of British Columbia are concerned, when

he said that never did so much happen to so many in such a short space

of time.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I think I got that right. It is totally true

as to the way this government has acted in terms of adding inflationary

burdens to the people of the province. This amendment moved by the

Liberal leader would have the effect of extending for six months one of

those burdens and giving the people of this province a little chance to

breathe and get back on their feet and to promote, possibly, for the

benefit of the Minister of Labour there (Hon. Mr. Williams) who is

listening attentively, a better chance — I am serious about this — a

better chance of having industrial peace in this province.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that minister knows better than anyone

else the feelings that go once you've signed a collective agreement for

one or two years and then you find that government steps in and

increases the price of the commodities that you have to buy out of your

wages, and people.... That's the way to industrial unrest.

So to give the people a chance to breathe and to re-establish some

kind of family budgeting, this bill could very usefully be hoisted for

six months. Look what's happened to them: tremendous ICBC rate

increases, hospitalization, threatened with ferries, natural gas up at

the wholesale level — it will soon be passed on by B.C. Hydro and

certainly Inland Natural Gas in the amount of 15 per cent onto their

energy bills — electricity costs up 12 per cent, income tax deductions

up and on top of that you add a regressive tax with a tax burden

increase of 40 per cent, with exceptions, it is true, but minor

exceptions covering the necessities of life.

So I do say, never has so much happened to any people as has

happened to the people of the province of British Columbia in terms of

burdens assessed against them than has happened in the last four months

of Social Credit government rule. I think it's time that they did have

a breather and a break.

This motion to merely extend this bill would create, perhaps,

difficulties for the government because they have been illegally

collecting this tax increase already...no legislative authority to

impose taxes except through this Legislature.

That tax is being collected from the citizens right now. And if this

amendment passes for the six-month hoist, then the right thing will be

done. There will be refunds to the store owners as best they can be

made for the illegal tax that has been exacted from them in the last

few weeks, since March 26, and they will have a period of time to try

to get back onto some kind of family budgeting without these continual

imposts.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the game plan of Social Credit is to do

everything that they can that's unpopular and they think has to be done

to improve their treasury at this time, and they expect the people will

forget. I want to tell that government that they can cause some of the

people to forget some of the things some of the time, but they can't

make all of the people forget all of the things they've been doing all

of the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right. And they will remember — and I'm

not fighting the December 11 election all over again — but they will

remember what has been happening to them since December 11, because no

government has ever been so unconscionable in levying burdens against

the ordinary people of a province in such a short space of time as has

this government of the Social Credit Party.

I, therefore, take my seat supporting this amendment, and I add one

word, Mr. Speaker, that somehow, with all the mistakes that this

government has made, they have found the secret of how to prolong

debates in this House. They have. The Whip system has broken down, and

the regular hours of sitting, which would create shorter and better

debates, have been abandoned. I make that suggestion in a spirit of

good will and totally out of order, as Mr.

[ Page 806 ]

Speaker is getting ready to say — that I am totally

out of order. But you know, you abandoned the regular hours, the Whip

system goes down. So the opposition doesn't know what you're going to

do next, and what do you get? You get this kind of debate that is

happening this afternoon.

I'd suggest that we should go home, but I think that the government should give serious consideration to this hoist.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I take some pleasure

in rising to express my opposition to this amendment, and the pleasure

is doubled — double your pleasure when you follow the hon. member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald).... Mr. Speaker, is it the first member

or the second member who just spoke?

AN HON. MEMBER: The only member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This is the member who did not run away.

The reason it's such a pleasure to speak in debate following the

only member for Vancouver East is that he's such an orator. He just

gave you a classic example of how you prolong debate in this House, and

I want to assure the new members in this House that they have

witnessed, a few moments ago, a skill which I have seen repeated year

after year after year, ever since 1967 when I came, and that's a skill

to expound at length on either side of the problem, whichever happens

to be up for debate at the particular moment.

MR. MACDONALD: I couldn't teach you anything!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You can come down on both sides of the same problem with ease, and do it eloquently.

You know, Mr. Speaker, just to indicate to you how irresponsible the

opposition is being in supporting the amendment of the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), may I recall to you that last night

the only member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) spoke in debate on

second reading of this bill saying how terrible it was that the

legislation was being made retroactive, and he said it again a few

moments ago. It was a terrible thing that the legislation was to be

retroactive — retrospective.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, retroactive, though retrospective, as the hon. member knows, is perhaps a more appropriate word.

Yet what is he doing? He's standing up today and supporting an

amendment which would ensure that the bill isn't read for a second time

for six more months, and therefore the retroactivity would be even

greater than it is today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Isn't it wonderful! Last night he was

arguing how terrible it was. Now he wants to make sure that it's not

retroactive a few days; he wants it to be retroactive at least six

months.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The same member...and he was just as

eloquent last night as he was this afternoon. In fact, perhaps he was

even more eloquent last night, because I think he spoke after dinner

and his eloquence increases with the lateness of the hour.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there's the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). You know, I've always had great respect

for the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). My respect for

him is so great I don't know how he could allow that little member to

become the first member. We used to have difficulty when the first

member for Vancouver Centre was on this side of the House, telling

whether he was standing in his place or not, but we've now learned the

technique. When he stands up his face gets red, and when he sits down

it blanches again. So we now know the secret, Mr. Member, and it's very

helpful.

But, you know, for a party which rails against retroactive legislation, retroactive taxes....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask the members when they have

a few moments during the course of this debate to take out the statutes

of this province and look at a bill that was passed in 1974 in this

House,

chapter 54, the Mineral Royalties Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You know, that debate raged in this House

for many, many days, The debate was finally concluded on June 20, 1974.

But do you know what's in that bill in

section 27? Let me read what it

says: "This Act, excepting this

section 1n the title, comes into force

on a date to be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor by his proclamation

and he may

[ Page 807 ]

fix different dates for coming into force of

several provisions and, upon coming into force, the Act or its

provisions are retroactive and shall be deemed to have come into force

on the first day of January 1974."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Now we passed the legislation finally on

June 20, 1974, and it received royal assent on that day, the last day

before we adjourned that session.

AN HON. MEMBER: You approved that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They brought in legislation which

specified that the consequences of that legislation would come into

effect on January 1, six months before.

Interjections,

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's the legislation, Mr. Speaker, as

you well know, which served to destroy the mining industry in the

province of British Columbia and the jobs of countless of our citizens,

many of them from your constituency, Mr. Speaker. It made it impossible

for them to earn their livelihood, make their contribution to the

economy of this province, raise their families and, indeed, contributed

to the deficit which we have to make up by bringing in tax legislation

such as we are debating today. Retroactivity, I'm sure.

That's the kind of legislation that the NDP government brought in.

There were no problems in those days, and, Mr. Speaker, while we're

talking about the way this House is being conducted, let me also assure

the new members in this House that under the former government they

ruled with an iron hand. We sat when they wanted us to sit, as long as

they wanted us to sit. We sat in the mornings. Do you think legislation

by exhaustion doesn't commence when you sit in the morning or when you

sit late at night or when you sit on Friday afternoon? That was a

decision made by the Premier (Mr. Barrett) of this province and the

Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall) who controlled this House, who told the

opposition nothing about what business would be conducted — day after

day after day. We have heard all these pious debates about how the

opposition is being rolled over by the juggernaut. It's exactly the

same thing that went on before.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): We sat on Saturdays.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This government...

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ...is prepared to go ahead with the

business of the people and get it done. If that opposition wants to

obstruct, then they will have to sit the hours that are required for

this work to be done.

MR. LAUK: I didn't think you'd be a party to that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But if they want to deal with the

government and deal with the business of the people in a fair and

responsible way, then you will find that the processes of government

will work smoothly for the benefit of the people of this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my

remarks in this regard, may I also make one further reference to the

passage of the Mineral Royalties Act on June 20, 1974?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, could you relate that to the amendment that is before us, please?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm speaking directly about the specific

amendment which we are today debating. We are debating, as the members

well know, a motion, the passage of which would affect, would

frustrate, the further debate and the passage of this legislation, this

taxing statute, for six months.

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the distinguished member for North

Peace River (Hon. Mr. Smith) on June 20, 1974, had occasion to rise in

his place on the third reading of the Mineral Royalties Act, Bill 31 —

the infamous Bill 31 — and move this same motion. If you look in Hansard

of this House, you will find that during the course of the debate not

one government member, not one government minister, stood up in the

debate and spoke against that amendment, but they all voted against it

— all voted against it. Precisely the same motion was made and the

government members and the treasury benches sat silent during the

course of that debate. Nothing to say whatsoever — not one word.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In this particular case, members of the

government have risen to indicate clearly why it is essential that this

legislation be passed, why it is appropriate that we continue with the

debate on second reading of this bill. That was

[ Page 808 ]

not the case with that former government. They just

sat silent. They used their majority to abolish, if they could, the

effects of the opposition.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of correction. As a

member of that former government let me remind hon. members that the

debate on Bill 31 went over months, and the debate on the Land

Commission was filibustered with one speech of 34 hours by one member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and it's totally unfair....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: To say that the government was silent is ridiculous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: Don't let them rewrite history, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, the Minister of Labour, in his remarks, referred to a specific vote on the third reading of a bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I want to get the whole story.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, may I respectfully

remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it was that member, as Attorney-General,

who tried to prevent the amendment being debated in this House, and the

Speaker of the day stood up for the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith) and saw that it was debated. Hansard clearly shows that you

tried to have the amendment to hoist for six months declared out of

order so it could not be debated before this House.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, apparently I raised a

point of order about an amendment two years ago, and the Minister of

Labour gets all red-faced and says what a terrible thing that was to

do. Really, come on!

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I hope to deal with the amendment which is to hoist Bill 11 for a period of six months.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed, I would like to note — I hope without

provoking the Minister of Labour further — that I was a member of the

30th legislature. At one point in his remarks he said that many, many

times the opposition had attempted to get a statement from the

government of the day as to what the next order of business would be at

the next sitting. I would ask that member to show me — not in the House

if he doesn't want to, but at some point — first of all when that

former government refused, when requested by anyone from the

opposition, including that member when he was a member of the Liberal

Party, at what time they refused to indicate what the order of business

was going to be — usually it was the member in front of me, the member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) who gave that information — and further

when that information, if it was given, was not followed by the

government when the House resumed at next sitting. I'm not saying it

didn't happen; I would just like you to show me — in the hall or

anywhere, Mr. Member — when that in fact took place. You said it

happened many times. Okay — produce it. Put action where your mouth is.

Show us.

Returning, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment — and thus far I think I

have spent far less time diverging than the majority of speakers who

have spoken before me on this particular amendment — I am primarily

concerned, as I said in earlier speeches in this House, with the effect

of this bill on the cost of living in British Columbia. I am not going

to discuss the morals of it or whether or not it mostly affects

ordinary people in British Columbia, but I am going to discuss the

overall effect on the cost of living in British Columbia.

The sales tax increase is part of a budget — and this is an

amendment on the sales tax increase, Mr. Minister of Finance, through

you, Mr. Speaker — which manifestly, by the figures produced by that

government over there, has arbitrarily increased the cost of living in

this province by over 10 per cent in 1976. The sales tax represents

fully one-third of. that increase, so it's a major portion.

The amendment is, as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has

pointed out, that they reduce that amount of increase in the sales tax

by one-half, since it means that we hoist the bill by six months. The

opposition, Mr. Speaker, is only requesting that we reduce the amount

of the cost-of-living increase by that government over there by

one-sixth. It's a token reduction, just a token reduction.

They have not shown this House or the people of British Columbia

that any increase is necessary, but even assuming that some increase in

the cost of living is necessary by arbitrary and dictatorial actions

from the government, then at least could we not reduce it by a small

amount? By my calculations all we're talking about, Mr. Speaker, is a

reduction in the cost-of-living increase in this province through the

rest of 1976 by 1.56 per cent. Do you want it to be on your record in

your ridings and in this province

[ Page 809 ]

that you are against reducing the cost of living in

this province by even a small amount — by even a tiny amount of 1.56

per cent? Evidently you do, because your speakers have told us that you

are against this amendment and that you intend to defeat this amendment

and that you intend to proceed willynilly on this Bill 11.

Mr. Speaker, here we are on Friday afternoon. I don't mind being

here to debate this or anything else, but I think what this suggests is

that the government doesn't even want to take the time over the

weekend. There's no urgency for this bill. It was retroactive to

midnight on March 26, it's in effect now, there's no urgency on it, and

they don't even want to consider it over the weekend — something that

is not urgent, which would reduce the cost of living in this province

by 1.56 per cent over the 12-month calendar period of 1976.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): A point of order, Mr. Speaker:

I would like to ask the hon. member speaking to withdraw the word

"dictatorial" from recent remarks made, as a matter of decorum in the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the hon. member for Rossland-Trail

may have used the word "dictatorial", but I did not take any

unparliamentary significance from the use of that word in the terms

that he used it.

I'd like to make a point at this particular time about the list of

words that have been ruled unparliamentary by previous Houses and

previous sessions of this Legislature. It's not the word itself, but

the word in context with the other remarks around it which have

sometimes made the word unparliamentary.

So while we have a list of words that have been ruled

unparliamentary by a previous Speaker, it should not be concluded. that

the use of that one particular word will always be ruled

unparliamentary by the Speaker of the House or the Chairman. It's the

context in which the word is used, quite often, which will help the

Chair decide if it was an unparliamentary statement or otherwise. So

while we have that list to help guide us in this House, it does not

follow that necessarily every word on there at every time and on every

occasion will be declared unparliamentary.

MR. KERSTER: Same point of order. It was not the word itself

that I was taking exception to as being unparliamentary; it was the

fashion in which it was used in describing this government as a

dictatorial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else would you say?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Rossland-Trail, I would just

ask the member: was he impugning any motive to government in using the

word "dictatorial", or any motive that should not be used in a

parliamentary manner?

MR. DARCY: Mr. Speaker, I was suggesting, indeed stating,

that it was my opinion that the method and the manner by which the

government was attempting to put through and defeat this amendment

showed a dictatorial intent in regard to putting through the budget

when it was not necessary, because by the law itself, by Bill 11, it is

retroactive until midnight on March 26. I was suggesting that the

method used to clear this bill from the order paper, in fact, showed

heavy-handedness and a dictatorial intent when something was clearly

not necessary to happen today or next week, because by the bill itself,

it is retroactive.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the member's explanation is adequate. Proceed.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Continuing with my remarks

regarding the effect on the cost of living, we have seen significant efforts,

misplaced as they may be, by the federal government to control cost-of-living

increases in Canada. Both this government and the former government were on

record as essentially saying that whether we like the law or not, whether we

think it's fair or reasonable, the federal law is the federal law and we

will do everything we can to enforce it.

We are now telling the people of British Columbia that "we don't

care whether we have asked you to use restraint; we don't care whether

we expect you to constrain yourselves in your personal spending; we

don't care whether we ask you to use special economy in your daily

affairs of running your business, practising your profession or holding

your job. We don't care anything about that; we are going to increase

your cost of living by 10 per cent." That concerns me.

What an example to the people of this province and to the young

people of this province who are coming on the labour market, who are

taking post-secondary education, technical training. What an example to

them! How are they going to look at this government, look at this

Legislature and look at the people who have been sent down to Victoria

or to Ottawa to attend there, hopefully, in their best interests?

The second aspect of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, is the effect that

these cost-of-living increases, particularly the sales tax increases,

will have on the personal and private decisions of investors in British

Columbia to not invest in primary industry. I think that kind of

investment is going to come based on the

[ Page 810 ]

world demand for B.C. products, since most B.C. raw

materials are just shipped out of our borders anyway — either to other

provinces or to other parts of the world.

So investment in primary industry is going to come, but what we

really need in British Columbia to improve our quality of life is

investment in job-intensive secondary and tertiary industries. What are

these increases going to mean to people who we depend on to accumulate

savings out of their disposable income, and to invest those savings,

either themselves, or through investment houses such as banks, trust

companies and credit unions? What are we doing to them? We're removing

their cushion; we're taking it out, the cushion they have against a

rainy day. We're removing their flexibility, their ability to

accumulate savings, and we're certainly discouraging them from

investing those savings because, after all, where people are to invest

there must be a reasonable rate of return presented to them — the

possibility of a reasonable rate of return.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just interrupt you for one

moment to suggest that you are really entering into a debate on the

principle of the bill more than on the principle of the amendment,

which is to read the bill six months hence. So all I would suggest is

that in your debate you relate your remarks to the reasons for hoisting

the bill for six months.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was a good point to

interrupt because I was about to give you a reason as to why my

remarks, which you interrupted me on, were related to hoisting the bill

for six months. It is because I am not satisfied, nor indeed, so I

suspect, are a great many members on the other side of the House, as to

the necessity of this bill at this time. We don't know that it's going

to be needed.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to see you in the chair.

We don't really know that this 40 per cent increase in the sales tax

is absolutely necessary at this time. We don't know if it is going to

discourage expansion in investment in secondary and service industries.

We don't know if it is going to cause an atmosphere of gloom, of

suspicion, of no growth, a paralysis of development of any reasonable

controlled economic future for British Columbia. We don't know the

answers to any of those questions.

We've already disrupted the economy to the extent of increasing it

by 10.2 per cent and now we are asked to go even further. It is because

of that uncertainty in my mind, and uncertainty in the minds of the

taxpayers, investors and consumers of British Columbia, that I

wholeheartedly support this motion in order to allow the government to

possibly consider its position and to save face — and to think about it

over the weekend, think about what they are doing — and certainly to

allow them to keep their position of trying to appear to be in control

of this House. Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of of this debate until

the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 24

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Shelford

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Veitch

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could address

yourself to standing order 34 and advise the House as to what might

constitute an intermediate proceeding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Hon. Member. The motion on 34 clearly

requires that an intermediate proceeding take place between two motions

to adjourn. This motion to adjourn could be either the motion to

adjourn the House or a motion to adjourn the debate. The question is:

what constitutes an intermediate proceeding? Since an intermediate

proceeding is interpreted to be a speech or number of speeches,

therefore a motion to adjourn the debate would be in order following

each succeeding speech. If it were not so, then a number of speeches

could also not constitute intermediate proceedings and at times we

would not be able to adjourn the debate or the House at the required

and pre-set times.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise to

support the amendment that Bill 11 be hoisted, or at least be put off

for six months, in order to do what I am sure the government would

[ Page 811 ]

like to do, and that is get some indication from

the consumers the citizens of the province of British Columbia as to

their feelings about the need for a 40 per cent increase in the social

services tax.

I am surprised, really, that the government is taking the position

it has taken, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be very anxious to rush through

a number of measures that are going to have disastrous effects, I

believe, on the purchasing power of most working people. They

campaigned on the premise that they would be concerned about the

ability of each individual to live successfully within the society and

enjoy the amenities of life — that is, food, clothing, shelter, the

essentials of life — and have the freedom to participate in those

things that effect their livelihood.

Yet a number of things have happened, really. I don't recall having

been consulted myself, as an elected member of the Legislature. Just

about every act that has taken place, in fact, has happened without any

discussion in the Legislature. A number of things have happened that

are going to have quite a determined effect upon the future of most

people in the lower-income and middle-income brackets.

It started off, of course, with the incredibly high increases in the

automobile insurance, which is a tax. There was no debate or discussion

over whether those rates should have been increased — at least none to

my knowledge. I don't recall having been contacted, Mr. Speaker. The 2

per cent tax is something that is not that much different because it

has a retroactive effect, and in fact it is in effect right now, so the

debate is rather academic.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you long enough

to remind you that the amendment is limited to the reasons for changing

the time from now to six months hence. Any debate which should better

be made when we return to the main question should be left for that

time. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much what you are

saying. I am always willing to accept any direction that will make any

remarks efficient and to the point. But the point I'm making is that

many measures have been taken already that are likely too late to be

changed — many of the measures such as hospital insurance increases,

medical services, you name it. We are talking about increasing the

school taxes as well, indirectly, by putting limits on what the

government will do and saying that, perhaps, the local municipalities

may have to pick up certain of these responsibilities. These are all

taxes and I'm afraid that the 2 per cent is just one more thing that

should be assessed very carefully.

I would hope that the government would certainly recognize that

opposition parties are attempting to suggest — that if we took the time

now, for just'a few months, to get some response from those people who

are going to be directly affected, that it would be a good service and

a good indication on the part of the government that it doesn't want to

go faster than the directly affected people are able to go. It's not a

question of whether they want to go, but are able to go.

I think we should be very careful about further pushing the net

value of the dollar down. It's incredibly weak right now. We have the

Anti-Inflation Board's controls on wages and, to some extent, on

prices, but there are no guarantees about anything very much except

wage control. I think the government has a responsibility to be careful

about imposing this 40 per cent increase. In fact, this represents some

$200 million that, perhaps, could be achieved in a number of other ways.

Most of us will recall — I am sure the government will recall,

having campaigned on it — that they were going to remove the succession

duties and gift tax simply because, I suppose, they felt that there

were a number of their supporters and friends who worked hard and

earned large estates and large sums of money, and should have the right

to pass these on to maintain their empires and their financially stable

position in society. Those revenues represented perhaps $25 million or

so. We would have just about one-eight of the funds they are trying to

get through the increased social services tax simply 1) y retaining

that particular Act, not to mention the possibilities in the resources

industry.

I think it is, again, a hidden tax when they claim that they have

raised by 2 percentage points the corporate income tax. That will

really be somehow passed on. I don't think the consumer is going to

escape there. They never do in the end.

The government has indicated its real passion, its real sentiments,

when it speaks about the need for business and government to work hand

in hand, and it sort of throws the individual in there incidentally.

Mr. Speaker, the people's business has to be in the hands of a

responsible government that has a conscience. It has a duty to use

imagination and prudence in finding alternative ways of giving people

an opportunity to continue their enthusiasm and interest and democratic

participation in the society of which we feel so proud, and certainly

with justification — with considerable justification.

But I think a lot of people are going to be disheartened,

discouraged and maybe even a little bit desperate by the immense number

of taxation measures that are being imposed upon them in such a short

space of time and with very little consultation. I am sure the

government itself is not able to measure the effect of some of the

programmes it has introduced.

You know, it is incredible that they could expect

[ Page 812 ]

to overcome what they consider a deficit position

with the medical insurance and the hospital programme by imposing 300

to 700 per cent increases on essential services, critical services.

Granted these services have to be paid for, but surely not overnight.

Just imagine what's going to happen to people who find themselves in

a chronic situation, with a large number of children in the family, and

these things happen. We have no way of predicting. Maybe the incidence

of a long-term stay in a hospital — it's only going to be a short

period of time, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps this will only happen once in a

lifetime, but when it does happen it's going to wipe out some of those

families. You know, from $365 a year for hospitalization to something

like $2,500 in the same period of time. It's more than most people can

bear. It's just not all that practical, when you think about it, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, this subject matter might better be debated under the train question.

MR. BARNES: Perhaps you're right, Mr. Speaker. I realize

that, and I'm going to suggest that the remarks I have made merely

illustrate what can happen when there is a lack of careful consultation

with constituents in various parts of the province on matters of

serious concern and of long effect, into the future, on the people's

lives. I don't think that the government is opposed to doing the kind

of things we've been suggesting. In fact there is every indication from

the comments that have been made by the Premier that he is very

concerned about the well-being of the citizens.

But you know, one is cautious about what the Premier said and what

he's doing, because we were criticized for not raising taxes during the

last campaign and told that we were not putting enough taxation on the

people, on the consumers, that perhaps we should have taken off some of

the burden on industry and put more burden on the backs of the people.

It seems to be a fundamental difference in philosophy, at least in the

practical philosophy, Mr. .Speaker, not necessarily in the rhetorical

philosophy, because we all, when we're campaigning, say a number of

things.

But the government doesn't seem to be that concerned about ordinary

people, in my view, and I would strongly urge that rather than move

fast on this particular bill, that the government take under

advisement, at least for the present time, the recommendations of the

opposition and not be too anxious to impose this tax, because it has a

big job to do to get people in a position where they can even

participate in the common market. There are a number of people that

aren't going to have sufficient funds to participate in the market,

because they don't have enough to subsist on a daily basis.

You know, we're coming up with very stringent measures in respect to

social assistance recipients. We're applying pressure on the

"employables" who must demonstrate their ability to be employed, the

way they dress, the way they present themselves. They must show to the

satisfaction of someone who will be judging them whether or not they

qualify. Even in cases where people have participated, Mr. Speaker in

the work force, they're going to be.... Those who are waiting for

unemployment Insurance are told that they can only have a couple of

weeks, and we all know the federal government sometimes takes a month

or two months or even three or four before, a person gets benefits. But

we're saying, "No, you've got to do better than that; we'll give you

two weeks." But we're not looking at the results.

I know we need the revenue, and I'm quite willing to look at all

possibilities, but I feel that the government has asked the people to

tighten their belts, and it has asked them to demonstrate their good

will and support of programmes that we need in order to balance the

budget and to be fiscally responsible but it has only given them one

side of the story. It's telling them to live with stringent measures

without giving them any alternatives themselves. I think that's

something that the government doesn't want to happen by an oversight.

Perhaps not. It's only through their diligence in trying to illustrate

their determination, I'm sure, to set a good example.

They are moving a little fast, Mr. Speaker, and I really feel that

the social services tax is going to discourage a lot of people. It's

going to discourage perhaps even those small operations that rely on

people willing to spend their money. But if it becomes too costly, then

people will certainly not be able to spend their money.

There's another thing. I'm wondering if the government has

considered, and perhaps the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr.

Mair), if he were here, would be very interested in the consequences of

a philosophy that supports the establishment of money-lending

institutions that encourage people to live on credit cards and

encourage people to extend themselves beyond their means, on the one

hand....

And the government says that it wants to pay as it goes. It says

that we're going to pay only for what we can afford, and we're going to

start tightening up no matter who it happens to hurt, because all of us

have to pay. All of us have to pay. That's what the government says,

and I think that's valid. But at the same time is it prepared to go out

and indicate to these money-lending institutions that they too should

tighten up their belts and stop encouraging people to buy television

sets and automobiles and other goods and services on credit which is

putting them in a very tenuous position? Is the government prepared to

[ Page 813 ]

that? I think that it has a duty to do that too.

I agree that we should tighten up our belts but it works both ways

because these are the kind of things that should be running subsequent

and parallel with the legislation, Mr. Speaker. You tell people that

here is the measure that is going to benefit the economy in the long

run. You have a duty to educate that public and this is why I'm

suggesting that if we can hold this bill back long enough we'll have an

opportunity to give the public a chance to have some input, to educate

them how to live under these measures, because they're going to be

difficult.

If we could teach them something about money management, teach them

something about the economics of living under certain limitations being

imposed on us, then I think that your leadership would be believable.

There would be no reason why we wouldn't believe a government that

doesn't just come down with measures and throw them out, but comes down

with measures and gives direction to the people so that they have a

chance to participate. But there are many people out there, Mr.

Speaker, who do not have this ability, who cannot profess to have had

the experience of learning their own business, as many of you hon.

members have had. There are many people who do not have this

opportunity. In fact, they have been programmed to be good consumers.

They've learned very well how to over-extend themselves, and I think

that we have abused it the same way. That's the way it's been in the

past. We're now asking you to rethink your role as a responsible

citizen and to restrain yourself in all ways, and we're going to do the

same thing.

We guarantee you that you will have a job, which I'm sure the

government must intend to do. We guarantee that everyone will have a

means of subsistence. There will be no one who will not have a minimum

income of some sort through our social services programme, through our

jobs programme that we're going to create or whatever, but you have a

duty to do that, because certainly you can't do it under some of the

fixed-income programmes that you have, Mr. Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and you know that as well as I do.

Some of the people under social-assistance programmes who are in the

single category are getting less than $2,000 a year. It's unbelievable,

and you know that they can't live on those incomes. But why don't you

be responsible and take a look at the whole population? Take a look at

your responsibilities to tMark Sobolewskihese people and their ability to participate

in this society, and when you can do that, there's no way that I'm

going to stand in the way of a government that's trying to balance the

budget responsibly. That's fiscal responsibility too.

Fiscal responsibility is not just sound management on actuarial

charts and sitting and looking at it on paper. Fiscal responsibility is

very closely related to that of a social agency as well as a business

agency. I think the member for Prince George pointed out today....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Fiscal?

MR. BARNES: Fiscal, that's right, Mr. Minister. That's what I said. Fiscal. If I said physical, perhaps they're related. You never know.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: But the member for Prince George has pointed out

today — and I think he was misunderstood when he said — that businesses

had no consciences and that they had no duty or responsibilities when

he was really saying that that is the fundamental principle on which

business people operate, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the problems with

our people today. They feel vulnerable. They need protection. That's

the idea of the Consumer Services Department that we have — to protect

the people. It's a shame. We shouldn't have to protect them in a

society such as ours where everybody is compassionate and everybody

cares about each other. But unfortunately there are a few who will

break these traditions, and these are the ones we've got to be cautious

of. We don't want to be a cause of people becoming victimized, Mr.

Speaker.

I would like to feel that if we hoist this particular bill.... It's

only one; it's just a demonstration. We haven't actually to back up on

all the other programmes that you've imposed. We're not asking you to

back down to $1 a day from $7, back to $1 a day on the hospitalization,

or on the medical insurance — we're not asking you to do all those

things. We're saying okay, just one. Just back up on one.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Premier, I'm sure you would like as a token

of respect to your father who at one time was a Conservative in the

House, who said in this House in 1948 — and you heard this canvassed

many times this afternoon. He spoke very heavily against the social

services tax. He explained why he felt that it was a retrograde step,

and I'm just suggesting that you've lived with him all these years and

I'm sure you know exactly what he's talking about. You probably better

than anyone in this House understand exactly what you're doing, but you

are a man of integrity, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: Please do not....

MR. BARNES: ...and I feel that if you think carefully about what the opposition has been

[ Page 814 ]

attempting to say to you this afternoon, there's no way that you aren't going to reconsider it.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: I'm sure that many of the members of the back

bench have come here well intentioned and believing that the government

meant exactly what it said when it campaigned for the people. I'm sure

that they would like to feel proud of themselves and they do not want

to have any illusions. I am sure that the Premier doesn't want them to

become disillusioned about anything, because I know some of them

myself, Mr. Speaker. Over the years I have met them and I know them to

be honourable people. Why don't you demonstrate your good will? You're

not demonstrating it, Mr. Premier, with these measures. Mr. Speaker,

he's not demonstrating good will. This is without consultation. Let me

ask you: am I not a member of this House, Mr. Premier?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I am asking, through you, the

Premier to answer my question. Does he not feel that I should have an

opportunity to participate on some of these measures? He didn't contact

me when the Autoplan rates were increased; he didn't contact me about

insurance increases for hospitalization or for medical services.

Another member is talking about raising the cost of the ferries. It

just goes on and on. I feel like I am being alienated. I hope the back

bench is getting more information than I am. If we can't get any

communication in the Legislature from the Premier, who is a

people-oriented Premier, how are we going to expect the people out

there to know what's going on? We don't know what's going on. All

they're telling us is: "You go ahead and debate it. We have already

decided." It's a fait accompli before we ever debate it. It's already

passed, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member, The amendment clearly

limits the debate to the reasons for changing the word from "now" to

six months hence". Please keep the context of your argument within that

framework.

MR. BARNES: Right on, Sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate

your bringing my attention to that. I would hope that by now it is

fairly clear to all of the members of the Legislature that there is

every reason — every urgent reason, Mr. Speaker — for the government to

take a second look at the intent of this bill which would impose, at a

most inopportune time, an additional 40 per cent on the ordinary

purchases of essential goods.

Let's take a look now. You say: "Oh, wait a minute, they're not

essential. Guys are going to be buying a number of things that they

don't need," But let me tell you, this economy is a very delicate

network of activity that happens between buyers, sellers and so forth.

For instance, they came down with a measure...we'll get to that, too; I

think it's Bill 12. I'm talking about the tobacco...the bill on the 4

cent increase on cigarettes. We'll get to that.

Now that is a deplorable way to make money off of people — ill

health and all. It is the same as the alcohol tax, but at the same time

it is part of the economy — a negative part. None of us like it, but we

are making very, very large revenue from it. Right now the minister

wants to make something like half of the total budget off the backs of

the people — off the ordinary working people.

It's going up more and more. In the campaign he says: "We shouldn't

be taxing those poor people. We're going to go out and lead the way and

get the province back on its feet." So what's the first thing he does?

He takes the easy way out, slaps it on the backs of the ordinary

people, and says: "Well, what do you know? We're going to balance the

budget, but we'll cut out all of the social programmes...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: ...cut them all out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! On the amendment, please.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, anyway, I'm going

to suggest, in closing, that the amendment that this bill be delayed

for six months is really being very generous because I feel that the

kind of things that have to happen in the way of consultation with the

community — with the people who are affected at various institutions

that are going to be concerned — will take a lot longer. I think we're

being reasonable. It's obvious we're trying to cooperate. Obviously

we're trying to expedite this thing by saying: "We don't want to take

too long. Six months is all we want. We'll work real hard and we'll

cooperate. We'll try and come up with something that is truly fiscally

responsible because there is a social side as well as a management

side."

I'm sure it looks good on your books. I'm sure it looks good on your

books — everything is balanced — but believe me, there are a lot of

repercussions out there, a lot of inequities, a lot of difficulties

that you are concerned about. I have listened to your other ministers

stand up in this House and I know that they are concerned, Mr. Speaker.

The problem is that you are moving so fast you haven't had a chance to

study the potential effects of some of the measures you have brought

in. I therefore cannot support the bill. I

[ Page 815 ]

support this amendment that the bill be hoisted for six months.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll support the bill if the amendment passes?

MR. BARNES: Well, I might after we've had a chance.... If the

amendment were passed, sure, I might even support the bill because then

we could improve it a bit and make it a little more palatable.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, the

retroactivity of the amendment is not the focus of this amendment, in

spite of the fact that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams)

unleashed a bitter attack entirely centered on that area of the

amendment. The focus of this whole amendment is the timing. I find it

rather interesting that the very few government members who've spoken

on this have to date given the opposition no justification to explain

to us why this bill has to be brought in at this time. They have given

us no justification for not accepting this amendment. That is why the

opposition is here debating this very point today.

It's been shown over and over again that, in our opinion, there is

no justification for this increase at all. That is the stand the

official opposition takes. However, in listening to the reasonable

amendment placed by the Liberal member (Mr. Gibson), we agree that with

this government perhaps one has to compromise to some degree, as one

does, perhaps, at all times with government. That's why we are willing

to support his amendment which is to give the government time to study

if this is actually necessary. As far as we're concerned, Mr. Speaker,

the timing of this is unnecessary.

The Liberal leader and other members on this side of the House have

pointed out the financial picture of this province. They've pointed out

how much money will be brought in by this increase. It seems quite

obvious to us, because we've had no reasonable explanation from the

government, that there can only be two reasons: either this government,

which came in, as I said yesterday when speaking, on a promise to

improve the economy of the province, is looking forward to a very, very

bleak economic year in this province, so bleak that they find it

necessary to bring in this sum of money into the coffers.

Yet on the other hand, that's not consistent with what they promised

the people of this province during their campaign, because they do have

other revenues coming in. And, as has been pointed out, this is, in our

opinion, completely unnecessary at this time.

Now if it is not that the government is heading for a very, very

bleak year economically, then, unfortunately, we can only conclude that

they are intending to build a surplus, to build a surplus on the backs

of the people who are in the low-income bracket of this province. That

we consider unpardonable.

It has been explained over and over again — and I want to keep on

the amendment, Mr. Speaker, so I won't go into the details — why we

consider this tax very inequitable. I know that the MLA for Okanagan

has been quoted extensively — I'm referring to the MLA who sat in this

House in 1948 — so I don't want to be repetitious. But it's been made

quite clear that the MLA for Okanagan, Mr. Bennett, in 1948 put on a

very impassioned plea in this very House against the imposition of the

sales tax, so I won't repeat that.

But there is one part of his speech that I would like to repeat

because I do think that it is very pertinent to the amendment. When Mr.

Bennett, the member for Okanagan, was speaking on this, he pointed out

to the government of which, of course, I believe at that time he was a

member: "Why is it necessary to impose a sales tax at this time?" He

was speaking on the very same issue which we are speaking on right now.

He asked the government of that day if they had not considered other

means, had they not considered an unearned increment tax which would

not touch the poor and would add to the restraint on inflation.

So in 1948 we had a very responsible, conscientious member who was

speaking against his own government at that time out of his deep

concern for an inequitable tax, and also his concern that the

government of the day had obviously not taken time to consider other

means of raising revenue, if, indeed, it were necessary.

That, of course, is the main point that we are asking this

government to explain to us. To date we have only had speeches such as

we had from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who when he was

in the opposition I always used to feel made very constructive

speeches; very seldom was he negative. But unfortunately he broke that

record today. It was one of the most negative speeches we've heard in

this House. It was just a bitter attack on the New Democratic Party. It

talked about retroactivity, which I pointed out before you came in — to

the hon. minister through you, Mr. Speaker — is not the focus of this

amendment. We are talking about the timing and the justification. But

at no time did I hear the Minister of Labour defend on behalf of his

government why this sales tax has to be imposed at this time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He was speaking to the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, and the point of the amendment is the

timing. Yet at no time did the hon. Minister of Labour adhere to what

was really the basic part of the amendment. We have yet to hear

[ Page

816 ]

from the Minister of Finance or from the Premier as to the real

justification for this amendment. And if they can justify it, why now?

Therefore, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: No. When we are on our feet asking and making

legitimate points about our concern about timing and justification, how

can we possibly be expected not to continue speaking on this amendment

if we get no reasons against the amendment from the other side of the

House?

That's why, Mr. Speaker, as we have not had any answer, any reason

for not hoisting this from the government side, I would now like to

move adjournment until the next sitting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, since taking a serious study

of the rules of this House, I've had a keen appreciation for the rules

in that they protect the rights of the minorities in this House, and

provide enabling clauses so that those rights will be guaranteed.

However, at the same time, the rules provide against the abuse of those

rights. Let me give you an example. Standing order 44:

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the

Whole House, shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment

of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman

do report progress, or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and

privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon

from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

I would suggest to the House that since we have afforded and

declared in order two other motions to adjourn this debate, this is a

frivolous motion at this time, particularly since the time for regular

adjournment is at hand. Therefore I would rule that in this instance

this motion is out of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, your predecessor in the chair, just a few moments ago....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a point of order?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the ruling?

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker. I'm speaking on a point of order. You were kind enough not to rule; you were kind enough to indicate that that was your particular

point. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier forgets his place in the House at

this point, because there is a point or order being discussed.

Your predecessor indicated that if he were to give that type of

ruling, that would mean, Mr. Speaker, that it could very well be that

you could never adjourn the House,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was the position of the Deputy Speaker just a few moments ago.

MR. COCKE: So, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly ignore the insulting

remarks. I've never been an expert on parliamentary procedure, but I've

been around the House for seven years, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) at least condescends to blush when he makes

those kinds of remarks, so at least that shows he has some kind of....

Mr. Speaker, if in fact you don't accept a motion to adjourn debate

until the next sitting of the House, it could be that you're setting a

precedent. It might mean that the House will not be able to conform to

any kind of procedure in the future. So I suggest to you that a good

deal of thought be given to this ruling before it's made.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to suggest to the member for New

Westminster that there is a remedy, and the remedy would be that a

motion to adjourn the House would perhaps allow for a subsequent

motion. If a motion to adjourn the House were made and were defeated,

subsequent to that a motion could be made to adjourn the debate, and

that would get us out of the dilemma we find ourselves in now.

However, I would like to point out to the member that standing order

44 provides very, very clearly that the privileges of the House will

not be abused. I think that all hon. members on both sides would agree

that what appears to be a frivolous attempt — being the third motion of

adjournment of this debate with the normal hour of adjournment at hand

— could be ruled under 44 to be an abuse of the rules. I so rule.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly not going to challenge

you or your ruling, because I do have respect for the kind of rulings

that you've been giving.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, I'm extending courtesy to you, now, because there can be no debate.

[ Page 817 ]

MR. COCKE: Yes, I realize that. The one thing I want to draw

to your attention is that there have been two or three speakers since

the last attempt at reason in this House, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on the

amendment, the advisability of hoisting the bill for six months, I,

unfortunately, was in my office when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams) was speaking. But I did get a chance to listen to him and I

was really quite amazed about his describing a juggernaut government,

and he sounded like a juggernaut over the speaker, so much so that I

could hear him vilifying — I think that's acceptable, isn't it? — my

colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald).

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, it was terrible, so I immediately went to the

books because I thought.... Here we are; he was talking about a

hoisting motion on Bill 31 in 1974 and somehow the whole democratic

process of this House feel down because of what my colleague, then the

Attorney-General, said in that debate. I was amazed. Well, I went to

the books and I went to Hansard and I looked it up.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What did I do?

MR. LEVI: That is true that, on third reading, the now

Speaker of the House, who was the member for North Peace River (Hon.

Mr. Smith), moved a motion.

He said: "I wish to move an amendment to the motion to read Bill 31

now by striking out the word, 'now' and substituting therefore 'six

months hence'."

AN HON. MEMBER: What did I do?

MR. LEVI: That was what he wanted. Then I thought that what

followed next was a torrent, a literal torrent of abuse, for my

colleague, the former Attorney-General. And what did the

Attorney-General say? He said: "Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, this matter

in substance has been decided by the House. The vote in committee has

been reported to you as Speaker rejecting the motion that this bill

should be hoisted for six months."

I turned over the page but he never said anything else. He simply

didn't say anything else. Then the Speaker spoke and he said: "May I

point out"...that your attack, instead of insinuating that, somehow

he completely demolished you. "May I point out," said the Speaker to

the hon. Attorney-General, who was my colleague, "that he's faced with

a situation that if the bill had not in any sense been changed, between

the time that motion was made in second reading to this time, then

perhaps his point would be valid?" He was talking to the then

Attorney-General and he said: "But there have been amendments to the

bill in the committee stage. Consequently I would have to say, with

respect, that I think the amendment is in order."

And the debate continued. But what you didn't say, Mr. Member, what

you didn't say, was that there was a similar amendment on second

reading — on second reading. Yes, there was an amendment to hoist on

second reading and somebody...yes, here we are; the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) participated in that debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEVI: He participated in that debate. He spoke on the

desirability of the hoist. You were in the opposition. Today, Mr.

Speaker, we've had Liberal day or ex-Liberal day. We've had the

Minister of Labour speak and we've had his colleague, the Minister of

Education, speak. He also spoke in that debate — on the hoisting of it.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: And you know who else spoke in the debate? Not a

frivolous debate, then. It wasn't a frivolous motion to hoist. After

all, we were dealing with Bill 31, the mining company bill. That wasn't

frivolous. You know, nobody said in that debate that it was frivolous.

But in this debate we have even heard from the Premier that this is

a frivolous amendment. He spoke in the debate, Mr. Speaker, on the

advisability of hoisting the bill for six months — Bill 31. He made a

tremendous speech. It would like to quote you some of it, if I can find

it. It's so small.

But the important thing is that they all started to talk about the

advisability of taking a second look and that it's important because

the legislation appeared to be somewhat hurried — and, mark you, this

debate went on for days. It didn't go on for half a day like we are

here. Nobody said then that it was frivolous. Everybody had an

opportunity to speak. But from the treasury benches over there, it's

"Let's get it out of the way and get on with the business of the

people." Well, this happens to be the business of the people, Mr.

Speaker, the imposition of a 40 per cent increase in the sales tax, and

we do have to ask you to consider that this bill be hoisted.

After all, back in that debate the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound said: "There is real wisdom in deferring consideration of this

legislation for the limited period of six months." That's good. That's

a good description of how you do a hoist. Deferring

[ Page 818 ]

consideration, it's real wisdom. It is real wisdom and I agree with him.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Hoisting a bill is always real wisdom.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hoist by his own petard.

MR. LEVI: We also had a speech at that time from the now

Speaker of the House who also gave us the same advice, that it is

important in the interests, as he was talking about then, of the

industry — the mining industry and the economy of British Columbia —

that we hoist the bill for six months. Well, those same kinds of rules

and ideas apply in this, Mr. Speaker. It is in the interests of the

economy of British Columbia, and it happens to be in the interests of

the people, not the mining companies, but the interests of the people.

But they are not getting up and they are not saying anything. It's

very unfortunate. The Premier spoke in that debate. He got up and he

said that we should consider it for six months. The Minister of

Education also said: "Let's consider it for six months." But all we

have from across that side is a lot of twittering about how frivolous

it is. That's really insulting to the people of this province, Mr.

Speaker. After all, you, as Speaker, know that in the rules the reason

for the hoist is in the interests of the people. It is in the interests

of the public and it is in the interests of the members of this House

in order that we can take a better look at it.

So it might be interesting if one of the people from the treasury

benches or one of the back benchers — perhaps the member for Kootenay

(Mr. Haddad) might want to get up and speak on behalf of the people of

Kootenay, or perhaps the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) might want to

get up and speak on behalf of the....

MR. MACDONALD: He's not a liberal!

MR. LEVI: Oh, I'm sorry. I've got to move down the line a

little bit. Let's see now...we