1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

919 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Possible offensive language. Mr. Gibson — 919

Mr. Speaker — 919

Mr. Gibson — 920

Mr. Speaker rules — 920

Mr. Gibson — 921

Mr. Speaker — 921

Mr. King — 921

Mr. Speaker— 921

Ms. Brown — 922

Mr. Speaker — 922

Mr. Nicolson — 922

Mr. Speaker — 922

Ministerial answers outside of question period. Mr. Wallace — 922

Mr. Speaker — 922

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Sale of Princess Marguerite. Mr. Barber — 923

ICBC loan to government. Mr. Gibson — 923

Employment of B.C.-trained teachers. Mr. Wallace — 924

Fuel on Prince George. Mr. Lauk — 924

Conflict of interest in B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Hon. Mr. Curtis answers — 924

Administering of secrecy oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 925

Duties of executive council programme manager. Mr. Lockstead — 925

Future of the Beanery. Mr. Wallace — 925

Employment of Ron Worley. Ms. Brown — 926

Funding of Land magazine. Mr. Stupich — 926

Gas price increase. Mr. Macdonald — 926

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Davidson — 926

Statement

Progress of talks on patriation of the constitution. Hon. Mr. Bennett —

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued) — 930

Ms. Sanford — 935

Division on motion to adjourn debate — 935

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

Ms. Brown — 936

Mr. Calder — 939

Mrs. Dailly — 942

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 940

Division on second reading — 942

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 12). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 943

Mr. Stupich — 943

Mr. D'Arcy — 944

Mr. Wallace — 944

Mr. Barber — 946

Mr. Lockstead — 947

Mr. Nicolson — 948

Mr. Cocke — 949

Ms. Brown — 949

Mr. Barnes — 950

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 951

Division on second reading — 952

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 6). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 952

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): In the

gallery today is a group of students from the beautiful town of

Barriere in my constituency of, Kamloops. They are from the Barriere

Secondary School, and with them is their teacher, Mr. Stieda. I would

ask the House to make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today are two of my constituents, Mr. Brian

Wallace and Mr. Gerry Boulton from Kamloops, and I would ask the House

to make them welcome.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, this

morning sitting in the galleries were students from two secondary

schools in Cowichan-Malahat riding. They were the students from the

George Bonner Secondary School in Duncan and students from Lake

Cowichan Secondary School. They are now visiting the remainder of the

parliament buildings and I would ask the House to welcome those

students together with their chaperons.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the

gallery this afternoon a group of citizens from the village of

Ladysmith, and also a resident from the Crofton area, who are visiting

in the gallery this afternoon.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, situated

in the gallery this afternoon are: Mr. Art Doig, president of the

Burnaby-Willingdon constituency association; his father, Mr. Henry

Doig; his daughter, Miss Karen Doig; and I also have a very good friend

of mine from Sudbury, Ontario, Mr. Les Adams. I ask the House to bid

them welcome.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this

afternoon from my constituency is a very good and personal friend of

mine, Mr. Mike Stadnyk, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming him

here this afternoon.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, either in the

gallery now or soon to be in the gallery is a group of students from

the Rutherford Elementary School in Nanaimo along with their teachers.

I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. George Smith,

who is in the gallery, and the members of the executive of the

Comox-Courtenay Social Credit constituency association.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Do they want a grant?

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

the assumption that there are no introductions of bills at this moment,

I would like to raise a point of privilege with Your Honour.

I regret that the potentially offending member of the House is not

in his place, but it is my understanding that a question of privilege

must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, this arises out of remarks made across the floor of

this House this morning which, in my opinion, were very inimical to the

orderly conduct of this House. This is not an easy time in this

chamber; it is a time that calls for some restraint and conciliation.

In that context I wish to cite some of the laws of the House here. I

would quote to hon. members standing order 40(2): "No member shall use

offensive words against any member of this House; nor shall he speak

beside the question in debate."

Your Honour, I feel this particular breach is what is referred to in May as a....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if you're raising a question of

privilege, would it not be best to state the question of privilege

before you start quoting the references?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to do so. This morning

— and here is the incident which I allege — during the taking of a

division hon. members from the official opposition were engaging the

Premier in banter of one kind or another. Opposition inquiries were in

tone and spirit directed to the question of how long this is — that is,

the sessions, morning, noon and night — going on, perhaps asked

pursuant to the Premier's press statement outside the House and

reported on radio this morning that such sittings would be continued

for three weeks. The Premier replied, Mr. Speaker, according to

numerous witnesses, including hon. members who might wish to stand up

later and confirm this in person, in the following words,

substantially: "It took me two weeks to train my dog." Those were the

words which were given in answer to the question as to how long these

unusual sittings of the House will be continued.

Mr. Speaker, I find this offensive to this House in a number of

ways. It suggests that the House is being trained. It compares the

House or the opposition to a dog. It shows an enormous contempt for

this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, first of all, on a

[ Page 920 ]

matter of privilege, as you know, I must deal with

the incident that you allege is a matter of privilege. Once you

progress beyond that point in speaking to the matter of privilege, then

you're argumentative in the remarks you are making and they are not

admissible at this time.

MR. GIBSON: Would it be proper now, Your Honour, for me to cite the law which I believe to be applicable?

MR. SPEAKER: No. You've raised your question of privilege. I

think now it is a matter for the Speaker to determine, first of all,

whether you have a question of privilege or not, and then if you feel

that you disagree with the decision, or the ruling, or whatever, of the

Speaker, you can quote your sources of information in your matters that

you wish to refer to.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not seeking to quote sources of

information at this time, though Your Honour may wish'to inquire into

that. What I'm seeking to cite, hopefully to be of assistance to Your

Honour in reaching the question as to whether there has been a contempt

of this House, is some brief citations from May which would outline the general principles of contempt, which I believe apply to this incident.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment.

Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat for a moment?

Hon. Member, the matter of privilege has been canvassed in previous

sessions and, specifically, on a number of occasions in this session in

which we are now engaged. It's now a matter for the Speaker to decide

if he feels that he has heard enough of your matter of privilege to

make a decision or, in turn, to invite comment if that is what is

desirable and that is what is needed.

As I understand your matter of privilege, you have suggested that

certain comments took place across the floor at the time of the taking

of a division in this House. If, in fact, the comments did happen, or

took place, I'm not aware of them and apparently other members of the

House may feel that they heard those comments. I did not.

Now in the course of debate in this House — and I think this is

something that all members should take into consideration — if you

desire the House to refrain absolutely from any comments across the

floor, back and forth, either in debate or when a division is being

taken, then we can adopt that measure in the operation of the House.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

But it has been a matter of flexibility within this House to allow

the odd comment to be exchanged back and forth across the floor. If the

comment was considered to be offensive by the member who was on his

feet, or by some other hon. member, it's not unusual — as a matter of

fact, it's very common — for another member or that member to rise and

suggest, as a point of order, that they considered the remark offensive

and ask for it to be withdrawn. That's one of the points.

The fact is that the comments which take place when a division is

called are not comments made by any member upon either side of the

House standing in their place in debate. It's what you might call

casual banter, which has been allowed. Now if the hon. member who

suggests that a question of privilege is involved heard that comment,

it would seem to me that the time to bring that to the attention of the

Speaker was immediately at that time, while the division was being

taken. No one seems to have brought that to the attention of the

Speaker at that time if, in fact, the comment actually took place in

this House.

It would, therefore, seem to me that it is not a question of

privilege since it did not occur in the usual proceedings and routine

of the House. It occurred at a time when we were temporarily suspended

while a division was taking place and waiting for the clock to run out,

which would allow all members who were available to return to their

place.

I cannot understand why, if this remark did issue from a member of

this House, it was not brought to the attention of the House

immediately. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that it is not a

matter of privilege.

May I say to all members of the House at this time that you have the

type of House you make it. You're all responsible, as hon. members, for

the remarks you make on the floor of the House, when a division is

being called or when someone is on a point of order. There's much

banter goes back and forth which I would not, as your Speaker, wish to

unnecessarily inhibit, but I think all members would be well advised to

temper their remarks and make them in the form of casual banter.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, would you be seated, please? The

Speaker is not going to allow a debate on the matter. The hon. member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) rose on what he considered to

be a matter of privilege. I have given you the view of the Chair that

it did not occur — if in fact it occurred at all — while the House was

in session, except during a lull in the proceedings of the

[ Page 921 ]

House, and then in casual banter back and forth across the floor.

I think, because I cannot see that it is a matter of privilege, that

I cannot entertain debate on the matter, or have other members entering

into a discussion about this particular situation at this particular

time. You've asked for a decision of the Chair; I've given you the

decision of the Chair, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to

make a further remark because I suggest to you, sir, that were it the

case that this was simply a matter of banter on the floor....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Confine your remarks, Hon. Member.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I will. I'm confining my remarks to the

question as to whether banter of this kind during a time waiting for a

division is a proper question of this kind. I'm saying, sir, that first

of all, previous Speakers have interfered in that kind of banter, so

it's certainly a proper question for the Chair.

Secondly it is no longer a question to be confined to this House; it has been reported widely.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! You are now trying to canvass and debate

the matter you have raised as a matter of privilege on the floor of the

House. If at any time an aside that happens in this chamber is brought

to the attention of the Speaker, the Speaker will deal with it at that

time. But it is not to follow that the Speaker hears every exchange

that takes place in this chamber between hon. members, particularly

those that are not issued in the form of debate when an hon. member is

on his feet on the floor of this House. I now say to you, hon. member,

that it is not a question of privilege, and that ends the matter.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A point of order,

Mr. Speaker: I wanted to make your office aware that two members of the

official opposition heard the comments to which the Liberal leader has

drawn attention, namely the member for....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's out of order at this particular time.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I don't understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat. There are ways and means

for hon. members to bring the attention of the House to remarks that

they consider offensive. It was not done at that time. It is not now a

question of privilege. If other hon. members of this House wish to

pursue the matter on a substantive motion, that is their business. But

at this time the business of the House is to return to the orders of

the House for this afternoon.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege that I raised yesterday at the earliest possible moment....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR, SPEAKER: I have just said to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition that that was not a point of order you were on. Are you on a

different point of order?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you take your seat? Will the hon. member take his seat?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: Two members here are willing to testify.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I've said to the hon. member, the

Leader of the Opposition, that if he has a point and he wishes to make

it by substantive motion, that's the privilege of any hon. member in

this House.

MR. KING: Who gives the evidence if we do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member and the hon. Speaker cannot perceive or conclude what is going to

[ Page 922 ]

happen in the future. All I can deal with is the

problem that's before me at the moment, hon. member. I've decided on

the matter and that ends it.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there's no point of order on the same issue, hon. member.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): How do you know if you won't hear it?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like a clarification of your

ruling. Are we to understand that any member of this House can make

derogatory comments about any other member of this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! You're not on a point of order at the present time, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We do need a clarification of it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: It's your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that as long as it's done in a bantering manner, it's permissible to....

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: That is a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you take your seat?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Oh, come off it!

Interjections.

MR. KING: As long as it's done by the Premier....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Remarks made across the floor of the

House in a bantering manner, or otherwise, if they are drawn to the

attention of the Speaker at that particular time, could be a matter of

withdrawal. It was not done. It was not brought to the attention of the

Speaker, as I tried to point out. I'm not suggesting any remarks, and

remarks particularly which I am unaware of, are bantering or otherwise,

hon. member. But they were not made during debate on the floor of the

House; they were not brought to the attention of the house. I've

settled the matter. I've told you the ruling of the Chair on the hon.

member's question of privilege, and I can't say that I'll entertain —

and I do not intend to entertain — further debate on the matter at this

time.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! A point of order under what ruling?

MR. NICOLSON: It's under rule 17(1): "When Mr. Speaker is

putting a question, no member shall walk out of or cross the House, or

make any noise or disturbance." How can one raise such banter when a

question is being put, Mr. Speaker? You cannot raise it during a

division.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! There was ample time, I would say, hon.

member, immediately following the division. I recognize the hon. Member

for Oak Bay who had a question of privilege.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the earliest possible

moment, I raised a point of privilege after the Attorney-General — with

leave of the House — had answered a question outside of question

period. Again I feel that things are degenerating in this House, and

the sooner we establish some kind of understanding as to what is a

point of privilege and what isn't, and to how we handle question

period, the sooner we may prevent the situation going from bad to

worse. I wonder if Your Honour has had an opportunity to make a

decision in the light of the point I raised yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Yes, I considered the

matter and this is for the general consideration of all the hon.

members of the House.

First of all, I think it's incumbent upon a minister who takes a

question as notice to determine in his own mind whether the question

can best be handled in reply during question period, or whether the

answer is of such length that it would be an abuse of the question

period to give it in its entirety. At that point the hon. minister

should consider asking leave of the House to make a statement rather

than answering it as a question.

I can't do anything but advise the House on my consideration of the

matter. I cannot see that we could allow, after a minister makes his

statement following a question period, other hon. members to rise and

ask questions, or what is really a

[ Page 923 ]

supplemental question on the same matter. I would

suggest in all earnestness to the hon. members of the House, and

particularly the cabinet benches who seem to be involved mostly in the

question period as far as the asking of questions is concerned and have

the responsibility forgiving answers, that if you wish to answer a

question in the form of a return or if you wish to ask leave of the

House, you do it prior to question period so that the hon. members who

originally placed the question will be able to ask their supplementals

within the time period allotted for questions.

Oral questions.

SALE OF PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the hon. Minister

of Transport and Communications: could the Minister confirm that he met

in his office on Monday last with private business representatives to

discuss the sale of the Princess Marguerite?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker: could the minister

confirm that negotiations for the sale of the Princess Marguerite are

now underway?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there has been some preliminary discussion, but no serious submissions have been made by any parties.

MR, BARBER: A final supplemental, Mr. Speaker: could the

minister advise whether or not the interests making this proposal are

Canadian or American or both in origin?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Canadian, Mr. Speaker, but no firm offer has been made.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the sale of the Prince George in relation to the Princess Marguerite....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! This is not a supplemental on the same matter.

MR. LAUK: It's dealing with both the George and Marguerite.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the original question was on the

proposed sale of the specific boat. I don't see why, in fairness to the

hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano, he should yield the floor if

you're going to deal with another subject.

The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

ICBC LOAN TO GOVERNMENT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

In view of the revelation last night by the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) that ICBC has lent $181 million back to the

government, could I ask the minister what borrowing was undertaken

pursuant, presumably, to the authority of Bill 3, to raise that $181

million to give to ICBC in the first place, and what have been the

financial charges involved in washing this money back and forth over

the last few days?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): In reply to the hon.

member's question: as he would realize, the government has first call

on the investment of moneys of the insurance corporation.

MR. WALLACE: We gathered that!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Does this come as a great surprise to you? (Laughter.)

The government has first call on the investment money, and it is

their desire that the insurance corporation receive a good return for

their investment. We have received a cheque from the insurance

corporation....

MR. LAUK: How much was the cheque for?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister....

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's in Treasury notes.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I'm not sure the

minister understood the initial question. How did he get the $181

million to give to ICBC in the first place, and what were the financial

charges involved in raising that money?

MR. LEA: A rubber cheque.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: out of consolidated revenue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay.

Interjections.

[ Page 924 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. Does the hon. member for Oak Bay yield the floor?

MR. GIBSON: Just on a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, because I'm puzzled by that answer. I thought that was why we passed Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's not a question.

EMPLOYMENT OF B.C.-TRAINED TEACHERS

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Education with regard to the

employment picture for British Columbia teachers and the minister's

speech in the House last evening indicating that all B.C. school

teachers now in a classroom, and all new teachers graduating this year

in B.C., will be employed in the public school system.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Allow the member to ask his question.

MR. WALLACE: I'm quoting the substance as reported in the Blues

today, Mr. Speaker. My question to the minister: could he elaborate on

the steps which the government is taking to ensure that our own

graduates will have first preference in getting jobs? Is the government

counting on normal 10 per cent attrition and the issuing of letters to

all school boards encouraging them to hire education graduates, or is

there some other measure that the minister has in mind?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): To the hon. member,

Mr. Speaker: no, we anticipate that no other measures will be

necessary. Probably, as in past years, there will be recruiting of

teachers from outside the province of British Columbia. But I suppose

another way of putting it is to say that we're discouraging this year,

as far as possible, the aggressive recruiting of teachers from outside

of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker: has the minister,

in his statement or in his calculations, taken into account the backlog

of education graduates from previous years who have been unable to find

teaching jobs and who will be on the job market this year?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made that very

clear last evening that the problem we have had is a surfeit of

teachers in the metropolitan areas — those who have been unwilling to

take jobs in the north and the interior. But there are jobs there. I

just repeat my appeal once more to the excess supply of teachers in the

metropolitan areas: please go north and please go to the interior.

There are jobs waiting.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in light of

the fact that, as the minister has pointed out, there is an excess of

teachers, has the minister taken any steps to control or limit the

number of education students and graduates in the three education

faculties in the province?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, because the graduates of our faculties

of education have not been able to fulfil the total supply needed for

British Columbia. This is why there has been such aggressive recruiting

outside the province. Now it is a fact that only about 60 per cent of

the graduates of our Departments of Education in the universities ever

go into the field of teaching. It's an amazing statistic to me, and we

will investigate that, Mr. Speaker. I simply don't know the reason for

it.

FUEL ON PRINCE GEORGE

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). With respect to the sale

of the Prince George, why was several thousand dollars worth of fuel

left aboard the Prince George and not transferred to the Princess

Marguerite at the time of the transfer of the Prince George, and can

the fuel now be retrieved?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is some waste oil in the Prince George. It was there for ballast purposes and it's not recoverable.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN B.C.

HOUSING MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, on March 24 and a couple of days following that, the hon.

member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) raised, in question

period, the question of alleged conflict of interest regarding

employees of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I have a brief

answer which I trust will be accepted in question period.

The commission has now met and dealt with this matter. The member

will recall that as soon as I was informed of this situation I

suspended the two employees and then, I think quite properly, referred

the matter to the commission, inasmuch as these individuals are

employees of the commission.

The commission, at a meeting yesterday, decided that five days' pay

would be deducted from the employees' next monthly salary. In addition,

the commission instructed that the annual performance review dates for

both employees be deferred three months and this, the member will

understand, will

[ Page

925 ]

have the effect of reducing the potential annual

salary increment for these employees in 1976. The employees have been

notified of this action and I think, Mr. Speaker, most helpfully

arising out of this, again, rather foolish incident on the part of the

two employees, is that on a broader scale the commission has undertaken

to consider and implement a comprehensive conflict-of-interest policy —

this will start at its next meeting — in order to provide staff with

suitable guidelines and, indeed, that may be of assistance in other

agencies of government as well.

ADMINISTERING OF SECRECY

OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Provincial

Secretary. On January 13, order-in-council 103 was passed requiring

every person appointed by order-in-council to take the civil service

oath of secrecy, regardless of the duration of the person's

appointment. Why was Mr. David Brown, who was acting in a confidential

capacity to the government, not required to comply with the terms of

order-in-council 103 after his appointment by order-in-council?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I've already answered that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the question

about the employment of David Brown was passed on the floor of the

House yesterday. I think the hon. minister replied.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out that

order-in-council 103 requires by law that every person employed by the

government, whether in an advisory capacity or not, take the oath of

secrecy. The Provincial Secretary has answered that Mr. Dave Brown has

mysteriously escaped that requirement and I want to know why.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Those are your words, I believe.

MR. KING: Well, this is the law, Mr. Speaker, that the government passed. Won't you answer?

MR. SPEAKER: There was an answer yesterday. I think it's in the Blues .

Interjections.

DUTIES OF EXECUTIVE

COUNCIL PROGRAMME MANAGER

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Deputy

Premier.

Order-in-council 1175, 1976, increases the establishment for the executive

council administration vote by one position, programme manager 2. My question

is: has anyone been appointed to the position and, if so, what are their duties

and salary?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to take

that question as notice, as I'm not aware of the 1175 to which the

member refers, but I'll be very pleased to take it as notice.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplemental, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, Hon. Member. On a supplemental, it

would be best to pose that question when the original answer comes to

the floor of the House.

FUTURE OF THE BEANERY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser).... He hasn't been answering written

questions; I hope he'll try to answer oral ones.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. WALLACE: Yes, they've been on the paper for a month.

With regard to the fast food service establishment on the causeway, popularly known as the Beanery....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Barrett's Beanery.

MR. WALLACE: In light of the minister's statement that the

establishment will continue to be used for its present purpose, has the

minister held, or is he planning to hold, meetings with the mayor and

council of the city of Victoria, since that location on the causeway

was planned to have a much higher use than a fast-food outlet and a

ferry terminal?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Public Works): To the member for Oak Bay, first of all, you will get the written answers shortly. We haven't been here a month quite yet.

On the second question, I have had discussions already with the mayor of Victoria.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the minister's statement that last year's operator lost

$6,000 on that operation, could he tell the House if there's a

government subsidy involved in

[ Page 926 ]

the operation of the Beanery?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that, but discussions are taking place on these subjects now.

EMPLOYMENT OF RON WORLEY

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Can

she tell me, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether Mr. Ronald Worley has

been employed in any capacity by this government since December 23,

1975?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of Mr. Worley being employed in any capacity with the government.

MS. BROWN: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for the

hon. Provincial Secretary to take this question as notice? We are very anxious

to get a very complete answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would be pleased to do so.

FUNDING OF LAND MAGAZINE

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Provincial Secretary:

was a special warrant issued by order-in-council in 1975 to cover the

costs related to the printing and mailing of Land magazine in the amount of $134,126.19?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think I answered that the other night

in answer to a point of privilege raised following that day's

deliberations, At that time I said that I was sorry that I was

misinterpreted. I meant to say that an order-in-council was requested

by the then Minister of Lands and Forests, and I was going to file the

letter in which the Hon. Mr. Williams at that time requested a special

warrant for that purpose. I shall do so. I am sorry I don't have it

with me today but I shall be glad to do that.

GAS PRICE INCREASE

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Imperial Oil has increased the price of

gasoline by 1 cent according to the federal government. Does the hon.

minister intend that the Energy Commission investigate that price

increase with a view to not relinquishing provincial jurisdiction and

itself protecting by guidelines under the Energy Act the price of

gasoline for consumers in British Columbia?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Energy Commission has

that particular matter under review. The fact that the federal body has

permitted an increase doesn't necessarily require that the provincial

body authorize a similar increase.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to continue the debate that we left off this morning.

The riding of Delta represents almost every conceivable

cross-section of our society — from farmer to fisherman, from homeowner

to tenant, from businessman to labourer, from long-established families

to newcomers from every part of this province in this dominion.

Included in the riding of Delta are three separate and distinct

municipalities — Delta, White Rock and North Surrey — each with its own

separate and distinct problems and needs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there

has always existed a healthy spirit of competition between the

different areas within my riding, but that competition has benefited

our communities and we trust that that same spirit shall continue.

Another characteristic we share in common, Mr. Speaker, is our

desire to work to better ourselves, our families and our futures. We

represent communities where individual initiative is rewarded and where

a something-for-nothing philosophy has never been and never will be a

factor of major consideration. The riding of Delta has always offered

abundant opportunity: opportunity to reap products from some of the

finest agricultural land to be found anywhere in our province;

opportunity for our fishermen who have for generations lived in this

area; opportunity for housing, particularly for new families looking

for their first home; opportunity for business and industry seeking new

industrial sites such as the Tilbury Island industrial park site, which

under this development-oriented government promises to be one of the

most outstanding projects of its type anywhere in the lower mainland.

Mr. Speaker, the last few years have witnessed dramatic changes

throughout our riding with a tremendous influx of people into all three

municipalities. As a result, we have not been without our growing

pains. In fact, Mr. Speaker, at present Delta has the largest number of

voters of any provincial riding in British Columbia and is a close

second only in total population to that of Coquitlam.

Mr. Speaker, the need for redistribution which existed prior to the

last election has not changed; it has merely been compounded. The

people of my riding were promised redistribution by the now-defeated

former Premier. I cannot stress in

[ Page

927 ]

sufficiently strong enough terms the very real and

genuine need for realignment of electoral boundaries as far as the

riding of Delta is concerned. I would impress upon those in this House

that proportionate representation is the very foundation of our

democratic system. I look forward, therefore, to significant electoral

reform prior to our next election in 1979.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Right on!

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, if this assembly is to honour the

commitment that we have collectively made to the people of British

Columbia, much legislation must be dealt with in this and forthcoming

sessions. We find, however, that effective legislation dealing with the

very real problems that face this province has been needlessly delayed

by an opposition whose sole objective appears to be to confuse the

realities of the economics of this province as those realities

presently exist.

It appears incumbent, therefore, that the facts once again be

reviewed. On September 12, 1972, the province of British Columbia had

over $85 million in perpetual capital funds, $126 million in special

capital funds, $200 million in cash or term deposits in the bank, $97.5

million in British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority temporary

deposits and $66 million in the British Columbia Railway, a total at

the end of 1972 of $574.6 million as far as the liquid position is

concerned. Mr. Speaker, it took 20 years of sound fiscal planning to

reach that position. It took the NDP slightly over three years to place

us in the present position of being $541 million in debt; and for the

first time since the great Depression, the province of British Columbia

is going to have to borrow money to cover its day-to-day expenses.

It is inconceivable that the NDP after having plunged this province

into the greatest debt position since the Depression could stand here

and could have filibustered the passage of a bill that now authorizes

this province to borrow up to $400 million, money that will have to be

raised at some point some time this fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, all the

filibustering in the world by the NDP will not change the fact that

when this government took office last December the treasury was bare,

and with a real increase in our gross provincial product of less than 1

per cent, it was obvious that the economic growth of this province had

ground to a virtual halt.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, despite all the declining revenues and despite the

decline in the demand for our export products, government spending

increased at an unparalleled rate. Mr. Speaker, it wasn't the Social

Credit government that exhausted the $65 million balance in the B.C.

Medical Plan. It wasn't the Social Credit government that overspent the

welfare budget by more than $100 million, claiming it to be a clerical

error. It wasn't the Social Credit government that mismanaged the

current $181 million loss in ICBC. It wasn't the Social Credit

government that deliberately over-estimated revenues. It wasn't the

Social Credit government that deliberately underestimated expenses. It

was, Mr. Speaker, the NDP government that today sits condemned for

their total lack of fiscal responsibility during their term in office.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, even the most simple-minded individual can add $323

million, which was the NDP shortfall in projected revenues, and $218

million, which was the overrun in expenditures, to come up with a total

deficit of $541 million. It would be even better, Mr. Speaker, if we

had a chequing account that we could simply write a cheque against and

start all over again. Unfortunately, the chequing account has been

exhausted — exhausted by a socialist government which had a total

disregard for the taxpayer of this province and a total disregard for

any serious approach to financial and fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, it is solely and totally a result of the spending spree

taken by the previous NDP government that the people of British

Columbia today have to face an increase of 2 percentage points in

corporation tax, an increase of 2 percentage points in their personal

income tax and a 40 per cent increase from 5 to 7 per cent in sales tax.

The budget presented to the people of British Columbia for this

fiscal year has been described by the Finance minister as a recovery

budget. It can further be described as a recovery from three years of

total financial mismanagement, a recovery from three years of economic

discouragement, from three years of financial irresponsibility and from

three years of attempted financial cover-up unparalleled in Canadian

political history.

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for ICBC indicated in this

House that as late as 1974 there were projected deficits for ICBC and

that the NDP directors knew there were going to be deficits for ICBC,

and the public were never told. They didn't tell the public then, they

didn't tell them in 1975 and they didn't tell them in the election last

December.

Mr. Speaker, where was the press when the former directors of that

corporation should have been interviewed outside this House and

answered those very serious and grave charges? Where were the denials?

Where was the public outcry? That same outcry, by the way, Mr. Speaker,

was quite easily generated when organizations, fronting as concerned

citizens, petitioned and demonstrated and pressured against proposed

increases in ICBC — increases that were justified and entirely in

keeping with the original concept of the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia, a concept which, simply stated, was that

[ Page 928 ]

money which came into the plan would equal money

going out of the plan and not a penny — not a penny — of taxpayers'

dollars would be spent on ICBC. The premiums would look after the

entire amount and that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what has now been done

with the plan.

While we are on the subject of ICBC and while we're talking about a

direct loss of $181 million in this socialist experiment, I would like

to say to the minister responsible for ICBC that the majority of the

people in this province are not opposed to the way he has handled the

situation. In fact, they support the hon. member for his decisive steps

in returning our taxation priorities to people where tax dollars belong

and to pledging an end to political interference in both rate-setting

and administration of our insurance corporation.

His measure of success to date, Mr. Speaker, can be clearly observed

in the dramatic decrease in claims and the dramatic decrease in

auto-body billings being received in the corporation's offices.

Hopefully, we are on a course to end the greatest taxpayer ripoff of

all times.

Mr. Speaker, on March 26 it would have been a popular course for the

Social Credit government and the Finance minister to substantially

increase government spending. It would have been popular to leave the

sales tax at 5 per cent, to reduce personal taxation, to ignore the

increase of hospital care, to allow the province to go even further

into debt — popular, Mr. Speaker, today but totally irresponsible when

viewed in a year, or two years, or whenever the bills are finally

presented.

This government was elected on the principle that you cannot borrow

yourself into prosperity. Work, sacrifice and savings are necessary

ingredients for individual financial success, and no less holds true

for a government. This province was built on these principles, it was

almost destroyed without these principles, and it shall be rebuilt now

that these principles have again been returned to government philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to convey my support and the

support of the close to 26,000 people who elected me for the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who has initiated a new

thrust in his department to ensure the people of British Columbia that

social service dollars reach the people those dollars were intended

for, and do not fall into the greedy hands of professional welfare

recipients who would do anything to avoid becoming meaningful

contributors to the economy of this province. That is not redneck

philosophy, Mr. Speaker; that is simply common sense.

Mr. Speaker, while each of us in this House represents a different area of

this province, and in many cases a different philosophy, we all share one thing

in common, and that is to serve the people of our respective constituencies

regardless of political affiliation. We share, I believe, a common goal: the

betterment of British Columbia and all British Columbians. To that end, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to address myself to some problems in my riding and outline

some of the basic areas of concern as they have been expressed to me.

A new crossing of the Fraser River between the Deas Tunnel and the

Pattullo Bridge must be a priority item for this government. Both

existing crossings are presently being well used in excess of their

intended capacity, and with projected growth patterns for the area over

the next several years, the situation can only worsen. With each

passing year, costs of construction increase and costs of acquiring

necessary land continue their dramatic upward spiral. On behalf,

therefore, of the thousands upon thousands of motorists who currently

spend hours in long lineups, I would urge this government to begin

positive plans in that direction at the earliest possible moment.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I was extremely pleased on Tuesday,

April 6, to have had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), his departmental staff and the mayor of

Surrey to discuss possible methods of alleviating the existing

congestion by commencing an immediate study into the feasibility of

increasing park-and-ride systems at key problem areas. I look forward

to working closely with all parties concerned in bringing some planning

in this area to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, within my constituency there exists a very large

agricultural industry — an industry which is on the verge of extinction

throughout this province. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that on the one hand

the previous administration has said to the farming community, "You

shall not dispose of your land; you shall retain this land for

agriculture," but on the other hand has done little if anything to

ensure a viable agricultural industry for those designated farmers.

While the basic concept of Bill 42 was a sound one in its philosophy of

preservation of farmlands, its blanket coverage and total lack of

detailed professional input has turned our farming community into a

shambles. Land which lacks viability in virtually every respect has

been placed in the agricultural land reserve, and areas which would be

ideal for municipally determined housing programmes, light industrial

sites or even parks have been excluded for that very use.

Land which government has seen fit to expropriate for power lines,

highways, rights-of-way, sewage programmes, drainage plans and railways

has in many cases been so cut up that a farmer is simply not able to

farm his land in any profit-oriented method. To have such land included

in agricultural land reserves is neither economically sound nor fair to

those who in many cases have been farming there for generations.

[ Page 929 ]

To this end, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), the minister responsible for the Land

Commission, will be taking into account economic viability as one of

the factors in determining whether or not exemptions to the ALR shall

be included. I can assure you that the farming community in my area

looks forward to such a refreshing and positive move.

The farming community also, Mr. Speaker, looks forward to the

Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') commitment to an

aggressive marketing programme for British Columbia for produce —

produce which at the present time cannot compete in the marketplace

with cheap imports. I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will

continue to pressure the federal government for a much more realistic

appraisal of import and export duties in the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade in the forthcoming rounds of discussion.

The agricultural industry is an important one to this province and

will be even more so in the years to come. I express to you the united

desire of the agricultural industry that the agriculture portfolio soon

becomes a separate one with the full attention it so richly deserves.

As mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, fishing is also an important

aspect within my riding. I would now like to say a few words about the

feasibility report to develop a small-craft harbour for commercial

fishing vessels and pleasure craft in Ladner — an area, by the way,

which has suffered some considerable neglect from all levels of

government over the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, for a capital cost of approximately $1.25 million,

which would include storage lockers, net racks, net wharves and other

services for the commercial fishing vessels, as well as providing

buildings for lease to marine sales and service, marine equipment

suppliers and other marine-oriented businesses, it is technically

feasible and is financially responsible to develop a small-craft

harbour in Ladner.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed small-craft harbour would have a

considerable economic impact on the Ladner area, potentially generating

over $400,000 a year in community revenues within a few years after

construction. Hopefully, capital financing assistance in the form of

either a capital grant or long-term low-interest rate can be arranged

with the cooperation of the federal and provincial governments, and the

Ladner harbour project could become a reality.

A feasibility report to this end has already been prepared by Swan

Wooster Engineering for the Corporation of Delta. Hopefully a

favourable response will be generated by their request.

We look forward also, Mr. Speaker, to the development of the Tilbury

Island project, not only for its industrial tax base but for its

ability to provide local employment and remove the necessity of

travelling into the greater Vancouver area for jobs.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the Delta Chamber of

Commerce in their endeavours to attract industry to our riding, and for

their sponsorship of the many tri-level meetings which have been held

in an effort to iron out problems holding up the often-lengthy

decision-making process.

Hopefully too, Mr. Speaker, the problems revolving around the White

Rock railway will be tackled head on during the term of this

government's office. No one issue has been more of a political football

than this one. The people of White Rock deserve a straightforward

answer as to the eventual outcome of the Great Northern Railway which

runs along the waterfront of White Rock. If, in fact, the federal

government does not have the funds or, as appears the case, does not

wish to provide the funding to assist in the relocation of this

railway, then steps must be taken now to offer alternate plans to the

municipality of White Rock so that their planning may be realistic and

based on new government cost-sharing formulas.

The people in North Delta and Surrey have for years expressed

concern over the Scott Road widening project which has been much talked

about but seldom acted on. It is to the credit of this Social Credit

government that the first stage of that widening project has been

approved and that construction is now underway. It is forever to the

credit of the Highways department that bus bays are going to be

provided offstreet to allow the smooth flow of traffic between 80th and

96th Avenues. It is further encouraging to note, Mr. Speaker, that this

is only the first stage of the widening project and that further

development will be commenced upon completion of this first stage.

There are, of course, Mr. Speaker, many other areas of concern to

the people throughout my riding. Recreational grants, new municipal

cost-sharing formulas, natural gas revenue-sharing and a review of per

capita grants are all of vital concern and are commitments of this

government.

Mr. Speaker, every citizen of this province knows that the programmes, projects

and undertakings by government cost money. They also know that money governments

spend is their money and that the more demands are placed upon a government,

the more money has to be raised. The NDP have left this province with a legacy

of debt: irresponsible wage settlements for the civil service; resource policies

that have stagnated resource growth; bureaucratic growth out of all proportion

to the growth of the national product and spending programmes that have been

both ill-timed and ill-considered.

In the budget presented to this House on March 26, the people of British

Columbia were asked to swallow some bitter medicine. Mr. Speaker, even a

[ Page 930 ]

sick patient must often take some bitter medicine,

but when that medicine takes effect and when the patient has recovered,

he soon forgets the bitter taste and thanks the doctor for his

knowledge of what to prescribe and thanks himself for his own good

sense in taking the time to visit that doctor. The people of British

Columbia called in a doctor on December 11. Medication has been

prescribed. The patient will recover with renewed vigour and be enabled

to continue on to even greater prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments put forward by the NDP opposition and

others that this budget reflects a bottom-line attitude towards

financing, that it is cold, calculating and heartless and that it does

not reflect services to people are utter and total nonsense. What is

even worse is that they know it is nonsense. The total increase in this

budget was only 5.4 per cent. But what about the main areas — the

people areas, the service areas? What happened in those areas, Mr.

Speaker? Health is up by 20.5 per cent; Human Resources increased by

22.3 per cent; Education increased by 10.9 percent.

Mr. Speaker, every argument the opposition has put forward on this

budget has been proved totally groundless, without foundation and is an

insult to the intelligence of every voter in this province. For any

opposition member to claim that this government is not financially

responsible when, in fact, they miscalculated their last budget by

1,080 per cent, has to rank as one of the seven wonders of the world.

Isn't it surprising, Mr. Speaker, that today the opposition members

seem to have 20-20 hindsight, when for the three and some years they

were in power they were totally blind to the practical realities in

virtually every segment of their administration? I am confident, Mr.

Speaker, that the people in my riding can look forward to a government

committed to serving the people of British Columbia in all the

traditions that have marked the former 20 years of Social Credit

government — a government committed to people, a government committed

to services to people, a government committed to building a strong

economy, a government committed to full employment, and a government

committed to fiscal responsibility. These are the policies that made

British Columbia the great province that it is, and these are the

policies, Mr. Speaker, that will keep British Columbia a great province.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement and an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I tabled

a letter from the Prime Minister of Canada (Rt. Hon. Mr. Trudeau) in

the House last Friday and announced that I would be meeting with

representatives of the federal government today. I'm pleased to welcome

to British Columbia today, and to this House, Mr. Gordon Robertson,

secretary of the federal cabinet for federal-provincial relations, and

Mr. Frank Carter, deputy secretary to the federal cabinet for

federal-provincial relations.

Today we have had useful private talks and I look forward to further

discussions with the first ministers on questions related to the

patriation of the constitution and many other issues which involve

federal-provincial relationships at this time.

Would the House please welcome Mr. Robertson and Mr. Carter?

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take my

position in this budget debate even though the budget address was such

a very unhappy speech. I'm going to differ from the member for Delta

(Mr. Davidson) who has just spoken in glowing terms about this

particular speech. But it's an unhappy one, and it's unhappy because it

reflects the bitterness of this government; it's unhappy because it

comes from a hateful mentality — I regret having to say that; it's

unhappy because its purpose is to discipline the people of British

Columbia for having elected a socialist government in 1972; it's

unhappy because it has brought shame upon British Columbia in its

presumption to assess the politics of other nations; it's unhappy

because it imposes cruel and unnecessary taxes upon the working people

of our province. All told, Mr. Speaker, that makes for an unhappy

speech.

I'd like to quote. This is a quote from a newspaper editorial

describing the budget address after it was brought down: "It was a

vindictive performance unworthy of any legislature; a vitriolic frame

for a harsh budget." Those are the words that most aptly describe the

budget that was read by the Minister of Finance on March 26.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're not even sure.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not sure of the date. I can't quite recall. It's been a long debate, Madam Member, a long debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the speaker.

MS. BROWN: We're sure of the content.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do all of you understand it?

MS. SANFORD: So the debate, too, has been an unhappy one. But

if anything is to be gained from this unhappy exercise, Mr. Speaker, it

is possibly the

[ Page 931 ]

opportunity to put before this House, and before

the people of British Columbia, some important information about the

financing of government.

The debate on Bill 11 has focused particular attention on the sales

tax as part of that subject. I hope that the points that have been

raised by the opposition with respect to the unfairness of that

particular tax have had some effect on the members of the government

side of the House, because it's so inequitable and unfair. They are

raising it simply because it is an easy way to raise money, in spite of

the fact that it causes extreme hardship on a large

section of the

people of the province.

As the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has pointed out at the

beginning of this debate, the sales tax is a regressive one. It denies

the principle that citizens' responsibility to contribute to the

revenue of the state should be based on the ability to pay. This, of

course, is the principle behind the graduated income tax, a fair method

of gaining revenue for government, a step toward the more equal

distribution of wealth.

The fight for income tax was a long and hard struggle by parties who

fought for such equality. I believe this government accepts the

principle of income tax and is committed to the income tax as a fair

way of taxing. Of course, I would not be surprised to find that there

are individual members on the government side of this House who do not

share this view. When I hear some of the sentiments coming from the

other side of the House, admittedly from those who are new and less coy

than their colleagues in the front bench, I sometimes wonder how far we

have come in the history of civilization.

We hear their paranoia about the enemy. We hear them toy with

dangerously extreme rightist theories. When I hear these sentiments,

Mr. Speaker, I would not be surprised to find someone over there who

doesn't believe that the income tax is the best way of raising funds

for operating government.

lnterjections.

MS. SANFORD: Pardon?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): What about dangerous weapons? Do you have one over there?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Comox has the floor. Please proceed.

MS. SANFORD: As a matter of fact, based on what I have heard

from some of the people on those back benches, I would not be surprised

to hear one of the members in the next few days, while speaking on the

budget debate, advocate a poll tax as a method of raising tax for the

government.

The government wants to borrow up to $400 million; we passed that

legislation. It has been pointed out that this is a desperate move to

gain some credibility in the eyes of the public. Their desperation to

try to make good all of the election propaganda over the last three

years has resulted in some very interesting developments.

We have the situation where on several occasions the Premier is

contradicting the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). We also had the

scene of the Minister of Finance being hauled down the corridors by the

coat sleeves, tugged along by the Premier, so he won't tell the press

anything that doesn't fit in with the very carefully developed game

plan which was, as I say, used throughout the campaign during the last

three years.

It resulted in issuing a rubber cheque to a Crown corporation

swimming in money. Now we find that that money comes from general

revenue and that the government has borrowed the money back. As one

article in the paper pointed out this morning, they are robbing Peter

to pay Paul to give back to Peter to give back.... Well, it gets very

confusing, Mr. Speaker.

It has resulted in the issuing of special warrants of very

questionable urgency — and that has been debated in the House. Advance

payments to beef growers — they weren't expecting to receive those

moneys in the last fiscal year, not until this fiscal year. It has

resulted in payment in full to the newly amalgamated municipalities of

Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George and Nanaimo. They weren't expecting

that money either, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, yes, they were — two years ago.

MS. SANFORD: All of this is to build up that deficit that the

member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) was talking about. What a distressing

performance!

The backbenchers over and over again have given that line in their

speeches. I think that the opposition has pointed out over and over

again the fancy financial footwork that is going on in order to try to

convince the public of this province that there was a $441 million

deficit. They've made it; they've created it. It's the result of their

political decisions that the bill to borrow up to $400 million had to

be introduced in this House, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that the public is becoming aware of the shenanigans that have been going on on the other side of the House.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): We had three years of shenanigans in this House.

[ Page 932 ]

MS. SANFORD: He's talking about three years of shenanigans. You know, that's interesting, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Human Resources is talking about three years of

shenanigans. I would like to make short reference to some of the

financial....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You don't have to. We've seen the consequences.

MS. SANFORD: All right. Look, what I would like to point out

to you, and you obviously don't want to know, Mr. Minister.... You

obviously don't want to know anything about the finances of this

province except what you're being told at this time by the Premier and

the Minister of Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Take your seat or make some sense.

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to tell you regardless.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member who's

speaking, would you please remember to address the Chair? It will help

me in maintaining order in the House.

Would the hon. members opposite please not interrupt the speaker who has the floor, the member for Comox?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, if you can get them to behave, I can assure you I will address the Chair on every occasion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you will do your part, I will try to get them to do theirs.

MR. LAUK: And we'll all do our

part if they'll do their part. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: The cash reserves in December of this year stood

at $143.7 million, which is up more than 40 per cent in the year 1972,

Mr. Minister. The provincial debt in the form of parity bonds is down

by more than $110 million since 1972.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I don't think the minister wants to listen to my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

The assets, I think, are an important factor in the overall financial picture

of the province, and between the years 1972 to 1975 the assets of the previously

existing Crown corporations increased from $3.8 billion to $5.2 billion, an

increase of $1.4 billion or 35.6 per cent, Mr. Speaker. The overall increase

in assets in the Crown corporation sector during the same period is $1.9 billion

to a total of $5.7 billion, an overall increase of 49.4 per cent.

But they don't want to hear those figures, Mr. Speaker. They have

their minds made up. The Minister of Human Resources has indicated to

us just this afternoon that he doesn't want to hear any of those

figures. That's unfortunate, because it will help them understand in

the next few years that the finances of the period between 1972 and

1975 were not at all what they are trying to convince the people of the

province today that they are.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: The other thing that the members on the other

side neglect to mention, and I don't know whether the Minister of Human

Resources.... I didn't hear him mention this in his particular speech.

But I was noticing in the paper this morning, in response to a question

on the order paper, that the Columbia River deal, which was, as you

know, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Human Resources,

initiated, drawn up and put into effect by the previous Social Credit

government, lost $1 billion.

The member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), who spoke just before I spoke, did not mention that figure at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's not true. That's why he didn't mention it.

MS. SANFORD: It's not true? Are you saying that the answer

which is filed on the order paper by the hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) in response to a question asked by the

hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), is not true?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're twisting the thing.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Is he saying it's not true, Mr. Speaker? I didn't quite hear that.

MS. BROWN: That's what he said.

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

MS. SANFORD: It's not true?

[ Page 933 ]

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: That's a sizable overrun — a sizable overrun.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's $1,000 million.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Rubbish!

MS. SANFORD: Rubbish? I heard a member on the other side say

"rubbish." Is he saying that the Minister of Transport is not answering

the question correctly — the one that was placed on the order paper?

Now that they have raised the taxes, Mr. Speaker, and they want to

borrow up to $400 million as well, I'm just wondering what the

government will do with all the money it will have.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Help people!

MS. SANFORD: Help people? Are you going to re-establish an

office for the co-ordinator of women for the Status of Women? Are you

going to hire back the ambulance attendants? Are they going to give a

little money to the school boards so that they can hire those teachers?

In spite of what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was

saying here last night, I expect that there will be teachers in

September of this year who are looking for work. Perhaps they'll use

some of that money to hire back those teachers. I'm just wondering what

else they might do with the money.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Help people!

MS. SANFORD: Perhaps they will do a world-wide advertising campaign to sell B.C. land.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Their policy on foreign ownership of land suggests to me that they might well advertise outside the country.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Magazines advertise all over the place: "Land in British Columbia is for sale to absentee foreigners."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if that's what they will use the money for.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Perhaps they are planning to use the money to

prepare brochures that they can send out to the mining companies around

the world inviting them to come to B.C. where ore will once again be

available just for the asking. There will be no need to pay for the raw

material in B.C., even though the raw material — that is the ore —

belongs to all the people. Is that what they are going to do with the

money?

MR. VANDER ZALM: Where did you borrow your moneys?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Maybe the brochure....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Madam, may I just interrupt you long

enough.... I have an assignment to make. The hon. Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), will you kindly read in standing

orders, standing order no. 17 through 21?

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that will help.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should take about two weeks.

MS. SANFORD: Perhaps the minister is going to leave. Is he?

That's unfortunate. Oh, you're going to move. That's good because I

have some more remarks that apply to the minister of that department.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): He needs a haircut.

MS. SANFORD: So maybe they'll prepare brochures that they can

send out to the mining companies of the world, inviting them to come

and help themselves to the ore in B.C. Perhaps those brochures will

make some comment about the fact that they are considering opening up

the parks in the province to mining again.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've already announced that.

MS. SANFORD: Or maybe they are going to put the extra money

they are going to collect this year in a sack so it can be given out

just before the next election. That's what I think they are going to

do, Mr. Speaker. That's what I think.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, that's an idea, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they could buy back the Prince George.

[ Page 934 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: You know, I'm serious, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If hon. members wish to speak

they are to rise in their place. I ask the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) to return to his seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Return to Columbia River.

MS. SANFORD: Would you like me to wait for him to return, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was disheartened to hear that the

provincial government had decided to sell the Prince George; and I

think all those people who glory in the history of the steamship

service along this coast felt the same way. The Prince George was built

for the CNR way back in 1928 and, unlike the Princess Marguerite, it

was intended for longer trips. It had stateroom accommodation for 318

people.

After this ship had suffered some fire damage following a lengthy

career on the coast, the CNR decided to sell it. In August, 1975, the

B.C. government purchased the Prince George for $230,000 with the

expectation of repairing the damage and putting the vessel into service

in the spring of this year. Plans called for one-week round-trip

service. At that time, the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) stated: "This is an important move in

aiding the economy along the B.C. coast, as well as assuring new

employment opportunities for people with maritime training." That's all

gone now, Mr. Speaker. It's all gone.

In addition, the vessel would have provided an important

transportation link between the isolated communities along the coast.

Two of the ports of call suggested were Alert Bay and Campbell River,

the latter contingent on the construction of a new ferry dock there.

Those are two places in my riding, both of which have indicated either

by mail or a phone call that they are most dissatisfied with the

decision to sell the Prince George.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Davis) gives as his reasons for selling the vessel a projected

deficit resulting from renovations and rising operating costs. We're

back to the black ink at the bottom of the balance sheet.

He also claims that there would be tough competition. However, the

minister is ignoring a staff report which gives the opinion that the

Prince George would be a profitable venture, that the U.S. business and

the creation of the 100 jobs lends justification to a marginally

profitable operation. Those are words out of the report. That would

have been a popular sailing, Mr. Speaker, and that's evidenced by the

fact that when the Minister of Transport and Communications announced

the sale of the vessel, already 30 per cent of the stateroom capacity

had been booked for the summer.

But aside from the contradictory claims about profit and loss, I

feel strongly that our people need a sense of their own history. I also

feel that the quality of life is too important to be measured solely by

that bottom line on the balance sheet for which they are so noted

across over there. The restoration of legends like the Royal Hudson,

the Princess Marguerite and the Prince George add significantly to the

quality of life. I'm very much disturbed to hear, in answer to a

question raised by the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to

the Minister of Transport and Communications, that they are now

considering the sale of the Princess Marguerite as well. I think it's

shameful. I wonder if they're going to sell the Royal Hudson as well.

MS. BROWN: And the Parliament buildings. It's shocking!

AN HON. MEMBER: Say, there's an idea.

MS. SANFORD: A matter, which is related to the budget, that

disturbs me greatly is the approach taken to the unemployed and the

low-income earners — particularly that taken by the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in various public statements. The

approach taken, as exemplified by various public statements and

directives concerning welfare recipients and other victims of

unemployment, appears to be three-pronged.

First: cater to and feed the widespread public feeling that to be

unemployed, and in particular to be a welfare recipient, is somehow a

sin. Ancillary to this, ministerial pronouncements encourage the

attitude that these unfortunate members of society are significantly to

blame for economic tightening, and that humane measures to deal with

their distress are financially irresponsible.

The constant barrage levelled by government benches against the

former government, with reference to the 1974 $100 million overrun,

shows more than anything else a gross insensitivity to human needs.

The merits of programmes like Mincome, Pharmacare, home care and day

care are ignored by them. Instead, incipient public resentment against

the unemployed and the disadvantaged generally is parlayed into an

attack on these people and on the

[ Page 935 ]

government which reacted to their needs.

The second prong to the minister's strategy is to use the cynically

fabricated so-called deficit situation to cut back programmes which in

themselves account for a minimal part of total government expenditure.

The reality is that these programmes, like community resource boards,

day care, transition houses, women's centres, et cetera, are not in

tune with the Socred thinking and their general philosophy. That's the

reality, Mr. Speaker.

Underlying all of the manoeuvring and blustering is a deep-seated

19th century view that unemployment is per se a sin, that women belong

in the kitchen and that requesting help from the community at large

somehow shows a weakness of character.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: The third facet of this minister's approach to

his portfolio is loud announcements that he's getting tough with

potential welfare recipients and other presumed spongers. The fact that

there already were controls regarding proximity of habitation to

employment and proof of attempts to find work is ignored.

In my own riding, Mr. Speaker, I know of many cases in the past

three years where people who have moved to areas like Cortes or like

Hornby Island, which is now on the no-no list, have been told by the

department that they must move into an area where they are more likely

to find employment if they are going to receive benefits through the

Department of Human Resources in the form of welfare payments. There's

nothing new about this, but the pronouncements that are coming out are

an attempt to show the public that the new minister is adopting a

get-tough policy.

The strategy is to convince the public that this government is

really tough with those people, and it's a classic case of form without

substance. What are the facts? Canada...tells us that there are 800,000

jobless, but less than 45,000 jobs available in Canada. Is it any

wonder that the objects of the minister's "get a shovel" statement are

deeply injured by such a shoddy and demagogic tactic? They are being

used for this government's political advantage and they know it.

Logically, I would assume that the minister has at his fingertips

the jobs to which these shovels are to be applied, but somehow I don't

think logic is what we can expect. The fact is that the government

strategy is highly unlikely to solve unemployment or to meet clear

human needs. How in the name of common sense can a policy of making day

care more difficult to obtain for lower-income working mothers do

anything other than swell the unemployment and the welfare rolls? How

can a campaign of deliberately discrediting welfare seekers do anything

but discourage would-be employers from using their services? This

policy of turning one part of society against another is a two-edged

sword.

Perhaps even more damaging to long-range plans of reducing

unemployment is the long-time Socred strategy of prostrating this

province on the altar of foreign investment dollars. This investment

has traditionally been directed to capital-intensive extractive

industries with the result that thousands of jobs were exported. The

Columbia River treaty fiasco is a variation on that very theme. Blaming

unemployment on its victims, slashing necessary programmes and trying

to turn many of our people against the unemployed are not worthy

tactics for any government.

This is not a recovery budget, but rather a revenge budget, and it's

those who are least able to pay who will pay the greatest price for the

revenge contained in that budget. The only thing that this budget will

recover is money from the pockets of the people of the province.

We are back, Mr. Speaker, to a government of big business, and the

priorities of this government are clearly stated on the first page of

their first budget speech, and I quote: "To restore confidence in

British Columbia as a good place to invest, to work, and to live." Mr.

Speaker, I cannot support this budget.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

McCarthy

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Jordan

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Wallace, G.S.

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

Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 936 ]

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is my duty to inform you that you have 20 minutes left in debate.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to continue

discussing the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, and somehow, in the

20 minutes allowed to me, to discuss the lack of principle of this bill.

I would certainly like to add my voice to that of the member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) in saying how surprised and sad I was to learn that

the government is planning on selling the Princess Marguerite, and also

add my voice to hers in saying that I hope this is not the beginning of

the end of the Royal Hudson, the parliament buildings, the provincial

museum, various other things and everything else which that government

can get its hand on.

In discussing the principle of this bill, too, Mr. Speaker, I am

hoping I will get an opportunity, not to reflect on a decision which

was made earlier but certainly to say that I viewed the decision handed

down with alarm, as a dangerous precedent being set, allowing people to

shout derogatory comments across the floor as long as they are made in

a tone of banter. All of this is being said within the context of the

bill, of course; I'm not reflecting on a previous ruling by any means.

What I tried to do in speaking earlier about the bill, Mr. Speaker,

was to say that it serves to hurt the poor. I also want now, in my

second phase and after going over that very briefly, to show ways in

which this legislation aids people with above-average income, that like

everything else that government has done to date, it has put the burden

for paying things on the backs of the people who can least afford it

and somehow allows the people who can afford it to get out of it one

way or another.

MR. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): You should be happy.

MS. BROWN: I am not here just to represent myself, Mr. Member. Unlike you, I am here to represent a constituency.

Mr. Speaker, going over it very briefly, what I said earlier was

that Bill 11 is regressive legislation that works a hardship on the

poor. I also took the opportunity this morning to point out that there

were gaps in the exemptions. The minister, in introducing the

legislation, said that it wasn't going to work a hardship on the poor

because it has such very generous exemptions.

I tried to point out that there were some gaps in these exemptions, including

vitamins, which everyone uses if we are to follow the Minister of Health's

(Hon. Mr. McClelland'

s) recommendation and take good care of our health.

The fact that people who use osteopaths and their services...these

vital services are also exempt because they are not covered by

Pharmacare either. Also the decision of the government that a child

ceases to be a child at the age of 15, at precisely the point where

they are more expensive in terms of buying clothing, footwear and

everything else.... If anything, if we are going to have exemptions it

should start at that age.

But I want to talk about the statement about the exemptions also

helping the poor, and try to point out that in fact they do the very

opposite. Because people with higher incomes spend a lot more of their

money on food, and spend a lot more of their money on clothing,

footwear and reading materials, these people do get the benefits,

really, of these exemptions. In fact, it is not the poor who get the

benefit of these exemptions but people of above-average income.

We have been told by Michael Bradfield, assistant professor of economics at Dalhousie, in an

article he had in Canadian Welfare

of July of last year, that in fact of the poorest people 12.5 per cent

of their income goes into paying taxes. As you get over that the

percentage decreases until we have only 10 per cent of the top brackets

paying much less than that in terms of their own income.

Since this particular piece of legislation is geared directly at

consumers and at the purchasing power, those people who spend most of

their money on food, on clothing and on footwear are the ones who

benefit from the fact that these are the very items which are exempt

from this particular kind of tax.

I want to also point out, Mr. Speaker, another way in which this tax

also affects the poor, and that is by another piece of legislation

introduced earlier by this government. I am not reflecting on a

previous vote at all; I am still dealing with this particular bill. We

saw that the provincial personal income tax did not raise the base. In

fact, the very people who were covered by the tax, and paid the most of

it because they were poor, are also the very people who spend most of

their money on consumer purchases and, again, are used and abused by

this 40 per cent increase in this very regressive tax.

I want to quote from the Santa Cruz poverty report where he was

talking about the tax system when he spoke about the sales tax, which

is the principle of this bill, and where he said that it hits everyone

for exactly the same amount, regardless of ability to pay.

This is what makes it such a regressive tax — that, in fact, it

doesn't matter whether you are rich or you are poor; there are certain

basic items that you must have and, in fact, if you are wealthy you can

exercise options, which poor people cannot exercise. That is

[ Page 937 ]

what makes this tax so regressive.

Now if you include with this sales tax the fact that these

people...because the previous bill did not raise the base of exemption

for poor people, you find that they are hit by the sales tax at the

same time that they are being hit by the increases in personal income

tax, which this government also brought in. In fact, I think it was one

of the Victoria newspapers that pointed out to us that within a short

term of office this government has introduced seven different ways of

hitting the taxpayer, and, as I pointed out earlier this morning, the

people who pay the brunt of it are people making incomes between $5,000

and $7,000 a year.

As I pointed out at that time, again, this will include your people

making the minimum wage as well as people on fixed income, and

certainly the recipients of Mincome and other services of that nature.

So we see that this Bill 11 does a double thing. It penalizes the poor

for being poor and, because of the exemptions introduced in it, it is

of benefit to those people of above-average income who spend a lot more

of their money on food, clothing, books et cetera and so benefit from

the various exemptions built into this legislation.

I want to quote another instance. It says: "The truth of the matter

is, of course" — and again I'm using Canadian statistics — "because of

inflation the poor have not increased their purchasing power." In fact,

it is the rich who have increased their purchasing power and, as a

result, are in a much better position to benefit from the exemptions

which have been included in this bill and which the Minister of Finance

tells us were included in the bill to ensure that it did not bear

heavily on the low-income and medium-income families.

Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) this

morning, when he was asked about ways in which revenue could be raised,

rather than through the sales tax, outlined, of course, the fact that

the royalties on coal and other minerals as well as natural gas have

been overlooked by that government, and I certainly hope that this was

an oversight on their part. When the Minister of Finance was here this

morning when I was speaking, I tried to appeal to him to look at these

alternative sources of raising revenue rather than going through the

sales tax, which, again I'll repeat, everyone agrees — most people

agree; certainly economists do — that it is a regressive form of

taxation.

I don't want to again go into the recommendations made by the first

member for Vancouver Centre, except to say that certainly the coal

royalties and royalties on other mineral resources as well as on

natural gas would be a much more equitable way in which to raise

revenue, since the Minister of Finance has said that the only thing

that he is interested in is raising revenue.

I want to quote from a newspaper article, again a Victoria paper, the Times ,

which said: "It takes $550 more in income just to stand still in this

province in terms of one's earning power as a result of the seven

different ways in which the government, in a short period of time, has

managed to increase taxation." Now if we look at the average income,

for example, of a sole-support parent in this province, we find that

the average income tends to run around $5,000 a year. Mr. Speaker,

$5,000 a year runs about $400 a month, give or take a dollar here or

there.

If we find that an increase in taxes means a deduction of $550 from

this, then I think we begin to understand the kind of hardship that the

combination of things, the combination of taxation introduced by this

government is certainly having on people on fixed income. Again I draw

your attention to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, I draw

your attention to the poverty report of Senator Croll. You will see

that most of the people in this province, as in this country, living

perilously close to, or below, the poverty line are single-parent

families, are your women who are heads of families, as well as people

over the age of 60, or over the age of 65.

The Minister of Finance has returned to his seat, and again I want

to use this opportunity to appeal to him to take a second look, the

famous second look that that government used to take when the father of

the son was the Premier of this province, to take a second look at this

piece of legislation to see whether, in fact, rather than raising the

sales tax by 40 per cent, it would not be indeed wiser and more

compassionate to lower the sales tax by the same amount, if not by

more, recognizing, as I've said, that people in the higher income,

people in the top income bracket, do not need the benefits of the

exemption.

If we are going to be concerned at all about being equitable and

about being fair we have to take a total look at all the forms of

taxation which that government has introduced. Certainly a good place

to start would be with this regressive piece of taxation. Again if we

take a family, Mr. Speaker, making $5,000 a year and we take into

account that the increase for residential rents has been allowed to go

to 10.6 per cent instead of the 8 per cent which we had recommended, if

we take a look at the fact that there has been an increase in costs of

home heating oil, if we look at the increase in costs of electricity

and natural gas, if we look at the increase in ICBC costs, if we look

at the increase in medical premiums, if we look at the increase in

costs of hospital beds, if we look at the increase in personal income

tax and add to that the sales tax, then it really is a tremendous

burden that is being inflicted on the people of this province by the

present government.

It has been proven by the minister's own statement in this House today that in fact he is raising

[ Page 938 ]

money which he does not need. During the question

period when he was asked about that cheque for $181 million which was

paid to ICBC, he informed us that it came from consolidated revenue,

the very thing we were told was empty. We were told there was no money

in general revenue. We were told that a bill had to be passed by

midnight on March 31, and in fact that empty barrel was the one that

produced the cheque for $181 million.

This is not just my opinion, Mr. Minister of Finance. I want to tell you what the Province said in one of its editorials. I don't think anyone in their right mind could accuse the Province ,

certainly, of being supportive of the New Democratic Party. The

editorial said about all these taxes you have been raising, on March 27:

"These are difficult times for economic forecasting,

but there is at least a suspicion that the need for these tax increases

is temporary and that the government will be able to cut taxes again as

the economy rises. If that turns out to be the case, the government

announcing vast budget surpluses in a year or two and cutting taxes

back just before an election is called, then we will know that it

started playing games with this first budget."

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that one must speak

against the introduction of all of these pieces of tax legislation,

which includes Bill 11 to which I am addressing myself, must be this

suspicion on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that, in fact,

this is unnecessary taxation and that the government is trying to build

up a kind of surplus which will make it possible suddenly to discover

these surpluses in a year or two and start cutting taxes back just

before the next election is called.

I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this is an

inhumane way of dealing with people. Certainly it is an inhumane way of

dealing with people who are on fixed incomes. Certainly it is an

inhumane way of dealing with people making the minimum wage, the

working poor — the very people whom we are continually being told over

and over again, Mr. Speaker, bear the burden of the tax system. And

they bear it even more when it is a regressive tax which hits every one

alike regardless of their ability to pay.

Again I want to quote from Senator Croll's report, which referred to

the sales tax as the most regressive of all taxes because it was a tax

on consumption and a tax on need rather than a tax on one's ability to

pay. Whether we look at the report done for the federal government on

taxation, which says that certainly the income tax, if it is used

constructively, is the way to go about raising taxes, or at some other

form of taxation, we'll see that to blanket without thinking an

increase of 40 per cent on the sales tax is not just regressive but

really is a very destructive kind of taxation and hits those people who

can least afford it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What would you have done?

MS. BROWN: You were not in the House, Mr. Minister, when I spoke to

this so maybe I should repeat it. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) in great detail outlined for your benefit, Mr. Minister through the Speaker,

the kinds of royalties on coal and other minerals and a more constructive use

of natural gas as a means of raising your revenue rather than raising it through

the sales tax by increasing it on those people who can least afford to pay...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ...and allowing people who can afford to pay....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must inform you that you have less than two minutes.

MS. BROWN: Oh, my goodness, and I have about.... Oh, Mr. Speaker, this is terrible! Maybe I should ask for leave of the House to go on.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try it!

MS. BROWN: Is that encouragement or a threat, Madam Member?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: In the two minutes that I have left for me....

HON. MR. WOLFE: One now!

MS. BROWN: I want to use it if you would get some order in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's one minute now.

MR. COCKE: People keep interrupting.

MS. BROWN: It's not fair, and I know why they do it. It's

because I'm telling the truth and I'm giving out words of wisdom to the

Minister of Finance. That's the reason why you keep heckling me.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: However, Mr. Speaker, specifically to the Minister of Finance, I am using my last minute

[ Page 939 ]

to ask him to reconsider his position on this particular piece of legislation.

As a new member who is in this House with an open mind, who has not yet been

corrupted by some of the old horses — oops! — in the backbench and other places,

I would ask him to seriously reconsider, on the basis of the evidence which

I have submitted of how destructive this piece of legislation is going to be

on the poor and on people on fixed incomes in this province, withdrawing this

piece of legislation or at least accepting an amendment to hoist it for a year

or two.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the hon. member

for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) last evening who made reference to the former

Premier of the province W.A.C. Bennett's strong opposition to the introduction

of the 3 per cent sales tax in 1948. He is correct, but as the years progressed

we did not take long to find that that hon. gentleman, W.A.C. Bennett, became

famous for his second look. So all during the early '50s when there were

discussions on what should be done about premiums — should they have individuals

pay for them or should the government participate in some way.... Of course,

in 1954 the then Premier of the province increased the sales tax to 5 per cent

from 3 per cent.

I am glad to see the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in his

seat because he may recall — I'm not going to be critical of his

position at that time; I don't think that he was a member, but I

remember him in Vancouver — and I'm more or less going to put a feather

on his hat, because he was a rising young leader in the CCF.... From

what I can understand, this debate did not really come out on the floor

of the convention of the CCF Party, but he was the one who advocated a

5 per cent sales tax even before we heard it from W.A.C. Bennett.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Oh, that's interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MRS. JORDAN: Who was that again?

MR. CALDER: Well, my good friend. I hope he doesn't deny this because I mentioned to him once when I used to tell my other friends....

AN HON. MEMBER: A member of the opposition.

MR. CALDER: Yes, but like I say, the debate didn't come right

out on the floor of the House — the debates in Vancouver — but, from

what I can understand, if it had come out I think my friend would have

been reprimanded in no uncertain terms, so it never really came out in

the open. I respect the member for advocating such a thing. He would

have been a hero, but he did not become a hero because of the

shortsightedness of the CCF Party at that time.

A few months later, our friend, W.A.C. Bennett, introduced a 5 per

cent sales tax. I just thought I'd enlighten the members on this

situation. That member later became a member of the House, and last

year became the Minister of Finance of the Crown. I'm just wondering

what he would have done if after December 11 the NDP had remained in

power. What would that finance minister have done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.

MRS. JORDAN: What would Rosemary have done?

Interjections.

MR. CALDER: Because it would have been in this session that the public would have known about the pile-up of debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly!

MR. CALDER: The former government would then have taken some

action, and that action would have been an increase of taxes

everywhere. Being an advocate of the sales tax, I suggest that he would

have entertained an increase to the sales tax at this time.

I also listened to a man who has become a real professional

economist — the first member for Vancouver. You know, he's now got a

habit of lecturing to this side of the House about companies he said we

should be taxing, the industries that we should be taxing. They went

overboard when they were in power by scaring off those very people whom

he's talking about taxing.

A member from the other side used the word "hateful" today and I

thought he was going to be asked to retract the word, but apparently

it's in Webster's. I'll go as far as to say that one of the big factors

— the reason why the goose was killed — was because of that party's

hatred of free enterprise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CALDER: I don't hesitate in saying that, and despite

industries, every which way, and believe it. So in the meantime, the

welfare professionals in the former cabinet were busy doling out that

money, and of course, the whole thing would have come out at this

session had they won the government on December 11.

So, I say, Mr. Speaker, in my little brief contribution at this time

that this bill is not destructive like the previous speaker said. I

think this

[ Page 940 ]

is an absolutely necessary thing. We'll know what

it's all about in the next budget, whether we've done right or not,

because this is going to be an open book. This is part of the many

bills that are coming in that are going to lead towards recovery in the

province and I think it's clearly understood.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentioned about the

markets of foreign people. He even pinpointed Japan. I spent a little

time with my wife in Japan last Christmas and New Year and her father

is a businessman and I hear from other friends in our little fireside

chats that Japan heard about the former government here and that they

didn't have any confidence in that government, no faith in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. CALDER: No faith in it, but I think their cutbacks were

just beginning when there was a change of government and I hope that

we'll go back to British Columbia being recognized by other countries,

and I say this comparatively speaking to how they looked upon B.C. in

the last three years.

So I say I'm quite amazed that they're now going to oppose the very

thing that's going to pay out the Barrett debt. We always hear about

the Barrett debt. We get the papers and everybody else says.... Well,

that's enough. I think the public now understands, but when I got there

things are still cropping up we couldn't help, especially now when

they're denying this. The gall of them, denying it!

So we have to continue. If they want to contribute this scrap, we're

here ready, and so my contribution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this

debate.... I'll be very happy to stand up and be counted in support of

this.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Well, I was going to start

off by stating that up to now we really hadn't heard from any of the

government backbenchers, but, of course, I cannot say that now, having

just heard from one.

Listening very carefully to the hon. member's speech and putting

aside all references to political — shall we say — statements which had

nothing to do with the bill under discussion and just relating myself

to the one part which he did mention relative to the bill, I found it

rather incredible that he made the point.... The only point of defence

for this bill was that, "Well, if we're wrong we'll find out in a few

months." Mr. Speaker, that was the whole essence, as you know, of the

opposition supporting the move to hoist the bill, and I don't want to

get back on that amendment.

I want to move into my own opinions on the whole matter of the bill

presently in front of us, but to have the suggestion "we'll know in a

few months" certainly doesn't give too much consolation to the citizens

of British Columbia out there who are all going to be overburdened with

an extra 2 per cent until this government decides whether they really

needed it or not. The whole point of the opposition's speeches up to

now has been trying to point out to the government that you don't seem

to be sure. You haven't proved to us. You've been noticeably silent,

including the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) on the need — the

economic need for this bill....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: That's been made quite clear to us, that there

is doubt in the minds of the government by the speech we just heard

from the hon. member who took his seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ahahaha!

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I know that you do not wish me to

be repetitious and we have had almost — to this point now — every

member of the opposition take their place in this debate and they have

gone through in great detail, and I consider the most articulate

manner, the reasons of basic concern for the passage of this bill and

why we are against it.

All members have discussed the regressive and the inequitable

features of the bill, which have not been refuted by one member of the

government, and I really don't know what the backbenchers are going to

do.

Again, as I said earlier in one of my other speeches, when you do

return home and you have to talk to the folks back home, how are you

going to explain to them the need for this when your own minister has

not pointed to the opposition, or to you, why this is needed?

We hear the old story: it's needed to pay back the Barrett debt.

Well, already you have been fooling around with quite a bit of money.

We heard today that the ICBC cheque has been bounced around. If you're

concerned about having extra revenue, what about that money you are

just getting from ICBC? You've been playing around with it; put it to

use and take off this awesome burden of an extra 2 per cent tax on the

citizens of British Columbia.

Now we've had a number of points made very cogently about the sales

tax. But the point that really concerns us — and should concern all

backbenchers and all members of government — about the sales tax is the

effect it has on the low-income earner. This cannot be refuted. I'm

sure that the government backbenchers must themselves be concerned

about this. But as they have not found it possible to get up and defend

or refute that this does have an effect on the low-income earner far

more than it does on those of higher income, I just want to read to you

a few figures which may assist

[ Page 941 ]

you in coming to a decision on whether you are

going to support this bill or not, after having listened to all the

very fine speeches which have pointed out, I'm sure, quite clearly to

you that it would be most unfair to your constituents to support this

bill.

If we look at a 1972 research table on the effect of the sales tax

on annual incomes, I just want to quote briefly to you that starting

with people who earn under $4,000, they pay 1.282 per cent of their

income as sales tax. When they get to the $5,000-$6,000 bracket, it

moves to 1.640. The interesting thing is that when they get to an

income of $6,000 to $7,000, it goes to 1.617. It's starting to drop.

When you get to an income of $8,000, it's dropping further — 1.416.

Then the interesting thing is that when you hit the area of the $12,000

to $15,000 income bracket, you find that the incidence is 1.382. When

you get to the $20,000 bracket, it drops further — 1.224 per cent. When

you hit $25,000 income bracket, it drops even further — 1.098 per cent.

Therefore the incidence of sales tax as percentage of income is 50

per cent higher at the $6,000 to the $7,000 income bracket than at the

$20,000 to the $25,000 income bracket. Those figures were taken, I

realize, from 1972, but the same incidence could be related to what is

going to happen to the citizens of British Columbia when this 2 per

cent inequitable tax is imposed.

We have also pointed out that you have not, as a government, or as

any spokesperson from the government, pointed out to the opposition

that you need this money. Because you can't point out that it's really

needed, it has become quite clear to us that you are going to end up,

or are hoping to end up, with a surplus.

Now the people of British Columbia have already been hit by a number

of tax increases by this government. I can assure you that this final

imposition of an extra 2 per cent, which cannot be backed up with any

reasonable argument, is straight overkill, and the people of British

Columbia will not accept it. I think, when you return to your home

ridings, you're going to have extreme difficulty — if you do support

this bill — in explaining to them why this extra 2 per cent has been

imposed by your government.

If we look at food prices in British Columbia alone, they are at

present 4 per cent higher than the rest of the country, with the

exception of the Maritime provinces. The people of British Columbia are

already paying some of the highest prices in the country for essential

goods and services. Yet here we have the Social Credit government

further taxing an already overburdened taxpayer.

This is a move that will take away from the people, the average

person, and will even shrink their dollar further and decrease their

purchasing power.

We have had pointed out from this side of the House, quite clearly

and well, that there are other sources of revenue. The hon. member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) went through them in her budget speech and in her

speech on sales tax, and other members have, how there are other

sources of revenue which we believe this government has not even looked

at. But of course there is a philosophical difference; we are talking

about getting a return from the natural resources of this province. If

you wish to do that....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You mean like the mining industry?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, we do. If you wish to get that return so as

to return it to the people of this province, you would have an

opportunity for increased revenue, fairly raised, and without imposing

it on those who can least afford to pay for it.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, another reprehensible feature of this whole bill is the regressive nature, as I said, of the tax. The problem is....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why is it reprehensible?

MRS. DAILLY: Well, why it's reprehensible is that once it's

imposed — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance — it is

very difficult, as you will find most governments have always found, to

abolish it. Once it has been increased, how many governments have ever

decreased it? — although we do have a sign from Britain today that they

are moving to a decrease. But very seldom do you find this tax being

dropped.

As the Minister of Finance said, the only argument that we've had

for it is that it's easy to impose and it raises a lot of money. That

to date is the only argument we've had in favour of the imposition of

this tax, so I know that the hon. Minister of Finance is prepared to

rise to his feet very soon and give us an answer to some of these

questions which we have raised during debate. I hope the hon. Minister

of Finance will explain to us his reasons for imposing an inequitable

tax, will give us his reasons to point out why in his opinion it is not

a regressive tax, and will perhaps lay out to us once and for all and

clearly the actual revenue/expenditure situation of this province that

requires this increase on the total citizenry of our province at this

time.

Perhaps he will also point out to us what the policies of his

government are for raising revenues besides just imposing taxes upon

the ordinary citizens

[ Page 942 ]

of this province.

These are the questions, Mr. Speaker, which we have not had

answered, and these are the reasons why each member in the opposition

stood up to make their points. That is why no reasonable opposition,

representing the constituents which they all do, who are going to

suffer from a very unnecessary tax burden, can possibly support this

bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): I don't want to

abbreviate this debate particularly, because we've only been talking

about this bill since Thursday evening, I believe.

MR. WALLACE: Take your time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Okay, I'll take lots of time. I think it's

highly significant that in the gallery today to witness the passage of

this second reading is the ex-mayor of the district of Langley, Mr.

George Preston, who's here to support the passage of this bill. He's my

brother-in-law, incidentally. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but reflect on the fact that it's a queer

twist of fate. Here we have the same party that increased the budget

for last year by 50 per cent and created our present financial

predicament — no question about it — by establishing expenditure

programmes far beyond our ability to pay. Now they stand here and decry

the tax increase we have been forced to introduce. I guess that's the

penalty of victory at the polls.

I've taken a special note of what they've called this tax. The

official opposition have called this tax unfair, regressive,

oppressive, idiotic, unnecessary, cruel, reprehensible...

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): And a partridge in a pear tree.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...inhumane and fraudulent, Mr. Speaker.

Together with this, we've also had two lectures on taxes in Texas,

which we really have appreciated.

At least you could say, Mr. Speaker, that the sales tax in British

Columbia does have many exemptions — I don't want you to forget this —

where they are important, on family consumables. There is no tax on

food, no tax on children's clothing or footwear, no tax on drugs, no

tax on rent or mortgage payments, no tax on school supplies and reading

materials, and no tax on any service such as repairs, insurance or

labour charges. I'm just taking things at random. There is no tax on

holiday travel or airline tickets, no tax on cablevision....

AN HON. MEMBER: What about toilet paper?

HON. MR. WOLFE: So it's not really an all-embracing tax, and does vary with the level of income or a person's ability to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The opposition is saying that we chose this

tax because it is simple. Surely this argument doesn't even deserve

comment. What could be simpler than increasing other taxes such as

income tax, or corporation tax with just a wave of the hand? Certainly

we don't buy the fact that the choice was made to increase sales tax

just because it is simple.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has stressed

the point that we have underestimated revenues by $100 million. Mr.

Speaker, our revenue estimates are based on a 14 per cent growth in the

economy for the coming year. This member says that we should anticipate

a growth of 16.9 per cent. You know, he can make that prediction

completely free of any responsibility to account for this prediction.

Our estimates were based on cold, hard facts provided by the best

expert opinion at our disposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dave Brown.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Our Treasury Board gave lots of encouragement

to our research staff to raise their sights, and after exhaustive

analysis were persuaded, Mr. Speaker, that the estimated revenues were

not understated for the coming year. We are not about to make the same

error the government made a year ago when the NDP government received

the same estimates of their expert staff, found they were $300 million

below expenditures and solved their dilemma by inflating the revenues

to provide a balanced budget, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment in sales tax was introduced as a last resort because

it was the only alternative available, as other members have mentioned,

to the government to fill the gap in the budget. This amendment is

needed to allow us to carry on the many services and programmes that

are so necessary. The tax is necessary, in other words, not for the

government but for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

McCarthy

Gardom

Veitch

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

[ Page 943 ]

Jordan

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brom

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Wallace, G.S.

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

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to

standing order 8, which reads: "Every member is bound to attend the

service of the House unless leave of absence has been given him by the

House."

MR. SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order on this rule?

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, I thought I heard someone call "order."

Mr. Speaker, the point of order is this: I'm instructed that the hon. Premier

is within the precincts of this building. According to May and the precedents

which bind the rules of this House, by that standing order he has not been given

leave from divisions. I think that by the tradition of the rules of this House

he should be given leave, and I ask Your Honour for a ruling on standing order

8, with respect to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, speaking to the point of order

raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, many times, during the

course of any given day that the House is in session, members come and

go from this chamber. They may be here for a division and they may not

be, according to the business that occupies them at that particular

moment. It would seem to me that if the hon. member for Vancouver

Centre is serious in his pursuit of this matter, I'll certainly meet

with him in my chamber and give him the advantage of a private ruling

on his suggestion.

MR. LAUK: I request that Your Honour rule on the standing

order. I raised it. It's clear to me that the Premier has breached the

standing order and that the Speaker should rule on that.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not consider, Hon. Member, that to be a point of order.

Bill 11, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 12.

CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 12 is an amendment to the

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1976. Hon. members will recall

that tax increases were announced in the budget in order to raise the

revenue required to carry out the necessary services of government.

This bill covers the proposed increase in the cigarette and tobacco

tax. The effect of the increase is to raise the tax on a package of 25

cigarettes from 8 cents to 12 cents; on cigars from 1 cent to 5 cents,

depending on their selling price, and on tobacco by 1 cent for each

one-half ounce of tobacco purchased. The increase was effective at

midnight on March 25 and is expected to yield an additional $10 million

in revenue in the coming year.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure

that I should be saying this, but I am disappointed in the remarks of

the Minister of Finance on second reading of this bill — to introduce

it simply as a measure of increasing government revenue, when we're

talking about something that is $10 million out of a budget that is

$3.6 billion. At that rate it is less than one-third of 1 per cent of

the total budget, and to introduce it seriously as a way of raising

more revenue, it would seem to me that that government is certainly

scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Well, the bottle is to come yet, Mr. Speaker.

They don't even have to do that by legislation; they can do that

without legislation.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: The bottle will be next, I guess.