1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

McKim advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 573

Grouse mountain logging. Mrs. Wallace –– 573

Environmental protection areas. Mr. Lea –– 574

University and college financing. Mr. Nicolson –– 574

Mr. Rose

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

Mrs. Wallace –– 575

Mr. Reynolds –– 577

Mr. Rose –– 579

Mrs. Dailly –– 583

Mr. Mitchell –– 585

Mr. Barrett –– 590

Appendix –– 594

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the

assembly to extend a very warm and special welcome to three very good

friends of the Gardom family: Miss Sarina and Miss Lucy Pym, who are

visiting Canada from Kent, England, and are accompanied by Miss Gwyneth

Wrixon, now of Vancouver.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the members' gallery this afternoon are

two very important people: my daughter Barbara McCallum and my

son-in-law Gordon McCallum, both school teachers from Surrey.

MRS. WALLACE: There are four other equally important people

in the members' gallery, from the beautiful community of Shawnigan

Lake. One of them is also a teacher, David Towner, here with his wife

Eva, and they are joined by Tom and Betty Underwood. I think it might

be of interest to the House to know that Betty Underwood worked for

some 15 years in the Legislative Library here in Victoria. I would like

the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two

well-known citizens from my constituency representing the Kamloops

Society for the Mentally Handicapped: the president of the society, Mr.

Dave Tigchelaar, and the past president, Mrs. Lois Hollstedt. We had a

very productive meeting this morning in my office, and I would ask this

House to make them very welcome.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, two of my constituents are with us in

the House this afternoon, seated in your gallery. They are both

employees of CUPE Local 561, our local school board. I'd ask the House

to join with me in welcoming Betty Bolton and Bette Mclsaac.

MR. COCKE: In the gallery today is a school trustee from the

great royal city, Michael Ewen. And I believe also in the gallery is a

very close friend of mine, Ruth Fraser, with some friends. I'd like the

House to welcome them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The gentleman leading us in prayers today

is the Rev. Joseph Matsheng from the Republic of Botswana. He has just

spent two years here at UVic completing his master's degree, and will

be returning in early August to Botswana as a lecturer. I would like

the House to accord him a very special welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, sitting in your gallery this

afternoon are some friends of mine: Mr. Ron Clarke, who's a former

recreation officer at the British Columbia Penitentiary in New

Westminster and is presently a correctional officer at William Head

here on Vancouver Island; and Mr. Dean Mailey and Mr. Bob Mackin, who

are partners in Mackin, Mailey and Associates Ltd., an advertising firm

in Vancouver. I'd ask the House to welcome these people.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are four guests from the

Vancouver Elks Lodge: Mr. Richard Slamon, Mr. Dennis Dallas, Mr. Don Baird and

Mr. Chris Cohoon. I know that members will not only wish to welcome the representatives

of this fraternal organization, but will also this afternoon give a further

demonstration of the way brotherly love operates in this Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like the House to welcome the mayor of the city of Langley, Reg Easingwood, and his chief executive officer.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Although I don't believe they are in the

gallery at this moment, visiting the precincts today have been four

members of the Skeena manpower development committee, Mr. Bill McRoe,

Mr. Bill Hutchison, Mr. Val George, and Mr. D’Arcy Rezak. I would ask

the House to please welcome them as well.

MR. BARRETT: We have in the gallery today one of the most

distinguished young people in British Columbia, who is observing this

Legislature, pondering his future career. I'd like the House to welcome

Gerry Scott, the NDP candidate in Vancouver-Little Mountain.

MR. LAUK: I rise under standing order 8, instead of the hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is noticeably absent from

his place today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, could we at least

commence with the formal part of the business before we introduce

points of order. That would follow immediately the Chair calling on Mr.

Clerk to commence the business of the day, at which time the member may

wish to seek the floor on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: I apologize for interrupting that flow. The hon.

Law Clerk has been so speedy in calling the order of business I thought

he'd miss this little member.

MR. SPEAKER: We have taken cognizance of the member's desire. Mr. Clerk.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Introduction of bills.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 8, which

states that every member is bound to attend the service of the House

unless leave of absence has been given him by the House. In these

critical times in British Columbia the first minister should be in his

place during question period. I therefore ask....

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. At this time I must inform hon.

members that this is a point of order that has been canvassed on

innumerable occasions in this House and the decision should be well

known to all members at this time: the Chair has no power to insist

that the members be in the House. It is the responsibility of each

member, and the points of order raised under this particular

section

cannot be enforced by the Chair.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, this is a different aspect.

MR. SPEAKER: That would be refreshing, hon. member.

[ Page 572 ]

MR. LAUK: Under ordinary circumstances the question has been

raised by the hon. Provincial Secretary with respect to those absent on

this side of the House, and from time to time — and only very

occasionally — by hon. members from the opposition with respect to the

absence of members of the treasury bench. However, I don't recall one

instance where it has been raised in relation to the Premier, who

should be present during question period. I asked for a ruling from the

Chair that with respect to standing order 8 the Premier be summoned to

the service of the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would it

be in order to commend the second member for Vancouver East for being

able to attend the House today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

I'm sure the point has been well canvassed and sufficiently discussed in this House and should be familiar to all members.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Speaker to summon the Premier to the House under standing order 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

The Chair does not have the authority to summon members. If it did,

hon. members would find that some of the days they take off would be

very difficult so to do.

MR. LAUK: If that is Your Honour's ruling, I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a ruling to be challenged, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Are you ruling that that is not a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: I am ruling that it is not a ruling to be challenged.

MR. LAUK: I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: You are challenging the ruling that I am ruling that it's not a ruling?

MR. LAUK: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The usual ruling has been challenged, hon. members.

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

YEAS –– 28

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Locke

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I wish the House to

know that by the attempts to attack the absence of three members of

this House by the member for Little Mountain....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm coming to the point of

order. That member by implication attacks the 8,000 young people who

are taking

part in the B.C. Summer Games and also the 3,500 volunteers.

I would remind the House....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I

remind the House that the only reason those three members can be absent

is because of the great majority the people of B.C. gave this party on

May 5.

MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the ministerial statement, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: That minister — or the government — does not know

that it could well be possible that all 8,000 athletes requested that I

get the Premier back into this House and not at the opening of the B.C.

Summer Games.

Oral Questions

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Attorney General.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Unless my

recollection is faulty, I believe you called oral questions prior to

the point of order of the second member for Vancouver Centre. If that's

the case, I would imagine that the 15-minute period is already running.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point raised by the

member is a point that has been addressed previously. Nonetheless, the

Chair will commence the question period from this particular point in

view of the fact that points of order taken prior to the question

period.... It was close, but in fairness the Chair has a responsibility

to uphold question period.

MR. D'ARCY: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I sit very

close to the Law Clerk, and he got up and called for introduction of

bills. The member for Vancouver Centre rose, and there was no mention

whatsoever of question period.

[ Page 573 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. In any case, I believe

the matter has been disposed of. We have about 14.5 minutes remaining

in question period.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: I have a question I'd like to direct to the

Attorney-General. The treasury in the other 19 government ministries

was opened to McKim Advertising and friends in May 1982, a full year

before the election campaign. McKim was appointed official agent of

record for the whole government service. Has the minister launched any

investigation to determine what extra funds were obtained by McKim

Advertising in the period after that of the auditor-general's report?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: In view of the fact that the $5 million of

unauthorized expenditure made to McKim Advertising during 1981-82 is

peanuts compared to what they billed for in the year leading up to the

election, does the minister realize the possibility that even greater

abuse of the taxpayers' money existed in the 12 months before the

election?

HON. MR. SMITH: It's a question, again, which is meant to suggest broad-brush wrongdoing, without solid evidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has it.

HON. MR. SMITH: No. He knows very well that what is being

examined now are the matters before the auditor-general, in her report

and subsequent report. If this member wants to bring forward to me or

to a law enforcement officer or to someone in authority some specific

charge and the specific evidence, then he can be sure that it will be

given earnest consideration.

MR. COCKE: I'm absolutely amazed at the chief law enforcement

officer of this province. The reason we've asked that the police be

called into this is the stonewalling that's going on in this whole

question. The amount of money spent on wasteful and partisan government

advertising leading up to the election has never been revealed. Will

the minister ask his colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), who's rarely here, if he's prepared to make a special

provision of those accounts to the Legislature'sPublic Accounts committee to investigate them immediately, in this session?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no, he can ask my colleague.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we in the opposition are becoming

just a little bit frustrated over this whole question. I've asked the

Tourism minister, but I'll ask the minister again. Has the Minister of

Tourism anything to say today with respect to the investigation that he

has been holding with respect to the mismanagement of money according

to the auditor-general's report, with respect to McKim and other

advertising agencies involved?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have told the hon. member on several

occasions that a full investigation is going on regarding the

auditor-general's report dealing with matters in the Ministry of

Tourism in the fiscal year 1981-82. As soon as that is completed an

answer will be brought back to this House.

[2:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, now it's an investigation. It was a review earlier.

I ask the Minister of Tourism once more. That department suspended

employees who, it was felt, mishandled funds. Why is it that the

minister has not suspended the use of the advertising agencies within

his ministry during this "investigation"?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To repeat, we are in the process of going

through the auditor-general's report very thoroughly. Nothing, contrary

to the member's suggestion of the other day, will be destroyed or

hidden from him or any person in this province, and a complete report

will be brought back to this House in due course.

GROUSE MOUNTAIN LOGGING

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment.

Will the minister advise what steps, if any, his ministry is taking

into the provincial flooding hazard to North Vancouver as a result of

the proposed logging of Grouse Mountain?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The ministry is investigating and comparing

different reports as to the extent to which any logging might create

flooding. Other investigations are also proceeding regarding the

logging itself.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he's

investigating this. It seems to me that this could well be a parallel

case to Lions Bay, and it would affect a great many more people in the

city of North Vancouver than the Lions Bay situation. In view of this,

will the minister assure the House that he will undertake to make

public a competent study of flood potential from the result of any

possible Grouse Mountain logging?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know that we are going to be

preparing a great report, but the information will certainly be made

public and will be made available to the municipality of North

Vancouver.

MRS. WALLACE: Is that a commitment to file that information in the House once it's available, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I mentioned that we didn't know

whether it was going to be in the form of a written report. I can

provide you with the information by letter or by filing it in the

House, if you like.

MRS. WALLACE: There is a great deal of widespread concern,

including that of the city council of North Vancouver and a great many

citizens. In view of this concern, rather than taking action after the

fact, has the minister decided to put a moratorium — a freeze — on

logging of Grouse Mountain, as he is empowered to do under the

Environment and Land Use Act, until such time as we know what the

results will be?

[ Page 574 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe the member says we are empowered

to put a moratorium on anything we don't want to see happening in this

province. I think we do have to act within the laws, and that will be

investigated.

MRS. WALLACE: As I read the Environment and Land Use Act — I

think as anyone reads it, except the minister — it does empower him to

put a freeze on an activity that he feels could be detrimental until

such time as he has a study completed. Now he's made some vague

commitment to make some kind of study. My concern is that the logging

will go ahead before we know whether or not it's going to be harmful.

Is he prepared to use the Environment and Land Use Act to put the

freeze in place until such time as he knows what the results are going

to be?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As a responsible minister, I don't think I

have the luxury of imposing moratoriums on the basis of my feelings. I

think I need more evidence than that. I don't have the same luxury as

that member has.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREAS

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Last

week while visiting the Queen Charlotte Islands and addressing a small

group of market loggers, the minister stated that the government is

looking into the possibility of removing timber from environmental

protection areas. I'd like to ask the minister how he can rationalize

cutting down on the silviculture program, and at the same time looking

at the environmental protection areas to remove timber from?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The very nature of the question indicates

that the member for Prince Rupert has absolutely no idea whatsoever of

what an environmental protection area is insofar as the forest

inventory is concerned,

MR. LEA: Could the Minister of Environment let me know

whether he has had discussions with the Minister of Forests — I guess

you're having the discussion now, by the look of the lips — about

removing timber from the environmental protection areas and putting it

into the timber supply?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have many discussions.

MR. LEA: I'm asking the Minister of Environment whether he

has had a specific discussion with the Minister of Forests about

removing timber from the EPA into the timber supply.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FINANCING

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications, and technology and tunnels. Lee Southern, secretary of

the Universities Council, says that the government has failed to

provide the needed information in order to prepare final university

budgets. We're already one-third of the way through their fiscal year,

and we're just over a month away from the commencement of the fall

semester. When will the minister be giving sufficient information to

the Universities Council so that they can finalize their budgets?

HON. MR. McGEER: Today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD . I wonder if I can direct a question to the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. If I've intruded upon a supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: The member defers for a further supplementary.

MR. NICOLSON: I might ask the Minister of Education, or the

Minister of Finance, who seems to be answering the question, if the

same would apply to the colleges. I'll ask that of the Minister of

Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would refer the member to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Education, then. I'm always pleased to oblige. Would you answer the question, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm wondering if the member could repeat

the question. It was some time ago, and I was discussing something else

with my colleague. I apologize to the member.

MR. NICOLSON: There has been some difficulty in finalizing

both university and college budgets for this year. I would ask the

minister if he has received information from the Treasury Board similar

to the information received by the minister responsible for

universities as to whether the grants which have been holding up the

finalization of college budgets have all been passed so that they can

finalize their budgets.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This is the first concern which has been

expressed to me. I have not had any inquiries from any colleges with

respect to the budget. On budget day all the information was

communicated to the colleges. I can advise the member that I'm aware of

a couple of meetings which were conducted; one was yesterday, and there

was also a meeting today with respect to college budgets. I can't be

any more specific than that, but if the member would like to leave with

me a specific problem, I'd be quite prepared to assist him.

MR. ROSE: Since the minister has very kindly said that he

would respond to specific examples, I wonder if he would look into the

matter of an authorization for furniture for Fraser Valley College in

Abbotsford, because if that authorization doesn't come through by July

15, there'll be all kinds of students and no chairs for them to sit on.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, July 15 is now passed, I

believe, so I was just wondering whether or not the right date was

given by the member, but he has registered his concern and I'm quite

prepared to make an inquiry on his behalf.

[ Page 575 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 13.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: I don't think there can be any question on the

part of anyone in this House that I am very much concerned about health

hazards relative to tobacco use. The members of this House know full

well that I have introduced for some several sessions a piece of

legislation that would serve to regulate smoking in public places. But,

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that taxing is the answer. Taxing in the

form of a regressive tax — a sales tax — is not the answer to

preventive medicine. It is not going to bring about the result that

perhaps this government hopes it will; I don't think they really hope

it will. What they hope is that it will bring into their coffers an

additional $24 million a year. It has nothing to do with their concern

about the excessive use of tobacco or the use of tobacco at all.

I think the facts speak very clearly. Tax increases do not decrease

the use of either alcohol or tobacco. This is borne out by the most

recent survey across Canada, where it is indicated that the largest

annual increase of any component, except tax increases, in the consumer

price index over the last year has been in the field of tobacco sales.

There is no way that increases in tax are actually reducing the use of

tobacco, so that is not the aim of this bill. The aim of this bill is

to increase money, increase tax returns, increase the burden on the

taxpayers of British Columbia at a time when they are already under

economic duress.

We might ask, Mr. Speaker: why the increase in the use of tobacco in

a time of economic downturn? I think the answer is very evident: the

increased stress that is put upon individuals as a result of a

reduction in income, as a result of concerns about their economic

future. Those persons who are addicted to the use of tobacco — and it

is an addiction; it's an affliction — are inclined to smoke more

heavily. It has nothing to do with what it costs or the ability to

purchase tobacco, and it has nothing to do with how high that tax goes

or how low; people are still going to buy that product.

What a great many of us would like to see instead of a bill that

increases taxes.... My colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

has indicated 60 percent overall; certainly just running through the

figures here it ranges anywhere from 20 to 50 percent without any

escalation. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, these figures are very much out

of line with the minus 5 to plus 5 that the government is setting upon

the wages of people in this province — the restraints within which the

government is indicating we should live, assessing tax increases from

20 to 50 percent and perhaps even 60 percent when you consider other

escalating costs and the federal tax now being proposed. Certainly

those kinds of approaches are not going to resolve the problem, as this

government would indicate that it should and as the speakers have

indicated that it should.

[2:45]

The two persons who have spoken on that side of the House have

indicated that this was a tax which would help encourage people to stop

using tobacco, because it was harmful, and that therefore it was a good

tax. That's not going to happen.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.)

What's going to happen instead is that people are going to have to

take money they can ill afford to support a habit — and it is a habit;

it is an addiction — that is being augmented by this government. It's

being augmented because the government has taken no action to try to

limit the use of tobacco. Federally we have some very weak-kneed

legislation that insists that on each package of cigarettes there be a

little statement that excessive use may be harmful to your health. Now

we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that cigarette smoking and the use

of tobacco is harmful. Yet that is all we've done.

Why have we taken that approach? Why has the federal government,

supported tacitly by this government, taken that approach? I suggest

it's a very lucrative tax base for both governments. They receive a lot

of money in their coffers as a result of this. Also, I suggest, it

gives a great deal of support to the tobacco industry, generally

speaking.

There has been no move to take any steps to ensure that tobacco is

taken off the shelves as brand-name product. Any product as harmful as

tobacco should not be accessible for anyone to buy. It should not be

pushed through advertising, to make profit for those companies and to

fill the coffers of government.

It's interesting to note that Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada Ltd., a

company which is engaged in manufacturing and marketing tobacco

products in Canada — principally cigarettes, through controlled

subsidiaries — in 1976 paid a dividend per share of 37.5 cents per

share. In 1977 the dividend rose to 52 cents. In 1978 it rose to 66.3

cents. By 1979 the dividend was up to $1.00 per share. In 1980 it rose

to $1.20. In 1981 it was $1.35, and in 1982- last year, Mr. Speaker

that tobacco company was reaping $1.55 per share off the backs of

addicted citizens in this country. And what has the government done

about that? Nothing. All they want to do is bring in a tax bill to get

a little bigger share of that profit for themselves.

We know that one tobacco company is supposed to compete with others.

But when we look at the list of companies that are controlled by

Rothmans, and we see that Rothmans also owns the House of Craven,

Alfred Dunhill of London and Rock City Tobacco, to name but a few, we

can surely recognize that there's a tremendous monopolistic control

over that particular drug, which is being pushed with the consent and

support of both the federal and provincial governments on citizens of

this province and this country. And what does the government propose?

To increase the tax. That's all — just to increase the tax. That's not

enough, Mr. Speaker. That has really nothing to do with controlling

this problem which we are facing, that's causing us tremendous expenses

in our health care system. An increase in tax is going to do nothing to

decrease the use of tobacco. Allowing this kind of thing to continue,

and these kinds of profits to be made, is nothing short of criminal. In

the financial statements for Rothmans alone the figures are even worse

— the figures I read earlier were for Rothmans of Pall Mall, in total.

They

[ Page 576 ]

had a net revenue in 1982 of $524 million, with

earnings per share of $4.45, according to their financial statement.

Those are the kinds of things I object to. We allow this type of

exploitation to continue of people who are unfortunately addicted to

the use of nicotine, and we do nothing about it.

I would like to deal with another company, Imasco Ltd., which

manufactures consumer products and supplies consumer services in Canada

and the U.S. Manufactured items include a complete range of tobacco

products, food products, consumer services, retail outlets, beauty

aids, gifts and so forth. The interesting thing about Imasco is that it

is the sole owner of Shoppers Drug Mart. It's an interesting thing:

here we have a tobacco company that also controls a drug company that

is selling drugs which will be.... I know you're going to say I'm not

talking to the bill, Mr. Speaker, but I am speaking to the bill. My

concern is that we're putting a tax on something deliberately to raise

money on the basis of an addiction which we are supporting, aiding and

abetting by going along with this kind of corporate structure that

makes these kinds of profits not only out of selling the tobacco

products, but by selling the drugs required to cure or aid any pain or

discomfort as a result of the diseases created — heart disease, cancer,

whatever.

Those are the kinds of things that are happening; those are the

kinds of concerns I have. And all this government can do is come in

with a bill that is going to put a 20 to 50 or 60 percent increase on a

regressive tax that's going to be a lot more difficult for people on

low incomes to pay, and that does nothing to help those people who are

addicted. The one thing we did have was the Alcohol and Drug

Commission. It's been mentioned before, and I don't want to be

repetitive. Whatever things it was able to do were so minuscule as to

do nothing to help those people who are addicted.

What should we be doing? We should eliminate the sale of brand-name

cigarettes and they should not be displayed publicly. If you are

addicted to smoking, then you know it can be approached in a couple of

ways. You can buy it as an over-the-counter drug. It should be put

under the drug act; that's really where it belongs. That's where we put

other addictive drugs, and it should be treated in the same way as all

other addictive drugs. It shouldn't be sold, advertised and exploited

as the smart thing for young people to do. It should be put in a plain

package and sold either over the counter or on the basis of a doctor's

prescription. I personally would prefer the latter, where there is

encouragement for that patient to get some treatment and support in

trying to shake that addiction.

If we're serious about trying to control and assist people who are

addicted to smoking, then that's the direction we would be going. We

wouldn't be putting on a tax that is going to cause tremendous

hardship. And it is; if you are addicted to cigarettes and suddenly

find that the $50 supplement you've been able to earn under Human

Resources is cut off, and all you have left is your social assistance,

the stress is going to be greater; and as stress increases you smoke

more heavily. The fact that the tax has been increased is not going to

cure that addiction. You are still going to buy those cigarettes, or

you're going to buy the tobacco and roll your own, or whatever. Somehow

you're going to get that nicotine, because your system has come to

crave it. It's going to mean that there will be less money to provide

the bare essentials for living.

MR. REID: That's a shame. They should quit smoking.

MRS. WALLACE: It is a shame. I don't think the second member

for Surrey (Mr. Reid) understands the kind of situation that a person

who is living on such a restricted income is faced with. If that person

has an addiction to nicotine, it's not going to be cured by the fact

that the cost is more, because under stress it's more and more

difficult. That is the reason why this tax is so unfair, unjust and

regressive. It just does not pose the answer to the situation that

we're facing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[3:00]

If we are going to ensure that our young people do not become

addicted to nicotine, then we must not push it in front of them. We

must not allow tobacco companies which are making millions and millions

of dollars, whose return on their shares has increased year after

year.... We must ensure that we take steps to put that product in a

less accessible position. We must invest at least as much money in

spreading the word about the harm that comes from tobacco smoking as we

have been prepared to accept into our treasuries by taxing that

product. That has never been done. We must ensure that we encourage and

help people to kick the habit. If we are to keep those cancer patients

out of our hospitals, if we are to stop people from dying of heart

disease as a result of smoking, all the things that have been detailed

so well in so many medical journals, then we're not going to do it by

disregarding the government's own guidelines and increasing the tax in

these excessive amounts. We will only do it....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is

leaving and his colleagues are saying he's going out for a smoke.

Perhaps he can't stand the stress of this place. Perhaps he can't stand

the pressure of an opposition which is committed and determined to stop

these kinds of regressive taxes being placed on the people of British

Columbia. Perhaps he needs to go out for a smoke. It's not going to

bother the Minister of Finance if the tax goes up 50 percent on a

package of cigarettes; it's not going to worry him one little bit. But

if the single parent who is trying to raise a family and has found that

that $50 that she earns has been cut off, and she is faced with

stresses as to how she's going to be able to feed and clothe that

family and meet the payments for her rent, and if she is as addicted as

the Minister of Finance to nicotine, it's going to be very difficult

for her to meet this. But the tax is not going to be able to deter her,

because a habit, an addiction, is something that is acquired over the

years, and it is not stopped, in the great majority of instances,

simply by the fact that it costs a bit more, no matter how limited the

income.

That's the sad and unfortunate part about this government's approach

towards taxation, and about this whole government. They don't seem to

recognize that there are people in this province who have just about

reached the limit of what they are able to take. I think that was

demonstrated amply yesterday when you saw a group of people converging

upon this Legislature, many of whom had never participated in that kind

of venture before; people who were concerned and disturbed about

joining in that kind of venture yet were there because of a genuine and

deep conviction that there was something very wrong with what was

happening here. There was nothing more poignant nor more real than the

chant that

[ Page 577 ]

developed constantly there: "Why? Why? Why?" That

is what the citizens of British Columbia are asking this government.

Why are you doing this? Why are you taking the steps you are taking?

Why? Why? Why? That was the chant that we heard. Certainly this is just

one of the measures — a minor one, I agree. This is not one of the most

critical bills, but it is an increase in tax. It is a regressive tax,

and it is part of a package, Mr. Speaker, that has raised the concern

of British Columbians around this province. It is part of a package.

I think we all agree that smoking is probably one of the most

preventable causes of illness, disability and death that there is. I

submit that this government should be moving to prevent the continuing

use and expanding habit — and it is expanding, not decreasing — which

is such a great contributor to our sickness problems here in British

Columbia. We should be doing something far more than trying to tax it

out of existence. It has never worked before and it will not work now.

Education has to be the answer, and it has to be long-term education.

We have to ensure that the use of tobacco is not shown as being a

desirable, clever or sophisticated thing to do. We must ensure that we

do not allow various companies to fill the pages of our magazines with

highly coloured advertisements that pretend to show competition between

the various brands and types and which encourage people to use tobacco.

We must ensure that we have educational programs in place for young

people to prevent them from starting to use tobacco — and the schools

are attempting to do some of that, but with very little success.

Certainly it will be less and less with the kind of cutbacks that we're

seeing in education now, because there will be less and less money and

teacher time available to carry out those kinds of programs.

We must ensure that there are programs in place that encourage

people to stop smoking, meaningful and lasting programs, and the kind

of help and assistance that will accomplish that — not just a snow job,

which is all we've seen in the past. We must ensure that the people of

this province have an opportunity not to breathe second-hand smoke,

which has been proven to be just as harmful, perhaps sometimes more

harmful, as first-hand smoke. A lot of businesses are doing that

voluntarily, but I think that is something that we have to look at and

ensure — that those people who have made a concerted effort to stop

smoking or who do not smoke are not subject to breathing second-hand

smoke. That can create just as many health problems. It's just as

costly as for those people who actually smoke. Those are the kinds of

problems we should be addressing, Mr. Speaker, instead of talking about

trying to tax people out of using tobacco. It has been proven over and

over that those methods do not work, that taxing does not work — not

when you're dealing with something that is addictive. All it does....

Let me relate to something that I know the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Schroeder) will understand. I know he knows that if you put

the price of beef up too high, people switch to using pork. He would

agree with that. I would suggest that if you put the price of nicotine

cigarettes too high, people are going to resort to using other drugs,

which they may be able to grow in their back yard — illegally, but

cheaply — and we're going to find more and more people in trouble with

the law and more and more use of drugs that are forbidden by law. And

that is certainly not in the best interests of British Columbia.

I would urge the government to take a second look at this bill. This

bill is not the answer. It will not bring about the results that the

government is looking for, unless, of course, they are only looking for

dollars. I suspect maybe that's it. But if they really have a concern

about the health of the people of British Columbia, if they really have

a concern about the people who are addicted to smoking nicotine

cigarettes, cigars and tobacco in other forms, if they really have a

concern about the health costs resulting from those activities, then

this bill should be withdrawn. It should be brought back in an entirely

different form that will do that job and not simply put dollars in the

coffers of a bankrupt government.

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

Motion negatived on the following division:

[3:15]

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 28

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

R. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

A. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. REYNOLDS: I hadn't planned to speak on Bill 13, Mr.

Speaker, but the speech from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) got me stirred up. I know the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Rose) has to speak next and it is going to be a very hard act for him

to follow, so I thought I'd get in between them.

It was interesting that on that last serious vote we had in the

House on Bill 13 the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

wasn't here for the vote. After he made that noise earlier in the day I

found it quite surprising that he couldn't make it for the vote. It's

such a serious matter that he had to bring it put before this

Legislature earlier about where the Premier was. The Premier is just

doing his duty as the Premier of this province, opening the Summer

Games. That's where he should be this afternoon, with all those young

people.

Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly glad to see the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) here this afternoon. I wouldn't know what it was

like to make a speech in this House if he wasn't here yapping away. One

thing that he should know is that if....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a personal reflection and it is inappropriate.

[ Page 578 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Take it easy. Just slow it down.

MR. REYNOLDS: They are asking me to slow down, Mr. Speaker.

I just can't believe being in this Legislature on Bill 13. I really

understand now why they have closure in the House in Ottawa. The

federal parliament wouldn't have this kind of a debate on such a

frivolous matter. I guess the NDP would love me to say: "Would you want

closure?" I'll tell them right now, Mr. Speaker, that if it was my

decision we'd have closure on this bill.

MR. BLENCOE: You want closure. We figured it.

MR. REID: You bet! We're tired of listening to you turkeys.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria

keeps on pointing across the floor saying: "You want closure." It is

this member who said he wanted closure. I speak for myself as an

independent MLA in this House who has a right to his opinion. I am

stating my opinion that we should have closure on this bill because I

think it is a waste of time to be speaking a full day or longer —

whatever these members in their filibuster are going to do — on a

tobacco tax bill. I say that because I've spent a little bit of time

looking at the speeches that were made by members of the NDP in this

House over the last few years on tobacco tax; because there have been

increases in the past. If you listen to the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke), Mr. Speaker, he said in the House earlier today:

"Traditionally we've voted in favour of taxes on cigarettes, but not

this year. We won't support any increases in taxes." Hypocrisy shows

itself again for the NDP as a party who supported it all during the

past years but this year, under pressure from the labour unions, is

voting against anything that this government supports, no matter how

good it will be for this province. I say, Mr. Speaker, that all those

good reasons in the past just go down the drain when the labour leaders

of this province tell the NDP what they want them to do in this

Legislature. I find that a shame.

MR. BLENCOE: Minus the Spetifore.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria

says we minus the Spetifore. I didn't know that Mr. Spetifore grows

tobacco on his farm. If he could grow tobacco on his farm he probably

wouldn't have sold his land, because it's a very expensive product and

he could have made some money. Again the NDP have a very thin skin and

they can't help being reminded of some of their speeches of the past,

so they've got to bring up other topics. They can't stick to the topic,

as we found out in the debate this afternoon and this morning from

other members. We had the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talking

about savings accounts of the rich — how they should get those out of

the rich people's accounts so the poor people could have more money,

and how the interest accounts on savings were a waste of money. He

strayed off the topic, Mr. Speaker. I don't intend to do that. I just

intend to show that members of that party don't really want to debate

taxes on cigarettes because they know that the majority of the citizens

of British Columbia, no matter what party they belong to, support taxes

on cigarettes if the government needs more revenue,

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Even those of us who smoke — and I admit that I

smoke.... The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) says "Shame, " and I

don't disagree with him. But I happen to....

MR. MACDONALD: Reynolds Tobacco Co.

MR. REYNOLDS: Reynolds Tobacco? I can only assume that the

second member for Vancouver East says Reynolds Tobacco because he

probably owns some shares in it and is trying to give them some free

advertising so his shares will go up in value.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BLENCOE: It's better than Dawn Development.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hear from the second member for Victoria

about Dawn Development. We'll get on back in the budget debate to

talking about shares that members own in this House — from both

parties, Mr. Speaker. It may surprise the member for Victoria to find

out about some of the shares that members of his party own in companies

that have been debated in this House in the past. We'll talk about that

in the budget debate. I think that's only fair. We shouldn't be talking

about it when we're debating cigarettes and the cigarette tax. I should

get back to that, but it's very hard when the second member for

Victoria keeps on poking his nose into the debate.

Standing on his feet, the member for Prince Rupert said earlier in

the day that members of this party just stand up and sit down and do

what we're told. Well, I don't think that was a completely fair comment

from that member, because members of this party have great free debate

in their caucus and make decisions in their caucus. When we get to this

Legislature we stick together, but we don't do what we're told. We're a

team in this Legislature, and that's why we all support the legislation

brought in by this government.

MR. REID: Hear, hear! Leadership and good government. That's what it's all about.

MR. REYNOLDS: There's no question about that. I think we've

heard that comment many times — "leadership and good government" — but

I think, as the member says, it's extremely true.

I don't want to take very long in this debate, because I know the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) is getting excited to get up and

speak in this debate. I really just wanted to say that I support the....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I know they miss me.

But I want to point out to the NDPers that in their speeches they

talk about addiction — the fact that the price is going up and that

people will switch to other drugs — and try to point out to people that

this is a bad tax. If this tax is as bad

[ Page 579 ]

as some of them are saying — although, as you will

remember, I stated earlier that the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) said that they've always supported tax increases on cigarettes

in the past — why is it that the NDP, who repealed...? They reversed

the course that the Social Credit government had had prior to 1972,

when they repealed the Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act on becoming

government. I find that extremely hard to understand. I don't disagree

with what they did in 1972, because I think people have a right to

advertise their products if they're legal and should be sold in this

country. That's why I didn't disagree when the Social Credit Party

repealed the axe on the advertising of liquor in this province. I think

if a product is legal, they should have the right to advertise it, But

is it not hypocrisy when members of this House stand up and talk about

increases and addiction and all the problems...? Yet this is the party

that allowed the tobacco companies to start advertising again in this

province. I say, I don't disagree with them.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Prince Rupert says "fair trade,"

and I agree with him. But how, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, can some

of your members in this House get up and talk about how bad tobacco is

and this and that, and still talk the other way? I find that a little

hypocritical.

[3:30]

The member for New Westminster, as I said, strayed from this bill

quite a bit, and he brought up the point about the.... He said to

somebody across the floor: "One word about the arms race that is taking

place." I think that was really straying away from this debate. I

phoned up some of the people here in the services base, and I found out

that 60 percent of those in the NATO force were smokers and 40 percent

of the NATO workers weren't smokers; but they're all in favour of

Canada's policy of being an effective partner in NATO. I know that

really doesn't relate to Bill 13, but the member for New Westminster

did it, and I just thought we should tell the truth in this debate, and

I wanted to bring that up.

As I said, I don't want to speak very long in this debate, because

it shouldn't be a long debate. It's a tax that is going on smokers. As

I said, I smoke, and a number of other members of this Legislature

smoke. Other members from our side who don't smoke have said: "Don't

smoke. It's a terrible habit. It's a killer, " But it's our right in a

free country to smoke if we want to smoke. As a smoker, I'm not opposed

to this government putting the tax up. I would have put it a lot

higher. I would have increased the tax on liquor. I think products that

are legal, that are harmful in this country, should be well taxed. I

just can't go along with the NDP when they complain that it's a tax on

the poor. We're all people in this world, and if a product is bad for

one, it's bad for the other. If a tax will stop people or slow them

down.... I agree with other members of this House who have said that if

it stops a person smoking, or if increased taxes on liquor stop him

drinking, it's good for our society. It certainly will help us in

health care. If this bill stops a few people smoking, it'll certainly

save a few beds in the hospitals from people who would otherwise suffer

from heart attacks and other diseases related to smoking.

I am proud to say that I support the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and his Bill 13, and I intend to vote for it.

MR. ROSE: I hope that thunderous and prolonged ovation

doesn't take away from my total time, because in order to explain to

some of the members of this House the pernicious nature of Bill 131

will probably need most of my 40 minutes.

I would like to congratulate the member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound (Mr. Reynolds). He was also a colleague of mine in the federal

House at one time, and he was an extremely active member. He supports

the arms race and NATO. As a matter of fact, you would almost call him

a nuclear active member, or if not active, reactive. He made some

charges against my political party. I won't deal with those

immediately, but I would like to ask him about that very interesting

set of statistics which he gave concerning the percentages of Canadian

Forces members who smoke. He said, I believe, that 40 percent did not

smoke and 60 percent did smoke. I wonder if he could enlighten us,

after I'm finished my time here, on whether or not there was any

connection between those who smoked and wanted to stay in NATO, and

those who didn't smoke and wanted to get out, and whether or not there

was any relationship between those who smoked and were in favour of the

arms race, and those who did not smoke and might not be in favour of

the arms race.

It seems to me that smokers have a kamikaze complex. Perhaps smokers

are more ready to die than other people. If you could get all your

soldiers to smoke, they would probably display a lot more courage in

the field. That's something that might be explored. I learned this

morning that because we're concerned about nuclear war or holocaust

we're about ready to radiate a few beagles, dogs, all in the cause of

trying to find out what causes people to vomit — besides speeches by

certain members in this House — having to do with radiation. Perhaps

there could be a link between those people who have a temperament for

courageous acts and heroism during war and whether or not they smoke.

If there was a link there, if you could find a positive correlation

between smoking and bravery, there's a lesson there for all of us.

The member also made some remarks about the removal of advertising

on tobacco in 1972 by the New Democratic government. I'd like to

enlighten him here. It wasn't that we were in favour of advertising one

kind or the other. There was a ban on electronic media advertising at

the time, and in order to be fair to both the print media and the

electronic media.... A lot of the electronic media came from across our

borders, such satellite stations as Bellingham and other places, over

which we had no control whatsoever in terms of their content — beaming

and blasting in an open-skics way, as the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) often says, into our

backyards. We felt we would only be fair to all if the same rules

applied not only to the print media but to the electronic media. I

don't think it was in the interest of increasing the consumption of

tobacco, although I think it's to the government's advantage to see

that that happens. I think the sale of liquor and tobacco has always

been acceptable because of the massive government revenues which come

from the sale of those two products. I would very much like the member

to know that it wasn't really because we felt smoking should be

encouraged. I think he would agree with the idea of freedom of speech

and publication, and we felt it was the kind of measure that was more

unfair to one side of an industry than to another.

The other thing I'd like to talk about is the charge that somehow

this party is doing the bidding of certain trade unions, and this is

why we're fighting these tax measures. As

[ Page 580 ]

far as I know, the World Council of Churches does

not belong to the British Columbia trade union movement, I'm quite

certain that members of tenants associations who are opposed to the

destruction of the rentalsman's office do not necessarily belong to

trade unions.

I realize that I'm straying a bit here, but I do congratulate you

for remaining alert and awake during this. I noticed you nodded off

during one of the other speeches a little earlier, and you were busy on

the phone. I don't know whether you phoned your bookie, or what you do

up there, but I do know that you did appear to wander just a nod.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who was speaking?

MR. ROSE: It wasn't one of yours. As the hon. member knows,

you don't put up any speakers — just one speaker, and then we carry the

ball. I think it would be interesting for the people in the galleries

to know that what we're really doing here is....

It's not that we necessarily have a great abhorrence for Bill 13. I

think our record is clear on our objection to the use of tobacco and

our regret that so many people are addicted to it. I think we have an

excellent record there. We see Bill 13 as being absolutely symbolic of

a group of repressive, unfair tax measures that have been undertaken as

a punitive means by which a government that has mismanaged the economy

and now needs desperately — and I say that advisedly — to get some

money in the till.... When the results of its so-called restraint

program come home to roost, it's probably going to need a lot more

revenue than it can anticipate. It is our view that it's going to be

business in this province.... The economy, contrary to what the

government may assert in their so-called program, is going to be

reduced. Their revenues are going to be reduced. So they're running

around madly trying to squeeze every nickel they can out of every

taxpayer, provided that taxpayer is in the middle or at the lower end

of the income scale.

That's interesting, because it is true and undeniable that the poor

and the middle-incomers who are taxed at the source pay far more income

tax than, say, corporations or people at the other end of the scale.

For instance, I have some facts here that have come out of such sources

as the "Review of Taxation." In the last 30 years the corporate tax

share — and this would include tobacco companies; I didn't want you to

think I might stray too far from the general point — has dropped from

21.4 percent to 10 percent, which means that the total tax bill in our

country has to be picked up by others. If the corporate share has

dropped, it's quite obvious that somebody else has had to pick up the

difference. Guess who picked up the difference. Individuals.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Not only deficits. You have to know what the total budget

is of a country. When I first went down to Ottawa the total budget was about

$11 billion. That has now multiplied ten times, and that's part of the deficit,

Mr. Speaker, I did stray a little bit there, and I thank you for your admonition.

During the same period the contribution made by individuals has

risen from 19.7 percent of the budget to 36.6 percent of the budget. A

sales tax or an excise tax, which everybody pays regardless of income,

is going to impinge much more heavily on those people who are in the

lower income bracket.

It becomes a larger share of their total tax bill than it does for

those who smoke the same amount and have a larger income. But they pay

exactly the same tax. Gradually over the past 30 years, the shift in

our country has gone from a 25 percent share paid by corporations...to

individuals. I think that's an important figure to reckon with.

According to the same report, thousands of individuals earning more

than $50,000 a year paid no income tax at all in 1979, so the public

treasury lost $2 billion.

To get back to the point, we can assert that if it were not for the

fact that so many large corporations, businesses and individuals,

through tax shelters and tax giveaways of one kind and another, had

escaped paying taxes, then perhaps there wouldn't be such a need to tax

more at the retail level such things as cigarettes — sales taxes and

other regressive taxes.

Just to leave the tax for a moment — and this is my final citation

on this subject — in 1980 "Review of Taxation on Capital Gains in

Canada" found that "Canada has the lowest rate of taxation on wealth,

inheritance and gifts of all the OECD countries." I'll leave that for a

little while, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to turn to something else. It's asserted that somehow we

have done if not a complete 180-degree turn, at least a lateral

arabesque on this business of cigarettes and taxation related to

consumption of those "deadly pills," as my father was wont to say. If

you were to look for one citizen in all of Canada who led the fight for

years and ultimately won with the printed warning on every cigarette

package manufactured in Canada, "This product may be harmful to your

health," we'd have to think of Barry Mather. Barry Mather was an MP.

Incidentally, his wife Camille was a former member of this House. They

represented the beautiful riding of Surrey...

MR. REID: Sunny Surrey.

MR. ROSE: Sorry Surrey.

...for something like 12 years. He was a member of the New Democratic Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: And a true gentleman.

MR. ROSE: Unfortunately we have to speak of him now as the

late Barry Mather, but he was hooked on cigarettes for a great number

of years. He finally kicked the habit, and whether he was a true

gentleman or not — which he was — has got little to do with it. The

fact is that he did kick the habit. So I don't think that our party has

to take a back seat to any party in terms of our objections and our

concerns about people who are addicted.

Some people think that this debate is largely smoke and mirrors. I

don't know whether that's true, but.... I know also that regardless of

what we do, all of us, on both sides of the House, tend to cloak our

actions in the most noble of motives. I'm quite sure that the members

of the government feel deep down in their hearts that people should pay

more if they do things to themselves which are damaging to their

health. They should pay more for that because they are a greater health

cost.

[3:45]

My colleague from New Westminster disagreed with that. This morning

he suggested that — I don't how frivolously — smokers actually were

less costly in terms of hospital beds and ambulances and everything

else, because they

[ Page 581 ]

didn't live as long. I just couldn't quite

understand the logic of that, but he's deep. The member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is very deep, and it's not always possible for

us to understand what he means right.... He doesn't speak in terms of

superficiality. He's obviously thought about this rather deeply, but I

can't quite follow him on that because I haven't seen the set of

statistics on which he based these assertions. He's a very good friend

of mine.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Up until now.

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Finance is back. He's got his batteries all charged up and got his nicotine count up again.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He's had his fix, and he's back in here ready to

heckle. He has a beautiful voice, and I know that when he heckles it's

certainly worth hearing. Even when he doesn't heckle it's worth hearing.

I am currently staying at the house of the member for New

Westminster. He is a pipe-smoker of no mean proportions; he's an

infamous pipe-smoker. The member for New Westminster, Mr. Cocke, is

certainly hazardous to my health. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace), in her stunning speech in which she had everybody here perked

right up and listening, made the observation that it's not just the

smoke that you smoke yourself that can be injurious; it's the stale and

second-hand smoke that can really be extremely.... I was going to say

extremely fatal but how can you use a superlative with fatal. It can be

bad news for you anyway. That is possible. I have tried to no avail, as

others must have tried in the past, to get him to kick that habit of

pipe-smoking — especially when I'm eating — but there's no way that I

can convince him to do that, at least up to now. That's the fault and

the fallacy of this business of discouraging people of smoking....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Up until now you've been a guest in his house.

MR. ROSE: I don't know. I think I'm entitled to the normal notice, even though you've destroyed the rentalsman's powers.

What I was really trying to lead up to, before I was deflected, was

the fact that I don't think it will matter very much to the member for

New Westminster or to anybody else who is hooked on a habit, no matter

how much you put the price up. People are going to buy it anyway.

They're going to buy booze and they're going to buy cigarettes, if

they're hooked. So, really, the idea of putting up the price of

cigarettes merely to encourage better health and a better lifestyle is

not very productive.

It reminds somewhat of World War II. Some people here might have

gone through orientations in the army where various social diseases —

they're contracted frequently through the opposite sex — were

discouraged in rather gory and lurid films. I don't know whether that

cut down any kind of heterosexual contacts during that period; as a

matter of fact, I think it worked just the opposite. Because of the

luridness of the films and the scare tactics associated therein, it

probably piqued people's interest. It might even have increased the

intensity with which they pursued that particular bent of which humans

are sometimes guilty.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't think tobacco will do it, but it does have

certain powers over certain people. Take the hon. government House

Leader over there — he's given up smoking, but who knows? The way he

handles tobacco he may have some other particular problems. I wouldn't

want to predict it, but I suggest that smoking is not something — or

chewing, or snuffing or whatever — that you can control by the amount

it costs. What will happen is that we'll get "smokeleggers." You know

what happened in prohibition. You put the price up; the price was so

high, and then you had the Al Capones. How would you like the Al

Capones of the tobacco business to come in here? If you put up the

price of tobacco to the point where people cannot afford it and they

give up other things.... Someone suggested they're going to give up

milk for their children and I think they will if they're really hooked

and need the money.

I can vividly recall being a smoker. I don't want to make this too

autobiographical, but I waited 30 years for a safe cigarette. I could

smoke at least three packs a day without any difficulty at all — not

even on a good day, just an ordinary day. My colleague over here from

Mackenzie is similarly addicted. Actually, he is a pitiful figure when

you realize what a slave he is to that habit. He is actually a slave to

that habit. He was asking me how I finally kicked the habit and I said:

"Well, it was very simple. I went to a Chinese doctor who put two

needles in my ears...."

AN HON. MEMBER: And he left them there.

MR. ROSE: I hope you're not going to think that this is

frivolous, or make light of it; this was a very serious point of my

life. I would say a watershed almost. I was going to join the CA or

Cigarettes Anonymous or something like that, but I finally went to this

Chinese doctor. He stuck two needles in my ears which were attached to

"If you don't quit smoking I'm going to turn on the switch."

I went through years of being in almost as pitiful a condition as my

colleague from Mackenzie. From behind closed doors I can tell a smoker;

they have a particular rattle. You follow them up or down stairs, and

they have a certain kind of sound.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, it's not quite like that, but I understand

that you're an addict as well. Most people don't have it as severely as

you do. They do have this particular rattle of phlegm in their chest.

I can recall a Sunday morning in my apartment in Ottawa, going

through the wastepaper baskets and straightening out the accordions

that I called cigarette butts. I want you to know, especially those in

the audience who have never smoked, that it's very difficult to

straighten out a crumpled cigarette. When they dry, they break.

I'm really saying there is no evidence whatsoever that people are

going to be dissuaded from cigarette smoking because of the price. When

you're hooked, you're hooked. I have one on either side of me here. I

think it's a social thing. If I said to one of my colleagues: "Don't

come close to me because I don't like the smell of your breath", I

think that

[ Page 582 ]

would be far more effective. It's the social rejection, not the health things, that I think are going to make the difference.

In my house I have a wife who, among other things, is very frank. We

have a little sign on our television that does not say, "Thank you for

not smoking," but "Smokers will be shot." No one smokes in our house

anymore. I used to, or I tried to smoke in the house, but actually when

I was smoking I lived a much more outdoor life than I do presently. I

might have been healthier.

A tax on sin is always acceptable, because I think there's a great

deal of guilt associated with smoking. People know it's bad for them.

They know it's a matter of time. As a matter of fact, it doesn't seem

to affect some people at all. I wouldn't say it's good for anybody, but

it doesn't seem to affect some people. I was going to talk about one of

my colleagues; I won't name him, but he was a very famous British

Columbian. It was tremendous irony that after years of three packs of

cigarettes a day, and probably at least a bottle of whisky, when he

finally did get cancer it was in the prostate. I don't know if that has

any lessons for us, but I think it's an interesting sort of irony there.

What we're going to get out of this, Mr. Speaker, is $18 million.

And that's all. We just think it's another tax grab, because it's added

on to what the feds have done to us this week. And so what happens here

is that a pack of cigarettes, now $1.65 — not that money makes any

difference, but....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know where you buy yours, but I was

told on reliable authority, by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell),

that it costs $1.65. He says they're more expensive in machines, but

let's take $1.65 in round numbers, and....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's more than that.

MR. ROSE: Are you sure you're smoking tobacco? I mean, other

cigarettes are a little more expensive than that, I'm told. I'm not

sure, since I've never purchased any. But $1.65, and we add 5 cents to

the provincial tax, and then we add 7 cents federal excise tax on top

of that, then we've got them up to $1.77, which won't go into one of

the cigarette machines, so what are they going to be in the cigarette

machines — $2 or $2.25?

The member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) talked about

the percentage of smokers who were in the services — 60 percent did and

40 percent didn't. I would like to have a breakdown of the number of

smokers by social and economic class. I would think that by far the

largest number of smokers tended to be people of lower income. I don't

read any great socialist message into that, for once, and I'd like to

reassure you of that. I don't see anything like that happening. But I

would think that if that is true — and I'm not certain it is — it does

help to add to the case that the extra excise and sales taxes, and

extra taxes in general on cigarettes at the retail level, tend to work

far more economic difficulties on those people on lower incomes than on

those people on higher incomes.

People said the stress factor is there. Other people have mentioned

that. I think that stress and tobacco are linked, as I think stress and

drinking are linked, and stress and drug addiction. They're all linked

together. I think we all tend to smoke more and drink more when we're

under certain kinds of pressures.

I would like to think that it's not just the lower-income people who tend to be heavier smokers. I think it's young people.

Is that my three-minute light, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have 13 minutes left, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm quite sure that I won't

need that whole time, because I think I've made my case, and perhaps

people will accuse me of just talking out the bill, just keeping this

going, and delaying the work of parliament if I don't sit down when I

am actually through.

I was saying that people get into smoking because of certain social

pressures. There's peer group pressure. If you look at the old movies,

Casablanca and all those old movies on the late, late show.... I'm

quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that you do stay up and watch them

occasionally, because I've seen you nod off in here occasionally, and

that's probably because you have stayed up too late. But everybody

smoked. The guy could hardly kiss the girl and vice versa without sort

of running into one another with those two cigarettes like those two

things that stick out of slugs.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, they didn't have filters.

But that's changed. You very seldom now see anybody who is a figure

of admiration smoking. It used to be the butler who killed everybody.

Now it's the smoker who kills everybody. The whole image is turned

around.

[4:00]

But among young people, and I notice this because I was a teacher

for a number of years in high school.... As far as young people are

concerned, it is a sign of maturity, or at least among certain peer

groups — if you smoke it must follow that you are growing up; you must

have entered that period of at least adolescence or beyond. I think the

serious part of that is that people who smoke are giving it up at a

greater rate than they ever did, but they're starting earlier. Perhaps

that is a crucial thing — young adults.

It has been asserted — I don't know with how much accuracy — that a

great number of people in Third World countries.... We as a nation have

been much more health-conscious about cigarettes, and we've demanded

low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes for I guess the past 20 years.

We've been more conscious of it since the United States surgeon-general

put out his very fine report condemning the tobacco industry — which,

incidentally, is getting out of tobacco. We're depending more and more

on tobacco tax as an income while the tobacco companies are

diversifying. They're going into everything from plastics to shredded

wheat to textiles to get out of it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: My friend the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) says they're even into cigarettes. Well, they're getting out

of cigarettes. They're getting out of it because in our culture the

handwriting is on the wall for cigarette companies. Not in the Third

World countries, though. At the same time that we're demanding more

low-tar and low-

[ Page 583 ]

nicotine cigarettes, the Third World countries are

being shipped the same brands but with inferior tobacco, which is a

higher tar and nicotine content. The Nestle's milk, and other similar

kinds of issues regarding Third World countries, is an example of how

the west treats the Third World. I think their health habits in the

future are going to be severely threatened.

I just want to close by citing one more thing, because I'm always

impressed by the way the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer),

expresses himself. He always expresses himself with a great deal of

aplomb, lucidity and confidence. I might quarrel a little bit with the

nature of his content, but he sounds good. He talked about the fact

that he would like to see the revenues from tobacco actually go down.

I'll just go over it. B.C. is going to get $18 million dollars from

this extra tax — others have observed that they do it while they're

going to get rid of the treatment centres — and Ottawa is going to get

$280 million from its new tax, and the minister wants to see revenues

go down.

I've got a little advice for him. It probably won't work any more

than prohibition does, but if he really wants to get out of this thing

that causes huge medical bills, then ban it. Don't keep milking the

public for more and more money on it. It's like saying the same thing

as the liquor store thing. I don't think he could get away with it, but

it seems to me that if you don't want that and you feel guilty about

taking money from it, because it's a health hazard and you're not

putting the money back into health, then perhaps you should consider

banning it. Then you'd really have a demonstration on your front lawn.

It'd be bigger than 20,000.

If I could close by just saying that in this party we don't think

that this particular piece of legislation is the be-all and end-all of

legislation for the province. I think in other times, if it weren't

tied into what we consider a vile and repressive package, which leaves

at stake not only our moral reputation but our economic one, that we

would be prepared to what some people might regard as play around with

this legislation and set up a lot of speakers on it. I think that's

fair to say. But we see it as only a symbol. Bill 13 is only an unlucky

symbol of what the whole 28 bills amount to as far as the future of

British Columbia is concerned.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: While the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) says

there might be some more good ones coming, we don't have a lot of faith

in that. What we want you to do is to realize that we're very serious

about what we're doing over here. We don't always look or sound

serious, and I don't think you have to be gloomy. But I do think that I

want you, Mr. Speaker, and the members opposite and the people in

British Columbia to know that we are serious and we think the

government's moves are wrong-headed, we think they are a power grab, we

think they are dumb, we don't think they're going to work, and we think

they're repressive. That's what we're fighting about, and we're not

necessarily fighting Bill 13, but it is symbolic.

Therefore I know you will regret this, but I have to conclude with

this: since we feel this way, I move adjournment of this debate until

the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Barnes

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

Ree

Rogers

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

MR. SPEAKER: With the unanimous consent of the House, could we agree on dispensing with the requesting for recording in the Journals and just have such recorded automatically? Is there such agreement, hon. members? I hear some noes.

[4:15]

MRS. DAILLY: For the very few of us who were privileged to be

here during the last speaker's delivery of his reaction to this bill, I

must say that they'll understand that I stand up feeling somewhat as if

it's going to be very hard to follow that speech, because the speech

delivered by the member for Coquitlam-Moody was delivered with great

humour, and it held the interest of all the members who were here. But

at the same time he was making some excellent points about why the

official opposition rejects this bill to further increase the tobacco

tax. I feel that my speech will certainly be dull in comparison with

what I consider was a very witty, pointed and exceptionally

well-delivered speech for all of us. When that member said that he was

a teacher, I must say that I'm glad to have him here, but those kinds

of teachers are also a loss when they leave the classroom.

Some of the government members have accused the opposition of being

somewhat frivolous in bothering to debate this bill at any length. They

seem to be somewhat surprised that we have continued to put up speakers

to speak on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that this bill

is being spoken upon by members of the opposition because we feel that

it is symbolic of the policies which this government is continuing to

bring in and which we reject.

What we find here again is another regressive taxation policy. No

matter how you cut it, this increase in the cigarette tax, particularly

in these times with so many people who are unemployed and yet who are

unfortunately addicted, is going to be far more of a hardship on that

sector of our society than it will be on many of the Social Credit

members who have spoken — the few — in support of this tax. It's all

very well for those who have a good salary and are secure — for the

present anyway — as most of us are, to say: "Oh well, this

[ Page 584 ]

tax won't hurt. Well, we hope it will hurt the

number of people who smoke, but it won't hurt people by discriminating

against one sector." That is not true. It does discriminate. It

discriminates against a group in society who are inclined to reach more

and more every day for some sort of drug, either alcohol or tobacco,

because of the present economic situation. It does create more stress,

and I think you and I both know, as people who have both smoked and I

believe quit.... I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker; is it all of a day,

or two? Nine months! Oh well, things do get born after nine months, so

I suppose something new has arrived: we have a Speaker who has decided

that smoking is very bad and who has set a good example by quitting.

Anyway, I feel that....

MS. SANFORD: What about the Minister of Health?

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), I

understand, still smokes. But as a reformed smoker I'm not going to use

this to attack those who do. What I want to do is attack the policies

of this government, which are really pretty short-sighted with this

bill, because there's no way that increasing the taxes is really going

to decrease the number of smokers. Unfortunately that's not the way it

works. I remember going to England many years ago and being absolutely

shocked. I smoked at that time — this would be about 25 years ago. I

only quit two years ago, but I was smoking a long time ago and I'm not

quite that old. I remember going to England and being absolutely amazed

at the number of smokers, It seemed to be a lot more than in Canada at

the time.

MR. HOWARD: Cigarettes there would put you off smoking.

MRS. DAILLY: And some of the cigarettes there would put you off smoking.

What amazed me though was when I started comparing the cost of a

pack of cigarettes in England with what we were paying at that time in

Canada. I also compared the cost with the wage scales in England at

that time. You know, Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely amazed when I worked

out that most of the people who were working, for example, in a factory

in England were actually giving up one hour's pay — and that was quite

a long time ago — for a pack of cigarettes! The point is....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Even non-socialists smoke. The point is that I

couldn't help thinking that it didn't really matter to these people how

much these cigarettes cost. If they're addicted, they continue to

smoke. This is why the official opposition simply cannot take the

attitude that the government does. They stand up and pontificate about

their concern over the number of people smoking and the injury it is to

their health and that that is one of the reasons for bringing this in.

Actually, a recent

article I read said the addiction of the

individual person who cannot stop smoking is an addiction to be as

concerned about as the addiction of some governments who continually

see putting taxes on cigarettes as a source of revenue. That has turned

out to be an addiction for some governments. So if you are talking

strictly from the point of view of raising money, I suppose there is

some small argument here, but we are faced with an $8.5 billion budget

and yet the amount to be raised here is approximately $18 million. I

want to repeat that it is coming off the backs of those who can least

afford it.

This government keeps talking about getting off the backs of the

people. The problem with this government is they say they are getting

off the backs of the poor people and the powerless and the weak, but

they're not. They're getting off the backs of the rich, and they're

making things much easier for the powerful than they are for the poor.

Again, this bill is just another symbol; in fact it's more than a

symbol. If it is ever passed, it is a fact that this government is not

really concerned about adding more and more to the income reduction of

the people who do have this particular addiction.

The speaker who preceded me said he wondered if studies had been

done on the socio-economic group which apparently are more addicted to

smoking than any other sector of our society. I must admit that I don't

have those studies, but I must say that from personal observation when

I have been in England, where the taxes have gone up and up.... The

cost of a pack of cigarettes is to my mind absolutely phenomenal, and

smoking is certainly not on the decrease.

Mr. Speaker, I think many of us at some time or other have attended

a bingo game. I remember the years I used to go to bingo. It was a long

time ago when, frankly, I was short of money and it was kind of fun to

go and play bingo and hope desperately that one could win and make some

money. The interesting thing is that when you go to a bingo game, you

can hardly see the room or breathe the air because of the smoke that

you find in those areas. All I'm doing is making another point, Mr.

Speaker. The people who go to play bingo are certainly not the people

who have assured salaries. They are going there because they are

desperately hoping, like a lottery, that they can make some extra money

to survive. Here again, at the same time they are desperately trying to

make more money, they are also ready to continue to consume the

cigarettes which are costing more and more — and under this

government's policies will be increased,

The only way that we can seriously do something about the health

hazard of smoking is through education. I really believe that this

government is very hypocritical in taking the stance on this bill that

they are going to reduce health hazards from smoking and decrease

smoking when at the same time they are pulling in resources every day

which would provide educational programs and facilities to help people

who are addicted to smoking and to alcohol. It is really a hypocritical

stance.

This government must realize that the best way to lower the

incidence of deaths from smoking and to look after our young people

particularly and stop them from embarking on a whole lifetime — and it

certainly will be a shortened lifetime — of smoking is through

education.

When you have increased cutbacks in school funding and in programs

offered in our schools because of this government's fiscal policies,

and when you have cutbacks in community educational programs, night

schools, you name it — all the areas where we could possibly.... I

won't say possibly; I can say with some surety we could perhaps educate

people to the dangers of smoking, and perhaps even assist people in

quitting. This government is really operating in a vacuum when it comes

to assisting people in the area of the ills and hazards of smoking. The

member for Cowichan-

[ Page 585 ]

Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) gave an excellent speech in

which she outlined for this assembly some of the very sobering facts

about smoking today. I think it would not be taking too much liberty at

this time to repeat a few of those points, because it does tie in with

why we are against this bill. We are concerned with stopping people

from smoking, but we do say that this bill will not do it.

Statistics from the federal health department have been quite

sobering. For example, in 1979 smoking killed at least 28,700

Canadians. This was about five times higher than the number killed by

traffic accidents in the same year, which was 5,764. It goes on to say

that before non-smokers shrug and mutter that smokers know the risks,

and that they're hurting no one but themselves, they should note the

health department's warning about the dangers of inhaling smoke from

other people's cigarettes. Now that I'm not smoking — and I'm sure that

you're the same, Mr. Speaker — we are more aware of the fact that we

have quit ourselves. We're no longer inhaling, but we're getting

everyone else's smoke. As was pointed out before, the smoke that comes

towards us from those who are smoking is deadlier than that which the

smoker inhales. I think you and I particularly are very concerned about

this. That's why I know that if you were able to sit there and vote,

that you would agree with me that education comes first and the matter

of money is entirely secondary to most people in the whole area of

quitting smoking.

The federal department says that one study of nonsmokers in a

working environment demonstrated that passive smoking, inhalation by

non-smokers of tobacco-polluted air, was equivalent to smoking 10

cigarettes a day. You and I quit, Mr. Speaker, but we're still exposed

to almost 10 cigarettes a day. I think we probably speak for most

people who are no longer smoking — we want to do something about it.

I'm not standing here trying to be sanctimonious about being a reformed

smoker; I'm not standing here to filibuster any particular motion; I'm

standing here out of concern to say that if this government is going to

do something to stop people from smoking, increased taxation,

particularly at this time, is not going to meet that purpose. In fact,

smoking by the people who are the poorest is probably going to continue

exactly the same, and it won't matter to the people who have money.

They'll still go out and buy their cigarettes. So for the sum of $18

million, which is not paltry, once again this government is making the

burden of that taxation felt by those who can least afford it.

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have anything more at this time. I know

other speakers are going to follow me, but I did feel I would be remiss

if I didn't express my concern that I think the government is once

again being very shortsighted with this bill. It's regressive taxation.

We shouldn't even be dealing with another taxation bill at this time;

we should be dealing with the budget. However, this has been put before

us and we must deal with it. Once again, this government is, with this

regressive tax, showing less concern for the poor and the helpless than

for the others in society.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move adjournment again of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[4:30]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 28

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, when this particular bill first

came up.... Before the minister leaves, I would like to pass a message

on to him. I really think it's important that when you look at a bill

like this and you look at the effect that it has on people, you have to

look at it first from how it affects you personally. Not being a

particularly reformed smoker, I remember 20-odd years ago when the

surgeon-general brought out a report about the evils of smoking and

about how it was going to cut our life. For every package we smoked we

lost five minutes a day. I kind of figured out that I was dead three

weeks ago. Anyway, I was impressed, and I quit smoking for about 18

years until I got elected to this Legislature. After two years, and the

tension from listening to the garbage from the government side, I

started again. When the minister brought down his budget and filed all

these bills, I decided that I'd quit. Every morning when I get up, I

think of this rotten Social Credit budget, and it keeps me off the

cigarette for another day. So it's really important that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait till we do the booze, Frank!

MR. MITCHELL: Well, that really doesn't bother me, not being

an alcoholic like a lot of the members of the cabinet. The price of

booze is really not going to affect me. Anyway, from my family and my

wife, I would like to pass on to the Minister of Finance that his

rotten budget and his bill stopped me from smoking. Every day when I

get up I think of it, and I say that something good comes out of

everything.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, finally one of you is speaking in favour of the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: No, I'm telling you how it affected this particular member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can't make up your mind?

MR. MITCHELL: I made up my mind that I cannot accept any legislation

that is going to increase taxes at this time, As my colleague the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) very ably stated to this House earlier today, every

time that you suck out additional moneys through taxation, that is money that

is not being allowed to circulate within the economy. You have the small business

communities that are.... This year the Minister of Finance is telling us that

he is going to be able to suck out $18 million from the economy, and that's

$18 million that is not going to be spent in the small business section. He's

bragging that next year

[ Page 586 ]

he's going to be able to take out $25 million from

the economy. That's another $25 million that will not be allowed to

circulate within the small business community, which creates a large

section of the jobs in this country.

I think it's important that you look at the bill and at how it's

going to affect each one of us as individuals and each one of our

ridings. This is the main attack that this side of the House has on the

legislation, but I would like to repeat something I said earlier in

another debate. I think that it's important that this House, this

parliament, should come back to some of the traditions that parliament

needs.

Let's review the context of where Bill 13 should have come in our

B.C. parliamentary democracy. A bill of this nature, a bill of taxation

or any bill should have been presented to this parliament back in

January or February. Within the traditions of parliament we have our

throne speech, our budget speech, our directions and the bills that are

going to come before this House before the end of the fiscal year. This

is a tradition that is held to in every province but B.C. Only in B.C.

did we go through January, February, March, the end of the fiscal

year.... Then the government embarked on orders-in-council, special

warrants to run the province, and then they embarked on an election.

And all the time they had sitting in their offices Bill 2, Public

Service Labour Relations Amendment Act; Bill 3, a bill that was going

to cut out the rights of workers; Bill 4, an income tax amendment bill;

all these bills....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. We are addressing Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I'm just working up to Bill 13. I've only gotten to Bill 5.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that if we had had a proper

parliament, a proper session, when July 7, came that taxation.... Let's

face it, there was taxation put on the people of British Columbia

without legislative authority to back it up. If the government, in

their wisdom, felt that on July 7, 1983, they needed to take another

$18 million out of the economy for this year, another $25 million for

next year, and another $25 million in 1985, another $25 million in

1986, this legislation should have been brought up and debated in this

House prior to the ending of the fiscal year and prior to the election.

[4:45]

I know that if I went on to Bills 5, 6 and 7, you would say I was straying from the intent of Bill 13.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, I got to Bill 7. And I think it's important

that we get back to traditions of parliament. This government keeps on

advertising with my dollars and the taxpayers' dollars what a great,

open government they are. They take money out of the budget to spend

for advertising, for false promotions, stating facts that are not fact.

They didn't say in any of this advertising they have paid for with tax

dollars — which they are now trying to recover — that they were going

to raise tobacco tax 25 percent. I can't recall any candidate I know in

the Social Credit Party or any government members or MLAs who

campaigned through this province and said: "We are going to raise

tobacco taxes 25 percent, or 17 percent, or 15 percent, or 5 percent."

None of them said that. None of them said they were going to cut out

the rentalsman.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I can't mention that? I can't work my way up to

Bill 13? It's important that I get to Bill 13. The Minister of Housing

(Hon. Mr. Brummet) keeps on telling me that I should get to Bill 13.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the speaker agrees with you. We would hope that you would get to Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: I will work my way up there, sir.

I know the members over on the other side of the House aren't

completely aware of why we are debating this bill in detail, why we are

bringing to the....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, I'm talking to the members over there.

MR. MOWAT: Talk to your own members.

MR. MITCHELL: Oh, no. I don't have to talk to my own members,

because my members are very competent. They know why we are debating

this particular bill in detail. We are stalling it because we believe

in the parliamentary traditions. We should be dealing with the budget

debate and the estimates of this province before we debate taxation.

You say that we have to debate taxation without legislation, and that's

what you're doing. You're taxing people today without the legislative

authority to back it up, and that's wrong. We have massive firings and

we are spending money, and we do not have the legislative authority to

back it up. In our parliaments we do have the right to debate the

issues which are going to affect our ridings, our province and our

citizens. The government, for whatever reason they may have, feel that

they can trample over the rights of parliament and individuals. They

feel they can run a province and an election without bringing these

bills before parliament, but they should have earnpaigned on their

record, and on their facts and the truth.

Getting back to unlucky Bill 13, we must debate it. We welcome and

expect to listen to input from the back-benchers and those who have

been excluded from the cabinet. We expect to listen to what they have

to say about this policy. One of them rose in this House, and what did

he say? What was his major announcement? In his opinion we should have

closure and cut off debate. Is it parliamentary practice that we should

cut off debate? Mr. Speaker, I know you don't believe in it. I know

that in this province, and in this country thousands and thousands of

people have died, have lost their jobs or have been persecuted because

they were fighting for the right of debate in a proper forum and

method. The legislation and laws are going to govern them, and the

direction of this government is going to take money from the pockets of

those who are spending it. I don't care if they're spending it on

cigarettes. It's an awful habit, and there's no person stronger than a

reformed smoker. I guess it's since July 7 when they brought in this

rotten budget that I was forced to join my clean, healthy-living

colleagues.

Interjection.

[ Page 587 ]

MR. MITCHELL: Right now the back-benchers are split. Did you

hear that? One of them says I'm looking better, and the other one says

it's a matter of opinion. They're split. I know that you're not going

to give me any caucus secrets, Mr. Speaker, but I know there are a lot

of people in your caucus that are split. I know there are a lot of

people in your caucus who do not support the repressive legislation and

taxation without legislative authority to back it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. MITCHELL: Then my secrets would be out. But I'll tell you

right now — and you know I'm right — there are splits in your caucus;

it's just the law of averages. Since this legislation came down we have

candidates all over the province who were not elected to the Social

Credit Party and who are standing up and saying: "If I had known that

type of legislation was going to be brought down, I would not have run

for the Social Credit Party." If they knew that you were going to bring

in taxation without legislation and deny the rights of the people in

this province and that you were going to break contracts, they would

not have run for your particular party. They are publicly getting up

and saying that. I know that if they had known that Bill 13 was going

to come in and that you were going to raise the taxes on tobacco 25

percent, the law of averages would say.... Those 22 people were not the

only ones unaware of this particular piece of legislation. Within that

wonderful 35 members sitting there very quietly, the only time they

want to get up to speak is to promote closure, to cut down debate. They

say that some of you are not happy with this legislation.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, would you please address the Chair.

MR. MITCHELL: He keeps on interrupting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's unfortunate, hon. member. Would you address the Chair, please.

MR. MITCHELL: As long as I don't refer to anyone in the gallery I'm all right.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: This wonderful member down here from Surrey,

the one who keeps injecting everything — I would like to comment on

him. He's a man who has had a lot of publicity. I wanted to thank him

here and he's not here.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: There he is. I wanted to congratulate the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) for doing a little moonlighting policing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this relevant to Bill 13?

MR. MITCHELL: Oh, yes, it is. This is a type of public

involvement.... Because he didn't smoke — and that's referring to Bill

13 — he was able to outrun a young person.

And I congratulate him as one who has outrun a lot of young persons. I know what a great thing....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Now a little relevancy, if you will, hon. member. Back to Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: The information I received was that he was stealing the money to buy cigarettes, so I think it's on Bill 13.

In the debate on this particular bill it is important that we review

the context of the bill. You are going to increase revenues to the

province. You're not bringing this particular bill within the normal

parliamentary tradition that would follow the throne speech, the budget

speech, the discussion of estimates. If those traditions had been

followed....

The only member who stood up from the government side and debated

this.... In the past we never debated in detail these repressive taxes

on tobacco, because they were normally brought in in the proper

position in parliamentary debate. We used to have debates in their

proper time, January and February and early March, before the end of

the fiscal year. We didn't have debates in the middle of the summer

after an election. We didn't have debates where they brought in

regressive legislation after the election. At least in 1979, before I

came into this House, we did have a budget. We had a great promise that

We were all going to get five BCRIC shares.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Please, back to relevance in debate. I must insist that you make your remarks relevant to Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: You're very right, Mr. Speaker. I know that I strayed off, but it was those people down there who kept interrupting me.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: The only thing I can say, if I can answer that person down there.... The five BCRIC shares that I got from the government....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, they ruined.... I got the paper and Mr.

Kaiser got a quarter of a billion dollars that he ran off to America

with. But anyway, I wouldn't mention that. I quite believe when he was

here he voted for the Social Credit, and I got my five shares in 1979,

and I didn't vote for them. In fact, a lot of people in my riding

didn't vote for me, and I got another job. Even after they got bribed.

I wasn't bribing with cigarettes at that time. I wasn't smoking. You

are part of that government that offered the five BCRIC shares as

bribes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now back to Bill 13, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: I would say that the Social Credit

government.... The Minister of Finance was part of the government that

tried to bribe the people of Esquimalt.

MR. MITCHELL: In closing, Mr. Speaker.... I know I have some notes here.

[ Page 588 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If you could only read them. Who wrote them?

MR. MITCHELL: I wrote them myself, and that's the problem.

They refer directly to this particular Bill 13, this unlucky bill that

is trying to make legal something that has been in force since July 7.

I believe the government and the Minister of Finance, in all his

wisdom and with all his experts, needed $18 million. He didn't need it

until July 7. I know he could have brought this in before the end of

the fiscal year and said, "On July 7 I need $18 million and I'm going

to raise the tobacco tax on that date." I know he had all that

information because he has one of the most efficient departments, with

all the economists and computers. He knows how much money he has and

needs, but he didn't want to bring in that bill before the end of the

fiscal year; he knew his leader was going to go to an election and he

didn't want to bring in Bill 13 or all these other 25 repressive pieces

of legislation. So he didn't bring it in.

If we are going to have an honest government and parliamentary debate, we should have that debate from all sides of the House.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: We've only had one. Do you represent all sides of the House?

MR. REID: Yes, both sides.

MR. MITCHELL: The conservative wing of the party represents

all sides of the government side of the House. I guess that right-wing

turn.... Would you say the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) represents the left-wing of the Social

Credit?

[5:00]

I congratulated the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) for his

moonlighting on the police. We appreciate it. I still hold very close

traditions of public involvement. But there's a man who believes in law

and order, and then he gets up in this House, with all his wisdom....

No, he didn't get up in this House. He sat back there and did his

normal heckling, the kind of dumb remarks he throws out which are

recorded in Hansard . A lot of them are dumb remarks. One of

them was: "Push up the price of cigarettes." — from a man who believes

in law and order. Do you know the effect that would have? Say we made

the price of cigarettes $10 a package. Other people besides myself

would take the pledge, and we'd have what happened after the end of the

war, and during the war in Europe — a black market in cigarettes

because of the shortage and the cost. You would have black market

cigarettes, and a whole new criminal economy would start. Do you think

the mafia that grew and spawned on Prohibition through the twenties,

with all their new sophisticated equipment and helicopters...? There

would be cigarettes coming in from all countries. In fact, people are

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Did you hear him? He's going to ship in

cigarettes by barge and trucks. I think that's wrong, and I really

think that might be the leadership we should ignore. We should ignore

the unparliamentary debate that's going on.

MR. REID: I withdraw all comments.

MR. MITCHELL: He withdraws those unparliamentary comments. I

agree with him; I think he should withdraw these snide remarks. He's

withdrawing them and I hope you accept it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Speaker would accept your addressing the Chair and getting back to Bill 13.

MR. MITCHELL: I keep getting interrupted.

Mr. Speaker, you won't let me debate or even mention some of these

other bills. I just want to read the titles of them and show how Bill

13 is going to increase taxation, take it from those poor people who

are still addicted, like my friend the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead), who is honest about it. He's honest about the fact that he

is hooked on it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

He is a lovable guy, Mr. Speaker. He's such a lovable guy he doesn't

develop the hate that I do against the government — not so much the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I did because I knew it was

legislation in which they were going to raise the taxes on cigarettes.

I quit on July 7, that very morning when I got up.... I think I told

the other Speaker before you came on that when he brought in that piece

of legislation I knew that that was the pressure I needed to quit

smoking. Because the Minister of Finance isn't here, my wife wants to

thank you that you brought it in. We're going to defeat it, I hope, but

it did get me to quit and she wanted me to pass on her thanks to you,

Mr. Minister. So I pass that on. You weren't here when I passed it on

to the Speaker. I'm not sure that the other Speaker — he's a Whip —

would pass that message on to you, so it's on the record and I've given

it to you directly.

I hope I've covered the main parts. I am opposed to an increase

because that increase is taking the money out of the economy and we

can't afford that 25 percent increase in cigarettes — that $18 million

that the minister didn't need until July 7 because he wouldn't have

made it retroactive until July 7. I am opposed to the legislation

because it was not brought in in its proper order within the

parliamentary debates. We had our throne speech; we didn't complete our

budget speeches; we haven't had an opportunity to go through the

estimates for each member. We are bringing in taxation legislation

without it coming up at the proper time, Maybe we need $17 million this

year, once we go through the budget. Maybe after we have gone through

the budget, as we have for the last two years, when we went through the

estimates and were able to cut out the fat, the waste, the garbage that

you allowed.... Pardon me, the government did. I know you wouldn't have

allowed it, but the government allowed all that waste to creep into the

budgets for '82 and '81 — all that waste — $179 million that we,

without the computers, without the experts, the economists that the

Minister of Finance has at his disposal.... We went through those

budgets and were able to cut out the consulting fees, all that

furniture, all that waste of advertising. If we had that debate

properly we could maybe save that $18 million. We might

[ Page 589 ]

even be able to cut it down so that you only needed

$8 million. I know that once we get into it and the various ministers

in the cabinet explain their particular budgets and answer our

questions openly and honestly, because it's an open government, and we

maybe make a few exposures that won't be quite as headline grabbing as

trips to Broadway or Arizona or wine.... There will be very

down-to-earth, solid opposition debate.

I really think that we shouldn't ramrod this particular bill through

at this time. I think that taxation bills should come up after the

budget debate is completed, after we have gone through the estimates.

They have been collecting money since July 7. They are not collecting

any from me, but they have been collecting money on cigarettes since

July 7. I'm not a legal man, but I know that when I was a policeman we

couldn't go out and lay tickets on a motorcycle for not having a helmet

on until the legislation was passed by parliament, until it was

proclaimed by cabinet. We had to conform. As policemen we had to

conform with legislation that had to be legal. There seems to be a

different law for rich finance ministers. They can go out and order

people to collect money prior to the legislation passing. I don't know

how he does it, but I know if I had tried to take a.... When the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) first brought

in the legislation under which they were going to require people to

wear helmets on motorcycles, we couldn't have gone out and charged

people and taken them before the courts. It would have been thrown out.

There's a certain policy, and I think it's a just policy, that

legislation should be properly debated. It should be properly

understood, and it should become legal after it's gone all through the

proper studies. I know the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Brummet) has a piece of legislation that they jammed through here

last year. We passed it. I said that it was illegal, that it was

improper.

Getting back to Bill 13, that legislation has not been proclaimed; I

think they were wise in not proclaiming it. I say that we shouldn't be

enforcing any legislation until it's debated in its proper context.

When we complete that, then it can be enforced. We have bills in there

that go back to the beginning of the year. It's wrong. I will say that

the Minister of Finance did announce that he was going to deny renter's

tax credits and tax rebates, but it's wrong to bring in legislation

before it's debated, to take money out of the pockets of the working

people — the little guy, the big guy — without it becoming part of the

laws of the province.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: They keep on interrupting me, Mr. Speaker. This

little fellow down here keeps giving me orders. I have enough trouble

with my own caucus; they're always giving me orders. Every so often I

get away with something, but not very often.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote against this piece of legislation

because it wasn't brought in properly. It's repressive. It's against

all traditions. Before we get away from it I would welcome all the

members of the rump group of the Social Credit over here, these people

who are closer to the door, closer to the government, and closer to the

research people that bring in their speeches, which are all

ghostwritten.... I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that I have a ghostwritten

speech here, but I will ignore it. I don't like these notes that are

handed to me. I would really like to welcome the other speakers to get

into the debate, and I would like to warn the people that I know in

their caucus, and their ghostwriters, who are going to write their

speeches and their notes, that they should be prepared to debate this

tomorrow.

Mr. Mitchell moved adjournment of the debate.

[5:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would commend standing order 16 (2) to all

hon. members, particularly the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It

states in part that every member present shall vote. I'm not aware that

the hon. member for Skeena has voted in this division.

MR. HOWARD: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, I will vote. Do you want to know how?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you indicate your vote, please?

MR. HOWARD: Well, I vote in the affirmative.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 27

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask that it be recorded in the Journals that the hon. member for Skeena was somewhat indecisive in the last vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The affirmative vote by the member for Skeena has been recorded.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under the rules

recited in Beauchesne and Sir Erskine May, I request that a roll call

be taken after each division, and that each member be asked to stand in

his place and indicate how he votes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I see no provision for that in standing orders.

[ Page 590 ]

MR. LAUK: It's in Sir Erskine May and Beauchesne, and in MacMinn on unique and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm reading our standing orders, hon. member,

and there's no such provision in this House. Standing order 16 is quite

clear in its entirety as to voting procedures, and that is not one of

them. The Chair finds that the motion has failed, recording has been

asked, and unless there are further speakers.... The member for Skeena

rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order as the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations raised, he cast an improper motive in my

direction about indecisiveness. The House Leader should be aware by now

that there is no question of indecision on this side of the House. We

know exactly what we're doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. House Leader, was there any improper motive imputed to another hon. member?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No siree, Mr. Speaker. Bah humbug to you, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That establishes that.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Smoker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's not a smoker.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he's a non-smoker.

The reason we're opposed to going further with this bill is the

manner of this government's illegally collecting taxes before they have

legislative authority,

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Do you presume that all the backbenchers are a

bunch of drones and they're going to vote for every bill that's put in

by the government? How do you know that they're going to vote for this

bill? What right do you have to go out and collect the taxes on the

presumption that they're a bunch of sheep and they're going to

guarantee.... There might be the spark of independence in one of them,

and they might vote against this bill. You have been collecting taxes

on the presumption that the back-benchers are nothing but sheep and

they're going to go along with that, and I resent that implication on

behalf of the back-benchers of the government.

[5:30]

We've got here a demonstration of how a government is so arrogant,

so presumptive, that it doesn't even know the names of its

backbenchers, but it knows how they're going to vote ahead of time. I

think that's going too far. I think those semi-literate people who made

it here on the Social Credit ticket should be given the chance to think

it through themselves rather than a presumption. Don't just use the

example that one of your kind can make it with no show of wit

whatsoever to be a minister. Those options don't come all the time. Mr.

Speaker, that was filled up by the member for North Peace River (Hon.

Mr. Brummet). That chance is gone. The rest of you are going to have to

show your independence and explain to the people out there why taxes

are being collected before they are the law of the land. It's a form of

Social Credit. Collect the taxes anyway; let the peons pay. We're going

to pass the bill — maybe. It's illegal, and they've been acting

illegally, not only since July 7 but well before we even got to this

House with eight months of the chamber not sitting. They went through

unprecedented warrants, and they intend to go on operating that way.

They have an arrogance about collecting money from the people without

representation: warrant after warrant after warrant.

We even had to do the unprecedented thing of calling in the

Lieutenant-Governor to ask if they had the right for those warrants

well after the end of the fiscal year. This is another example of it in

this bill: collecting taxes without even having legislative authority,

with the presumption that they'll make it all out retroactively. What a

way to demonstrate to the people of this province your respect for

legislative law and order. You just say: "We're going to bring in a

bill here and we're going to collect taxes, so we'll start on July 7.

Maybe it will pass through the House and maybe it won't." Not one of

those drones who are on the back benches is going to say a whimpering

word. I've got more confidence in those backbench drones. Some of them

are going to say something. One of them knows three words. He's gone

out of the House to rehearse them: "leadership," "good government," and

"my name is." That's no way to treat those free, independent

backbenchers: presume tha