[ Page 593 ]

FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act, Chapter 215, I would like to rise on a point of privilege. I move that one Glen Ringdal of 349 Oxford Drive, Port Moody, British Columbia, be required to attend before a Committee on Privileges to be composed of Messrs. Vogel, Strachan and L.A. Williams, to give information with respect to certain allegations made against members of the Legislative Assembly, circulated and printed at several places throughout this Province, and wherein legislative members are attacked for misconduct in relation to opposing the Succession Duties Bill, and that in such behalf, the Sergeant-At-Arms be empowered to act upon the warrant of the Speaker, to cause the attendance of the said Glen Ringdal or other such witnesses as the said Committee may be required to investigate the said allegations, and report their findings and recommendations to the House. Moved by myself and seconded by Mr. Dowding.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have some evidence to support the….

MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you submit that to me, please?

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I have the letters here.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member be kind enough to be seated for a moment.

First, to address my remarks to the honourable member for Yale-Lillooet, all members of the House should be interested in accusations that are going abroad, which are completely unjustified, of the members of this Legislative Assembly who had no opportunity, because of the anticipation rule, to discuss the contents of the Succession Duty Act or the amendments thereto. Certainly it is reprehensible for any citizen of this Province to send information abroad which improperly implicates any member of this Legislature, and as such we must be most concerned with this type of nonsense that is going abroad. Nevertheless, I must point out, with respect to the honourable member, that we are here drawing a motion which involves one Glen Ringdal, who presumably is the holder of a certain post office box in Vancouver, but the letter is signed by one Mr. J. Black. I feel that rather than involve this Legislature, until the facts are better known, with this particular motion, I must rule the motion out of order. However at the same time — I have expressed my feelings on this type of literature — if and when the facts are properly known, certainly a motion of this description could be brought before this House.

The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think every member will agree that all the facts should first become known, as far as we can find them out, and I understand from certain indications in the House right now, that other members have been placed in this same invidious position by the letter writer, who has attacked members of this House and will continue to send, apparently, letters to various newspapers throughout the Province, merely substituting more names for the name he had in another newspaper, with the same attack.

I have ascertained, Mr. Speaker, that the box number 2891 in Vancouver is in the name of this person shown in the motion, Mr. Ringdal of Port Moody. The name shown on the letter is J. Black. I have been unable to ascertain any person of that name who is associated with the particular association shown on the letterhead. No one will admit to being that person, so the only one upon whom we could look, if we wanted to investigate further, is Mr. Ringdal, and I am not suggesting in advance that Mr. Ringdal is guilty of anything. We do not know that until he is given a chance to explain how these letters emanate with this box number on them, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, there is another solution to it.

Before this is spread all over the Province quite falsely about members, I would ask the Speaker if he would consider, in the meantime, investigating this matter further by writing to this box, requiring the person who is there to explain to the Speaker, what connection, if any, he has with this affair, so that then the Speaker could, if he feels it incumbent upon him, report back to the House, so that appropriate action might be taken and the whole thing cleared up.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: The first I heard of this matter was this afternoon, and I do appreciate the observations that you have made, Mr. Speaker. I wish to advise the House that this very Bill I hope to have up for second reading this afternoon, so we can have the opportunity to debate the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take the recommendations of the honourable member for Burnaby-Edmonds under advisement and consideration. Next order.

On the motion of Mr. G.B. Gardom, Bill (No. 67) intituled An Act Respecting Proceedings against the Crown was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The Hon. W.D. Black presented to Mr. Speaker two Messages from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. W.D. Black, the following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

Bill (No. 48) intituled An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.

Bill (No. 49) intituled An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act.

The Hon. D.L. Brothers presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. D.L. Brothers, Bill (No. 64) intituled An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The Hon. D.R.J. Campbell presented to Mr. Speaker two

[ Page 594 ]

Messages from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. D.R.J. Campbell, the following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:-

Bill (No. 43) intituled An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

Bill (No. 44) intituled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

On the motion of the Hon. R.R. Loffmark, Bill (No. 45) intituled An Act to Amend the Medical Act.

On the motion of the Hon. R.R. Loffmark, Bill (No. 61) intituled Vancouver General Hospital Act, 1902.

On the motion of Mr. Hartley, Bill (No. 68) intituled An Act to Amend the Female Minimum Wage Act.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 11, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act)

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill No. 11. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 11 is an Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act. This Government believes a broad base for taxation is the most equitable method to raise the funds necessary to carry out essential services provided by Government. It considers the succession duties must form a part of this base in respect to our more wealthy citizens, but that exemptions be provided of sufficient worth to eliminate the vast majority from having to pay any succession duties whatsoever. The Government is aware that the thrifty, industrious and prudent citizens of our society are entitled to encouragement to continue their contribution to the economy of the Province. For this reason this Bill increases exemptions that are presently in force by raising the amount allowed for pensions or annuities from $100 to $250 a month, and completely exempting a family home passing to close relatives.

Including the measures contained in this Bill, the following are the main exemptions provided. For example, for a spouse, (1) an outright exemption of $60,000; (2) an additional exemption of the value of the family home; (3) an additional exemption of $25,000 of life insurance; (4) an additional exemption of up to $250 a month pension. This means, for instance, a husband could leave, for an example, a $40,000 home, $25,000 in insurance, other properties to the value of $60,000, and a $250 a month pension to his spouse, which, if she were 60, would be valued at $33,832.50, or a total estate of $150,832.50, and no British Columbia succession duty would be payable. It is therefore apparent that most beneficiaries of estates in British Columbia will be totally exempt from the Provincial succession duty.

In the case of an estate larger than that, in the case of an estate, say, of a net value total estate minus all liabilities against the estate of $1,000,000, the following exemptions and duties could apply. Exemptions — $100,000 to charities; $100,000 objects of art; $90,000 to a family home; $60,000 general exemption; $25,000 life insurance; $33,800 pension if wife aged 60, or a total exemption on a million dollar estate of $408,800. The dutiable value, therefore, Mr. Speaker, would be $591,200. The duty would average at 20.5 per cent, or would amount to $121,150, or 12 per cent of the net value of the estate, 12 per cent of one million dollars.

In the past, exemptions allowed for religious, charitable or educational purposes have been, in part, subject to the Minister in his absolute discretion. It is now proposed in this Bill to abolish the Minister's discretion and to broaden the exemptions to include those organizations qualifying for exemptions under the Estate Tax Act of Canada to the extent of 10 per cent of net value, which precedent is contained in the Income Tax Act of Canada. It is further proposed to allow this exemption back to April the 1st, 1968, to any estate where duty was paid on a gift which would qualify under this new section.

Mr. Speaker, it is the Government's intention to value objects of art at a nominal value of $1 for succession duty purposes when the property is bequested to a public library, museum, or art gallery, and accepted for display and retention within the Province. This will greatly encourage the granting of gifts to these Provincial institutions, (applause) and keep them within the Province, Mr. Speaker.

The British Columbia succession duties will, therefore, in future only apply to very large estates, as the generous basic exemptions outlined above eliminate most beneficiaries. In the case of large estates subject to duties, the Government is still prepared to forgo its revenues up to 10 per cent of the net estate where donations are made to charities. Of course further funds can also be left to charities after the payment of duties. It must be remembered that succession duties enter the consolidated revenue fund, and are available for social service expenditures on a priority as determined by the Province and the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Succession Duty Act amendments are as follows: (1) To increase exemptions. Family homes to be totally exempt. Previous Act allows exemption up to a maximum of $35,000 to the spouse only. A family home is defined as where the deceased and his household were ordinarily resident and which is not leased or rented. Homes can now be left, or will now be able to be left succession duty free to a husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, grandchild, son and daughter-in-law of the deceased. (2) Pension or annuities exemption increased from $100 to $250 a month. This is important, as pensions or annuities are amortized at present worth in the case of the beneficiary. With present day pensions, this amount can be considerable.

Mr. Chairman, too, to clear up any misunderstanding about charitable donations, the present regulations in the absolute discretion of the Minister of Finance determine what is an eligible exempt organization. While this procedure was satisfactory in the past for well-known charities, the advent of private foundations, etc. now requires a more positive and clear-cut approach. The amending Bill therefore clearly outlines that effective April the 1st, 1970, the following charitable or non-profit organizations qualify for succession duties exemptions: (a) Those organizations qualifying for an exemption under the Federal Government Estate Tax Act. This Act allows very wide exemptions and includes churches, universities, hostels, foundations, etc. (b) Exemption allowed is 10 per cent of the net value of the estate, total of estate less obligations similar to the 10 per cent provisions contained in the Federal Income Tax Act. (c) Exempted organizations must use the donation in this

[ Page 595 ]

Province. Many British Columbia succession duty bequests were finding their way out of our Province. (d) Exempted organizations must have the sole discretion as to the use of the funds, though the person making the gift chooses the organization, but the organization itself, once chosen, to have the say of the use of the fund, because priorities have been given which are not the high priorities of that organization, and if it's tax exempt then certainly it should be for the purpose which that organization has the higher priority. Of course, any money given after paying taxes, the priority, of course, will be given by the donor.

In order to be fair, Mr. Speaker, the new 10 per cent exemption provision is back dated to April the 1st, 1968, for those estates that have paid the full duties and who can qualify under the provisions. Note that the retroactive provision allows an exemption, it does not apply a duty.

In order to start the new 10 per cent exemption provision on April the 1st next in a clear-cut manner, and to enable the present operations of the Succession Duty Act continued unhindered until that date, all past determinations of the Minister confirmed and ratified. There is nothing new, as the Minister has had absolute discretion in the Act now for many years, and which is now being abolished as of April the 1st next. The following exemptions will now be provided as of April the 1st for Succession Duties: (1) Family home. (2) Life insurance the value of $25,000. (3) Pensions or annuities up to $250 a month. (4) $60,000 outright exemption for a spouse. (5) Charitable donations up to 10 per cent of net value of estate. (6) Works of art to public museums, libraries, and art galleries without any maximum.

Over and above these exemptions, Provincial succession duties are low. For example, for a close relative the following rates apply. This applies on the net after taking off all of these exemptions which I have outlined, on the net. Up to $50,000 of dutiable value it ranges from three to eight per cent. That portion which is taxable from $50,000 to $100,000, dutiable value ranges from eight to ten per cent. $100,000 to $200,000, ten to 13 per cent. From $200,000 to $1,000,000, 13 to 23 per cent. From $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, 23 to 36 per cent, and all above $5,000,000, 36 per cent, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of this Bill that are certainly great. Particularly the annuity aspect, where now, changing from $1,200 a year to $3,000, is giving a lot of people, particularly in view of the fact that people now are becoming more and more pension conscious, and there are more pensions available, this aspect of the Act is going to be very helpful to the little people in B.C. I think that these are the people that we are primarily interested in. The family home situation with one or two exceptions, I think is also a very desirable aspect, although I can envisage a family home being a very expensive family home. As a matter of fact some ultra expensive, in the quarter of a million dollar class and so on.

But there are some issues, I think, in this Bill, and the issue that strikes me the hardest is the issue of who is paying the bill. It seems to me that when organizations such as the church, such as health foundations, and such as organizations that do essential experimental work, the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army in their own field, and so on, when they get hurt by a Bill like this, I think it means that we should take some very, very deep consideration of all its aspects. Now, there are two ways that we look at this, and I'm speaking particularly from my own standpoint. One, the limitation of 10 per cent to a charity, 10 per cent, for example, to a group such as the Y.M.C.A. which I am very interested in, the church which I am also extremely interested in, and the Heart, Cancer, and so forth Foundations that I am also interested in. I know that there are some Foundations that have taken advantage of the Succession Duty Act and the Estate Tax Act over the years, but there should be some other way of finding who they are and sort of excluding them in law better than discretionary powers, better than doing it in this way.

Now the 10 per cent is going to place a real hardship on some church efforts. Some people, particularly older people have built a habit over the years of supporting a particular activity, and these activities have been smiled upon by this Government, and by most people over the years. This particular individual may not have very much more in his life than this activity, as far as his heart's desire is concerned. He wants to take care of his family which is left. At the same time he wants to really take care of this particular situation. It might be, for an example, an experimental work being done in teaching or religious work in say Fiji or New Guinea. The Y.M.C.A. for example, right now, is setting up an extension in New Guinea. It could even be in northern Alberta, Mr. Chairman, where at least one-fifty-fifth of this Legislative Assembly was born. It doesn't really matter where it is. I think that any time we become so desperately Provincial that we say that the monies have to be — parochial, if you will, as well as Provincial, using the larger sense of the word — where the monies have to be used within this Province, for a rich Province like this, this is, I think pretty greedy of us.

I do think, Mr. Chairman, that from that standpoint, bearing in mind that there are great parts of this Bill, that while we think they are coupled so closely, it doesn't really give one an opportunity to really assess this Bill in its true perspective, because every time you look at the good aspects of the Bill, then suddenly you come around and see the bad aspects of it and it puts one in an awful dilemma.

Now, there's another thing that puts me in a dilemma about this Bill, and that's where the Minister, he's giving up his discretionary power, however, he's reinforcing that discretionary power, between 1968 and 1971, retroactively. It's a retroactive reinforcement of the discretionary power that he had. I don't know whose ox is being gored, but obviously somebody's is, because you don't put this kind of thing into a Bill unless there's something in the wind or something going on…. He says I'm too suspicious, Mr. Chairman. Then why would this aspect, why would this part of the Bill be there at all?

Mr. Speaker, there's one other thing that disturbs me somewhat about this Bill. We've broadened the base for the family home, those getting relief, but the one thing that we've overlooked, and I think that there are a great number of these people in our society, and that's brothers and sisters living together and helping support one another. Maybe the family home is in one name or the other, but they have both paid for that family home over the years, and there are a lot of people being hurt by this, particularly older people who'd rather pay it back to one another at a certain time in life when they're more likely to die, and I think that this thing should be looked at very, very closely. All we're allowing on this Bill is antecedents or successors, and there are brothers and sisters who are really being hurt. I know of some, and if I

[ Page 596 ]

know of some surely this House must know of many, and if that's the case in our society then maybe this should be looked at as well, but I know that we mustn't just make it the broad, easy system of just getting around paying tax. But I do think that there is some way that this should be logically looked at.

Now, we have broadened the base for taxation, according to the Premier. However, I think we've broadened the base in the wrong direction in some cases here. I think that we've hurt the wrong people in some cases here. Let's take a look at maybe the taxation rate at the upper end of the limit. That's where I'd like to see us look a little harder, rather than looking at churches, foundations like the Heart and Cancer and so on. Let us look at that aspect, let us look at that way of achieving this greater taxation amount. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on this Bill, and in particular would like to express the thought that this Bill now makes it possible for works of art and paintings, left as part of an estate, to be donated to galleries and museums in British Columbia. If there was one feature of this Bill, I think, which gave many of us some concern, it was drawn to our attention by the many individuals and organizations across the Province who wrote numerous letters pointing out that, where the work of art was valued as a large section of the total estate, the work of art would most likely be sold outside of the Province to raise the very succession tax which was due.

In speaking on this point I would like to acknowledge all the letters and the efforts made by the people of this Province who are exhibiting an awareness of the value of our culture, and particularly in relation to native culture in the form of carving and similar B.C. art. The students in both Oak Bay schools, for example, showed a great interest in this, and I would like to acknowledge the fact that they encouraged me to follow this point forward. I think it is a credit, also, to the democratic system that the Premier has reconsidered, and in the second reading of the Bill has introduced certain pieces which I think remove what would have been a very undesirable consequence of the Act.

I, personally, would like to comment on the fact that the family home is exempt and I feel, and this is strictly a personal observation, that as long as the exemption of the home is guaranteed to the spouse, I personally don't feel that sons and daughters should live in our modern age and expect that, necessarily, the home should be theirs duty free. This is purely a personal observation, but I do feel most strongly that where the spouse is concerned it is a very reasonable exemption to free the home, so that the burden of the survivor of the marriage should be made easier for the survivor.

The last point I would wish to make would be that I wonder, and I wouldn't challenge this, but I wonder if the 10 per cent donation exemption for charitable donations is perhaps not unreasonably low. I am aware of the fact that it is this figure which is quoted in the Estate Act of Canada….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. WALLACE: No? Well, I'm incorrect on that point, but just treating the matter as an entity in itself and not comparing those examples, I feel that 10 per cent is perhaps lower than it should be and that perhaps, for what it's worth, we should reconsider this and perhaps introduce a more liberal exemption at a later date.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is the most offensive piece of legislation, and that's saying something, that the Government has brought into the House in all the years that I've been here. It's not only offensive, it's unfair, it's punitive, it's arrogant, it's robbing the poor of their legacies, it's challenging a concept that has stood since the time of Queen Elizabeth the First and, if you haven't gathered by now that we refuse to support this Bill, that's absolutely correct.

We cannot support legislation of this kind and I say, to try and give some reassurance to the people of British Columbia, that these odious amendments will be removed by a Liberal government and succession duties will be abolished altogether in British Columbia, because this is not a useful or effective way of raising revenue for the Crown. The amount of money you'd be gambling in this Province by letting in this unfair and unnecessary tax is around $15,000,000 a year. Many of the provinces of Canada are already seeing the folly of two sets of death duties.

We have one perfectly satisfactory Act, the Estate Tax Act of Canada, and at the time this offensive Bill was first brought into the House, the one which is now being amended, we said it was going back to the tax jungles of yesteryear, that we were putting an unnecessary imposition on people of lower and moderate income in this Province, as we do now, not with the tax itself but with the jungle of red tape which requires people to keep changing their Wills again and again as this jostling goes on year after year to try and bring some kind of accord between the Federal and the Provincial legislation. That's the general problem, and why succession duty should be eliminated altogether and by bringing back our share of the Canada succession duty revenues, we would have approximately as much money….

AN HON. MEMBER: What a hope.

MR. McGEER: …. as we get into British Columbia now through our Succession Duty Act. In other words, we would not lose revenue, but at the same time we would confer an enormous benefit on the people of British Columbia by making their legal bills less, by speeding up the period of probation, by removing much confusion which exists in their minds.

But, in addition to that, we are now embarking on this regrettable tack of beginning to tax charitable foundations, church organizations,…. Oh yes, Mr. Member, it is, because it is these organizations who become strangers, and these organizations who pay the succession duty. Because when someone dies and the Will is probated and the money is left to these charitable organizations, they are the strangers who are the recipients, they are the ones who pay the succession duties — if they receive them at all. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that people will be leaving this Province with their objects of art, and we will not only lose succession duties and estate tax duties, but we will be losing the benefits of these estates before the people pass away, and that means the services they offer to British Columbia by the spending of their estate during their lifetime, the income taxes that they pay, and I

[ Page 597 ]

know of estates that have left British Columbia as a result of these new amendments to the Succession Duty Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name them.

MR. McGEER: I don't intend to name then and I don't see why I should, but they went into the millions of dollars, they went into the millions of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: It isn't in effect today.

MR. McGEER: Not even in effect, no, but the Wills are being changed, and the Attorney-General knows that. Anybody with any sense will start changing their Will now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that your advice to the citizens of this Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: People are doing it.

MR. McGEER: It's my advice to the Government. The people will make up their own minds.

AN HON. MEMBER: The rich man's party.

MR. McGEER: The rich man's party, says the member from Chilliwack. Mr. Speaker, it isn't the rich people who are going to be hurt by this, it's the poor people, it's the legacies of the poor that are being taken. It's the legacies of the poor, Mr. Speaker, not the rich. They can't take it with them, but they can leave it to the charitable, religious and educational organizations of their choice. And that's what these organizations exist for — to serve the poor. And when their legacies are taken, it's the people that they serve who suffer. This is an attempt against the poor of this Province.

Incredible, says the first member from Vancouver Centre. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to give to this House the opinion of many others than myself, because I have been inundated with carefully thought out positions as to what the consequences…. We all have, says the first member from Vancouver-Burrard. Then you should be voting against this Bill. Here's one, Mr. Speaker, I want to read the message from the Social Service Council of the Anglican Diocese of the Cariboo, and this is one which came today. "This Council views with alarm the action of the Provincial Government to make legislation whereby succession duty would be levied on bequests to charitable institutions, and that decisions as to what constitutes a charitable organization cannot be appealed beyond the Minister of Finance."

How about the Woodward Estate? The retroactive parts of it, the parts of this legislation which deny access of people to the Courts of this Province….

AN HON. MEMBER: Press gang tactics.

MR. McGEER: Press gang tactics? Is the Minister of Finance afraid to defend his actions in the Courts of British Columbia? Afraid to have his decisions as to what constitutes a charitable, religious, or educational organization tested in the Court, because he knows that no one would agree with his arbitrary decisions on this matter? Not a chance that those judgments would stand up in Court, that the Woodward Foundation is not a charitable organization with a record of helping the poor in this Province. As long as the Minister of Finance is armed, and he has the arrogance to use legislation given to him by this House, with the full belief that there would be common sense on the part of the Minister of Finance being used to tax those who would benefit from that estate. One million six hundred thousand dollars taken from the poor. Afraid to defend that action in the Courts of British Columbia? Introduction of a Bill in this House giving him retroactive protection from people with common sense, where they could be found in the Courts of British Columbia and where the case could be argued. Distasteful and reprehensible, Mr. Speaker, this aspect of the legislation before us which will prevent that case from going to Court. Personal vindictiveness.

The member from Kamloops has left and I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that he has, because here's someone, "Local lawyer raps Bennett on appeal veto. Succession Duty decried." This comes from the member from Kamloops home riding. As an example this citizen from the Kamloops riding states, "The Kamloops Senior Citizens Housing Society, which was left an amount in excess of $60,000 from the estate of a former prominent city resident, the Society was declared a non-charitable organization, and the executor was required to pay 20.75 per cent of the amount willed to it in succession duties, whereas the Federal Government considered it to be a charitable organization." Is the member from Kamloops against the Kamloops Senior Citizens Housing Society? Are they the wealthy? Are they the wealthy? Are we defending the wealthy when we stand up here to condemn the Kamloops Senior Citizens Housing Society? Because those of you who support this Act — you're against them. They're paying succession duties, 20.75 per cent, of money that was left by a prominent city resident of Kamloops.

AN HON. MEMBER: Under this Act they wouldn't.

MR. McGEER: They've paid it. Ten per cent, Mr. Member. It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that he wasn't given….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member will allow the member to proceed.

MR. McGEER: Here's another one. The member from Shuswap. This year. Salmon Arm General Hospital. The executors of the Salmon Arm General Hospital were required to pay 20.75 per cent of the amounts in succession duties recently. Are you against the Salmon Arm….

AN HON. MEMBER: What date?

MR. McGEER: It doesn't give the date that they had to pay or the date that the….

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't under this Act.

MR. McGEER: Under this Act, yes. This is what has been going on in the Province of British Columbia, and what we are encouraging. Now the amendments don't cover that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes, they do.

MR. McGEER: Oh, no, they don't. Mr. Speaker, always in the past the Courts are the final bastion that protect people from a dictatorship, and here we have people who passed away believing that they were leaving their estates to hospitals…. No. But they should take it out of the Province of British Columbia, and when you stick your talons

[ Page 598 ]

too deeply into the flesh of our citizens you are going to lose what you try and gain, and this is where this Government, in its arrogance, has become so short-sighted.

Here is another letter, Mr. Speaker. The constituency of Vancouver-Burrard. The member there has had many letters he says. "I have recently learned that the Succession Duties Act may be amended by imposing severe restrictions on charitable gifts. These restrictions are severe. No more than 10 per cent of the estate. I find this news disturbing and would like to register my protest against such proposed legislation. It does not seem right to curtail the act of giving to our fellow men. Rather, these acts should be encouraged." Does anyone in this House believe that allowing only 10 per cent of an estate to be exempt from gifts to religious, charitable, and educational organizations is going to encourage such acts? Does the member from Oak Bay believe that? Does the Minister without Portfolio from North Okanagan believe that? Does the member from Vancouver Centre believe that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Believe what?

HON. P.J. JORDAN: Believe what?

MR. McGEER: Well, Madam Minister. I am reading what other people say, and that's why I am bringing these messages to you, and I hope that you will listen to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself, Mr. Member. Use your own head for a change.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one from the Vancouver Board of Trade will impress the Minister without Portfolio…. The Board of Trade doesn't impress the Minister. Well, that's news, because I don't think the Board of Trade is made up of ignorant or selfish people and I think occasionally they have some advice that the Minister without Portfolio….

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister was not accused of making that statement. Would she please be seated and her opportunity will come, in time, to speak.

MR. McGEER: Here's what the Board of Trade had to say, and I would like the members to listen to this very carefully. "The restriction," and they are speaking now of the restriction that all money, even that 10 per cent which is to be exempt, must be used within the Province of British Columbia. "This restriction creates practical difficulties of controlling the use of the bequest to within the Province of British Columbia. A bequest to the Canadian Cancer Society, for example, may be used in research in the continuing search for a cure for cancer. The research may not be carried out in this Province." And that's right.

If a person wishes to donate his estate to finding a cure for cancer, presuming that the wealthy individual did die of cancer, is it wrong that he should want that estate to go where the most effective job in research can be done in trying to find a cure, so others may be prevented from the horrible death that many people suffer who die from cancer, whether they are residents of British Columbia or residents of Communist China? Is that wrong? This legislation says it's wrong. Because it makes distinctions between whether it is left for use within the Province of British Columbia or not. Mr. Speaker, that's bigotry of the worst kind, and I don't see how any member of this House could stand up and defend bigotry of this sort.

Because whether we wish to believe it or not, all of us in this Legislative Assembly and our families and all the people of this Province and this country have benefited enormously from charitable donations that have been left all over the world for support of research for cures of any number of dread diseases. Cures have been found for some. Many are left still to be solved. The work of medical research continues to be one of the most important humanitarian activities that goes on in the world today, and this Act is against activities of that kind because it discriminates against money which is left for medical research.

I specifically point to the Woodward estate, where $4,000,000 was left for that purpose. What was to be the crowning act in a life of philanthropy for Mr. P.A. Woodward, and that money which would have gone to medical research, confiscated by the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance should not be judge and jury for everybody in British Columbia, not how every penny should be spent. He doesn't represent a majority of people in British Columbia, even though he holds the loyalties of the majority of the members of this House. He has yet to have more than half the people of the Province support him. That's not the point. The point is that there must be means of dissent in British Columbia, whether it is in the Legislative Assembly or whether it is on the part of private citizens.

Some in this Province, Mr. Speaker, understand philanthropy in its most generous and humanitarian sense, and when they leave the entirety of their estate, whether it is to religious organizations or whether it is for medical research, it is done in the belief that this money can be best used in such endeavours. These are the people whose judgments are to be denied by the punitive, confiscatory, and arbitrary actions of the Minister of Finance who, I presume, will be supported by his loyal followers in this House as far as this Bill is concerned. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know the people that must be loyal to the Premier and Minister of Finance, but we need to have more people in this Province who can stand on their own feet, who can express opinions and undertake acts on their own, and I take off my hat to the philanthropists of this Province, and I think they are being unduly abused by this Act.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we can make some impression on some of the humble members of this House by seeing what the Neighbourhood Services Association has to say on this subject. This is a message from the present President of the Neighbourhood Services Association. They have this to say. "To our knowledge, no other province or state on this continent has taken such a retrograde step which in effect, discourages bequests to charitable organizations through taxation powers." No other province or state on this continent has taken such a retrograde step. Not said by myself, or an Opposition member of the Legislature, but said by the Neighbourhood Services Association. Are they speaking for the wealthy and the privileged, or are they speaking for the poor and the under-privileged?

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I can impress the members of the House. As I look around I am discouraged up to this point, particularly since the Minister of Finance, after introducing this legislation, has seen fit to desert the Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a proper debate.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN: Your line of argument.

MR. McGEER: My line of argument, says the Minister

[ Page 599 ]

from Chilliwack. Well, Mr. Minister, you come from an area of British Columbia that takes its religion very seriously, and I know that in the Fraser Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: All areas.

MR. McGEER: All areas take it seriously, that's quite correct. This is what the British Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada has to say. "The reason for the denial of exemption on any part of a charitable bequest to an organization that carries on its work both in and outside of the Province is difficult to understand. Presumably, under this proposal, bequests to practically all churches could be denied, because their expenditures encompass country-wide and world-wide projects of the churches. As you know, under existing law a proportion of the bequest to an accepted charitable organization carrying on its work both in and outside of the Province is exempt. There is provision for reciprocity with other provinces." Now this is the key sentence, Mr. Speaker. "The principle that all the money must be spent in our own backyard is repugnant to Christian ideals." I agree with that statement. It is repugnant to Christian ideals, Mr. Speaker, that we should be so parochial in this Chamber that we cannot see any good works going on outside of our borders, and we would be unwilling to support, with all the wealth that this Province has, activities that take place in other areas less fortunate than we are, Mr. Speaker. No, we're going to deny that. Chauvinism, yes chauvinism.

Well, I disagree with the first member from Vancouver-Burrard that all that we get here in British Columbia should stay right here in British Columbia. None of it should go for church work outside the Province or for medical research outside the Province, or for education of any kind outside of the Province. I disagree with that, Mr. Speaker, and that's one of the reasons I am against this Bill. Just so long as the Minister of Finance gets his pound of flesh first, then they can do what they like with it. Not a very generous attitude. No, I agree with the British Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada. The principle is repugnant to Christian ideals.

But they aren't the only church organization that feels that way. If you are not from the United Church, how about the Canadian Bible Society? Here's what the Canadian Bible Society has to say. "To state that we are agitated and disturbed by the proposals of this Bill would be an understatement. We oppose the Bill's basic philosophy, and urge you to do what you can to delay its progress in the Legislature, giving ample opportunity for parties vitally concerned to express their views in opposition to it. It is impossible for us to understand why you would be a party to an Act which would make it impossible for legacies which, for the most part, represent the life savings of concerned people to be used to meet the pressing educational, cultural, moral and spiritual needs of the people of this nation and the world." I am not going to read the whole letter, but you will have an opportunity to make your points. This particular letter, Mr. Speaker, was addressed to the Premier of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder if he read it.

MR. McGEER: I don't expect he did read it. But I must view with amusement their optimism that, "urge you to do what you can to delay its progress in the Legislature."

Nevertheless, we'll certainly want to hear what the member from North Peace River has to say about the mail that he has received on this particular Bill. Here is one from a private individual, an older gentleman and his wife. "We protested still very strongly, as it seems as though the money is being taken from the poor. Also charity and church donations, which seems incredible that the Government would think of taxing such donations." Just a single individual written on ordinary paper, coming from an area of Vancouver that is not a wealthy area at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's very possible that they have over $150,000 to leave.

MR. McGEER: I'm sure they don't. They probably have nothing to leave. But Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the people who aren't being affected, the ones who die, they had their money until they died. It doesn't make any difference to them. It's the poor who will receive their legacies that are being affected, and we cannot seem to make this point to the Government members. They are completely unable to see the facts, that the wealthy person has his money and uses it up to the moment of his death, and it's how he decides to leave it that counts, and when the Government starts to take its pound of flesh, the ones who lose out are the poor people.

It just so happens that there are some in this Province who like to be generous when it comes to death, who think it proper that some of their wealth go outside their own families, to the poor, and as far as those people are concerned — and I am sure this is a principle the Minister of Finance cannot understand, because he brought this legislation in — as far as some of those people are concerned, religious organizations aren't strangers, and educational organizations aren't strangers, and the poor aren't strangers, but the Minister of Finance can't understand that, Mr. Speaker.

He understands very well his own family. How many times he stood up in the House and talked with warmth about home-ownership, and how often he spoke, and generously to members on all sides of the House, with regard to their own personal families, and it touches all of us, Mr. Speaker, because he is the House Leader. But for some that feeling of warmth and generosity extends beyond their immediate families to the family of man, and when they leave their estates, they do in death what perhaps they hadn't been able to do in life, which is to contribute in a generous way to these charities which for the first time since Queen Elizabeth I, are to be taxed in British Columbia. "Repugnant to Christian principles," is what the United Church Conference said, and which I accept as truth.

Here's one from a chartered accountant, who has to do with advising people on how they should plan their estate, and you know anybody who is preparing a Will is going to seek professional advice, and it is those who give that advice who are convinced that this is punitive and wrong. They are going to discourage rather than encourage leaving money to the poor, leaving more than 10 per cent of an estate, until advised the other 90 per cent go to the family, where the deductions are more generous, and perhaps they will advise indirectly the other members of the family to leave 10 per cent. This chartered accountant had this to say, "This is the first time that I have ever written to a member of Parliament, but I am incensed at the proposed amendments to the Succession Duty Act. I am interested in the work of several Foundations and cultural organizations here, and the effects

[ Page 600 ]

will be catastrophic. To limit the course to such groups to 10 per cent of the net value of the property passing on death, will make it extremely difficult to attract funds the greater part of which are used in such a manner as to save the Province itself an outlay of funds."

Mr. Speaker, can those Government members who are still left in the House grasp that point? Here's a chartered accountant, he's also a community-minded citizen who works for a number of Foundations. His job, to encourage people to give their money to these charitable Foundations, and his job to see that the money which is left is wisely spent upon the poor. He tells us the results will be catastrophic. Mr. Speaker, I believe that judgment….

AN HON. MEMBER: Baaa….

MR. McGEER: Baaa, says the first member from Vancouver Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The Honourable Member will have an opportunity to speak.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I trust the judgment of this chartered accountant is because he does give professional advice to people as to how they should leave their money, which is something the first member from Vancouver Centre does not do — I hope he doesn't. He also works as a director for a number of religious and charitable foundations. I don't know if the first member from Vancouver Centre does that, but if he does he perhaps could then offer us some kind of responsible judgment on the effects. But unless he does, I wouldn't want to trust his snap judgment, because I don't think it is an informed judgment, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are talking for the urban poor, and you should be.

MR. McGEER: Well, there's another member who hasn't grasped the point yet, but he never does grasp the point, Mr. Speaker, he never does….

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, can we get on with the debate, please.

MR. McGEER: All right, perhaps I can impress the member who has just entered the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, with the letter from the Vancouver Foundation.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Point Grey be seated please. There is a Point of Order.

MR. PETERSON: The first member for Point Grey is referring to a number of documents, not in a general way, but quoting merely excerpts from them without quoting the entire letter or the entire document. I would ask him if he would, when he completes the address, file all these documents, from which he has quoted merely excerpts to the House, to lay the full document on the table so that we may know whether he is quoting and giving the right reflection on the entire document.

MR. SPEAKER: I question whether the honourable member is violating any rule of this House by only quoting a portion of a document, however he is at liberty to….

MR. PETERSON: I am asking him to table them.

MR. SPEAKER: He is at liberty to file them.

MR. McGEER: Let me say to the Attorney-General, I will be delighted to table all these documents and I would be even more delighted if the members of this House would study them, and perhaps, Mr. Attorney-General, in order that this could be accomplished, we could have an adjournment of the debate on second reading by yourself at some time during the afternoon to give the members an opportunity to study in full the documentation that I am trying to present to them.

I was trying to limit my remarks because I know that there are many honourable members, particularly on the Government side, who wish to speak at length on this particular Bill. It's a base mark and that's why I think it is so important that we hear the views of all these organizations. I would have thought it better, in considering this Bill, had it been referred to a committee so that these church leaders and foundation leaders and lawyers and chartered accountants could have come and impressed on some of the backbenchers exactly what the consequences of this legislation will be.

Once more, to all the members who still haven't got the point, the wealthy have their money until they die, it makes no difference to them, but it makes a difference to those who will benefit from the wealth they leave behind them. The Vancouver Foundation is the largest charitable organization in British Columbia, and I think the judgments of the Vancouver Foundation are important, because the Vancouver Foundation, more than any other organization in British Columbia, in terms of total effect, will be hurt by this particular Bill. The exemption provided in section one is only to the extent of 10 per cent of the net value of the estate, which is far short of 100 per cent exemption, previously enjoyed by some of these organizations, including the Vancouver Foundation.

Moreover, the excess of charitable gifts over the 10 per cent net value of the estate is to bear at the maximum or stranger rate. This is a severe hardship particularly on the smaller estates. The attached copy of a Notice of Appeal filed by the executors in the estate of Robert A. Mack, in which Vancouver Foundation has an interest, illustrates the point, Mr. Speaker. You will note the rate of 17 3/4 per cent on charitable gifts of $41,453. You see that is a small estate, a very modest estate, Mr. Speaker, so that it affects large and small. Were the Minister to allow charitable gifts at the minimum rate applicable to children and grandchildren of the deceased, that way, there would be three per cent or only $1,200. If these charitable institutions were just considered as family, instead of strangers, what a difference it would make.

I must say that I find the amendment to sub-section two of section five of the Act, which is covered in section five of the Bill, to be repugnant in a society which prides itself on British justice, and the sanctity of the Courts. It is tragic that the Minister has again thought it necessary to inject this feature in his legislation.

Finally, the retroactive features in section 12 of the Bill, seem unreasonably hard, since they penalize the beneficiaries of deceased persons, since April the 1st, 1968, who arranged their affairs in good faith under conditions that had been approved by the Minister up to recent date. The Minister

[ Page 601 ]

changes his mind. People make their arrangements in good faith. They die. The Minister of Finance decides to move the goal post. His backbenchers, I presume, will support him since they don't seem to care where the goal posts are. Access to the Courts is blocked because, of course, it is a violation of British justice and the sanctity of the Court, the principle that each man shall be entitled to his day in Court, and if he can't have it in this life then his executors should have that day in Court on his behalf.

Now this is why I hope that when this document is tabled that the members will read it, because it says, "If you and other members of the Legislature are able to convince the Minister that my comments are fair and reasonable, and can be incorporated in further amendments to the Bill before a second and final reading, this would go some way to meeting the widespread concern that we and other charitable organizations have expressed respecting the Bill in its present form."

Well I know, Mr. Speaker, that I have been monumentally ineffective at persuading the Minister of Finance of anything, but I know that there are members in this House who can persuade the Minister of Finance to do things, and I am glad that so many are here now, because perhaps if they can be convinced, then you will be able to convince the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I have a carbon copy of an appeal sent to the Honourable Grace McCarthy from the Vancouver Neurological Centre, and I know that that Minister without Portfolio has made a great many efforts on behalf of retarded children, and the neurologically handicapped. The Minister with a heart, and yes, I think that's a very fair comment to make. Mr. Speaker, this is the point made by the Executive Director of the Vancouver Neurological Centre, in one paragraph, and the Minister has the whole letter and she could read to us her reply to him. "A gift will not be exempt unless it is to be used in the absolute discretion of the charitable organization, that is to say it must be unconditional. A gift, for example, to fit out the yellow submarine project or to finance Dr. Kendall's research into the education of cerebral palsied children would not be unconditional and could be taxable. It is well known that gifts for specific purposes are easier to obtain than general gifts. This limitation will dry up many sources of funds, and so far as we can see it serves no useful purpose." Mr. Speaker, do the honourable members grasp that particular point? Someone wishes to direct their estate for the education and benefit of cerebral palsied children.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or a monument to themselves. Don't forget that, too.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think if someone leaves his money to the education of cerebral palsied children, he's not attempting to leave any monument to himself. I am willing to accept that he is trying to help handicapped children. If he does, Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, not even 10 per cent gets off without tax. The man might have wanted to leave his whole estate but will get advice now from his lawyer or chartered accountant to leave it to his family and let them dispose of it later in 10 per cent lots. I would call that a monument to an individual, a dam or a lake, but not a gift to cerebral palsied children. I wouldn't call that a monument to an individual. But, Mr. Speaker, this Bill prevents a person from leaving his estate to a charitable organization and saying it shall go for the education of cerebral palsied children. He loses his exemption. As the Executive Director of the Vancouver Neurological Foundation quite rightly points out, it is easier to go to a person and appeal to him to leave his money for some specific project such as cancer research or the education of retarded children, than it is for some general purpose that either the Minister of Finance or some charitable foundation whose activities he doesn't understand will decide, and he is apt to leave it to his profligate children instead.

Well, here's Knox United Church. "Please be advised that at the Council executive meeting of our church last night we discussed the implications of this Bill insofar as bequests to churches were concerned, and I was instructed to write to you stating we disagree with the proposed amendment." Here's another one, from a small apartment block in Vancouver–Point Grey, "The passing of this Act which serves only to deprive the poor and needy of this Province." Another letter, Mr. Speaker, "Regarding the proposal to amend the Succession Duty Act coming before the B.C. conference of the Legislature, in connection with the United Church and other organizations. I would like to add my appeal, through you to our Premier Bennett, for further consideration before changing this amendment, as the passing of it will greatly affect our poorer citizens in so many different ways, and goodness knows they are having plenty of problems even now trying to eke out their limited income."

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, not the acting leader, made the comment that the poor of this Province had enough burdens without the present Minister of Social Rehabilitation, and we are to add to them burdens imposed by the Minister of Finance. Here's one from Canadian Memorial Church, from the Minister there. "The ruling that tax free gifts must be spent in the Province can have an adverse effect on the work of the Canadian Bible Society's overseas mission projects of the churches, as well as national funds administered elsewhere in Canada."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I've got a file much thicker even than that which I've referred to today, and I'm not going to take the time of the House making more and more points regarding the harmful, punitive, arrogant, dictatorial, offensive and unfair aspects of this Bill. But, I stand here to tell you that it is being universally condemned by those organizations who have given service to the people of this Province, in most cases unrewarded in a financial way, but getting their satisfaction only out of helping the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged and the underprivileged. Even Government has come to depend on their activities, because so much of what is done saves efforts of our Provincial Government to formalize it through our civil service, to make professionals of people who have formerly been willing to donate their time, their services, and their money, Mr. Speaker. The Act denies British justice, it turns its back on the sanctity of the Courts, it's repugnant to Christian ideals, it's harmful to the Poor, it's cruel to the people of British Columbia, it's unnecessary as far as the finances of this Province are concerned and, Mr. Speaker, I have concluded that I should vote against it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I don't have too many comments to make, but I do want to make our party's position very clear on this Bill. We are not for

[ Page 602 ]

abolishing all succession duties, as the member of the Liberal party has stated. We don't believe in substituting the old noblemen's syndrome for some kind of new wealthy aristocracy that passes on its large bulk of its estates from one generation to another. We do believe there should be some succession duties, but we don't want to be known as the ten percenters, Mr. Speaker, we don't want to be known as the ten percenters.

We believe that in a free society people have a right to make some choices as to the disposition of their funds. Why have we reached this conclusion? Because of a long standing philosophy of this party, which I enunciated to the chagrin of the United Community Appeal last fall, for I was opposed to the idea of begging for charitable work, Mr. Chairman, begging for charitable work. I stated clearly on an issue that most politicians, Mr. Chairman, run from. That there are many, many private agencies that are doing valuable experimental work in social service, in missionary fields and in other endeavours in the community, but I don't believe that their work should be hampered either by a commitment to any Government that gives them grants, as they do in the United Community Appeal in British Columbia, or their work hampered by having to go out on the streets looking for dollars when essential services, Mr. Chairman, should be cared for by the Government, by the Government.

But, there is a role, and I make that very clear too, there is a role for the private agencies, the private care agencies, the research groups, and those people who are truly doing experimental work that most built-in conforming agencies stay away from. I heard the member from Vancouver Centre get up in this House and valiantly put the position of one of them, X-Kalay, Mr. Chairman. What's wrong with somebody leaving their money to X-Kalay, I ask the member from Vancouver Centre, Mr. Speaker? What's wrong with people leaving money to the Cerebral Palsy Association? What's wrong with people leaving money, any amount that they desire that's going to that kind of work, Mr. Chairman?

This Government has never shown any kind of consistent record of where to direct funds in terms of social services, Mr. Chairman, no record whatsoever. Many, many times we've seen, and in the guise of this particular Bill and in the explanation by the Premier of this Province, who says the Government will decide what is charity, it will go into general revenue. Mr. Speaker, the P.G.E. is not charity. The B.C. Hydro is not charity, Mr. Speaker. The B.C. Toll Authority is not charity, and I have seen nothing in this Government's record to indicate that money going into general revenue will go to charity. That's the last priority on their list, Mr. Speaker, the last priority.

We don't have any faith in this Government, Mr. Speaker, we don't have the faith that this Government, through this kind of rigid control on the Succession Duty Act, would create whole new services for most of the disturbed children in this Province. We don't have the faith, Mr. Speaker, that this Government will take the aggressive action in the field of senior citizens housing that relies on 10 per cent of its initial drive from a private organization. Mr. Chairman, 10 per cent of the money for senior citizens housing must come at the initiative of a private organization before this Government will move, and any attempt under the present circumstances of private enterprise, as this Government represents, and the Liberals represent, to curtail a few steps forward in terms of decent human services, will not be tolerated by this group, Mr. Chairman.

In terms of the attitude of services outside the Province of British Columbia it's true, it's true that we have a Government that consistently talks about the beginning, the dawn of age of man starting at 1952, confined to British Columbia. It's true that we have a Government that has a divine right in its own opinion of rule, and definition of the role of Government in British Columbia. There is some dispute about the Premier, who says he didn't say he was plugged in to God, Mr. Speaker. We don't claim that kind of divinity on this side of the House. We are interested in human beings all over the world, Mr. Chairman, all over the world, and if someone leaves a part of their estate to some research work in the eastern part of Canada that brings about some advantage medically or psychologically to other human beings, then we are not opposed to it.

I don't want to participate in a Bill that truly conditions itself to chauvinism and I agree with the Liberal leader in that sense. This is a chauvinistic Bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a narrow concept of the role of human endeavour. Human endeavour and good works are not confined to British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and I spoke earlier of pyramids and the member mentions Pharaohs?

I believe that there should be succession duties, but no one in this House would dispute that there are some agencies and some experimental drives under private auspices that enter fields that no Government dares to tread, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, what about the area of birth control? Mr. Speaker, a Federal Government in this country has had a consistently bad record of getting on with some decent research in the area of birth control. It is a much needed area of research. If there were some charitable health foundation free of the concern of a political overtone around this kind of issue, that would receive great sums from the charitable donation by an estate, Mr. Speaker, only to have it hampered by this foolish limitation in this Bill, then, in effect, we would actually be hampering progress.

AN HON. MEMBER: Planned parenthood association.

MR. BARRETT: The whole concept of planned parenthood, Mr. Speaker, those gray areas that politicians have consistently stayed away from that only the private agencies, only the private experimenters, and that is their only justification for existence. I made that clear last August when I attacked the United Community Appeal. The only area of justification for the existence of the private foundation is to do those things that politicians, by their very nature, are frightened to do, Mr. Speaker, reluctant because of the reflection that may take place at voting time. I don't want to see the whole role of that kind of daring experiment hampered by this legislation.

I want to see the private agencies out of the business of begging for dollars. I want to see the private agencies out of the business of coming cap in hand to the Government. Let them stand and fall on their own merits as defined by the people who give money to them, and by the people who direct those agencies, Mr. Speaker. Their record of probing and providing social legislation and legal measures that have moved this country forward should not be hampered by politicians, should not be hampered by politicians, and I don't believe or do I have the faith in this Government or do I have confidence in the Liberals, and I'll say it, too, Mr. Speaker, even in the New Democratic party. There are some areas that should be removed from politics, Mr. Speaker, and this is one of the areas, this is one of the areas.

There are some good sections of this Bill, as my

[ Page 603 ]

honourable friend, the member from New Westminster said, an active church man himself. Am I still on the payroll of the John Howard Society, said the member. The answer is No. But when I leave politics I hope that I would be honoured again, I hope that I would be honoured again to work for an agency like the John Howard Society. The John Howard Society was — and if you're against that Association you stand up and say so — is this Bill aimed at the John Howard Society, Mr. Speaker? The John Howard Society, started by a Quaker some 250 years ago when political prisoners were being held captive, were being held captive, and John Howard who was a Quaker had the decency and the courage and the moral fibre to stand up against politicians and fight on behalf of political prisoners, Mr. Speaker. I hope some day no Social Credit member is held as a political prisoner, but I'm sure that in the great tradition of the John Howard Society we'd even fight for the member from Burrard, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's going some.

MR. BARRETT: That's going some. Yes, that's going some. But Mr. Speaker, he's not a charitable foundation. He's a real touring phenomena. Mr. Speaker, it's like a comet that passes in the night — only the time space is capsulized in that member's particular record.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the rest of the Bill goes there are parts that we agree with very, very much, but like so much of this Government's legislation, it is juggled — the good parts for the bad parts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quarter truths.

MR. BARRETT: The quarter truths that exist in their explanation. Mr. Speaker, we have decided that no matter what the end is, the means do not justify the end, because a wrong means corrupt a good end, Mr. Speaker, and we have decided after true conscience of examination of this Bill, that we will vote against the Bill, Mr. Speaker, we'll vote against the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I really don't think all the statements that have been made today on the floor of this House and which have taken up such a great deal of time, really deserve any comment at all, especially the statements that have come from the honourable leader of the Liberal party. It was a grandstand play by that leader, that honourable member, and when the honourable leader suggests that our British Columbians would leave our Province in order to escape this tax, I would like to ask him where will Canadians go if Mr. Benson's White Paper, the Liberal policy, is enacted. Then our Liberal leader, Mr. Speaker, suggested that this legislation was going to rob the poor, and I suggest that this Bill that we are discussing today will do more to help more than 95 per cent of our residents of British Columbia than anything we will have before us in this Legislature to discuss. I'm going to suggest to you that there have been inequities in our system, and that in this Succession Duty Tax there have been people who have had their homes, which have grown in value, and they have been in jeopardy of losing their homes because their home has become so valuable in our Province today that they have sometimes, and in some cases would have had to have sold their home in order to have paid the taxes.

The honourable Liberal leader paid tribute to the philanthropists of our Province, and may I say that he is not alone, he is not alone, and I don't suggest, either, that the Socialist party believe that the Liberals are alone in paying tribute to those people who have given of their time and given of their funds to build British Columbia and to help those people in need in British Columbia. But he did give specific reference to the Woodward Foundation. He did suggest — and I would like to clear this up — he did suggest that the Woodward Foundation was being discriminated against, Mr. Speaker. At this time I would like to pay tribute to the Woodward family who have given a great deal to our Province. They have been very good to British Columbia and, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has been very good to them, and I don't think for a moment that the Woodward family, or any family who has had the privilege of gaining from the economy of this Province and gaining from the tremendous potential that has been provided by the citizens of this Province, would deny paying taxes, and I'm sure that no family who has benefited, such as that family or any other, would deny paying taxes to our citizens.

Then I would say this, that to pay tribute to those who are custodians of our charitable dollar, I will go along with the Liberal leader on that as well, and there's no one on this side of the House who does not appreciate that which has been done, but I'm going to say this too, that the honourable Liberal leader suggested, and I suggest he misled the people of British Columbia in this statement when he said that we would deny those people, those poor people of the Province from receiving charitable donations, and it isn't true. It does not preclude people from giving of the charitable dollar. This Bill has no reference at all to that, and any reference that has been made by either Leader of the Opposition parties in this House is misleading, in that they have said that we are taking away from the poor people of the Province. It is misleading for you to say that these people cannot give of their money

AN HON. MEMBER: They have to pay taxes.

MRS. McCARTHY: Of course they will pay tax. It is a privilege in Canada, Mr. Member, and it is a privilege in this Province to pay taxes. It is a privilege to pay taxes in this country, and I suggest that they can still, Mr. Speaker, after having the privilege of being excused from taxes on 10 per cent of their estate, are still free to give any amount beyond that. True, they have to pay a minimal tax on that amount, but they are still free to give, are still free to give any amount beyond that and, true, they have to pay a minimal tax on that amount, but they are still free to do so.

I'd like to think that the people who are giving charitable donations for the good works of our Province and our communities, I would like to think that they are giving it for the charity itself, not to do so in the light of escaping from taxes which the Liberals and the Socialists seem to think is the whole idea of their giving, and I don't believe that it is, truly, the true Christian way of giving, when we are really and truly suggesting that they are doing so to exclude themselves from taxes. So I still say that they have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and that opportunity is that they can still give beyond the 10 per cent amount. The Socialist leader did suggest that it was a poor policy to have to give, that our senior citizens housing was a poor way, a ten percenter kind of way, of initiating senior citizens housing. The Senior Citizens Housing Programme of this Province is

[ Page 604 ]

one of the most effective programmes in Canada for senior citizens housing.

MR. D. BARRETT: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. What is your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: My suggestion was that that programme which is good would be crimped by this legislation. Do not twist my words.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It is a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, not in that manner. Proceed.

MRS. McCARTHY: And Mr. Speaker, I would also like….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, just one moment, just one moment. Order, please. If a point of order is to be raised, the member should state that a certain statement made by another member was not correct and then the member has to accept it, but not to go into an explanation.

MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the senior citizens housing, it was the honourable member's position, in bringing up the subject, and this is why I am replying to it, I am suggesting….

MR. BARRETT: Don't twist my words.

MRS. McCARTHY: Listen, I don't have to twist your words, you do enough of that on your own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh….

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The honourable member must accept my statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: She didn't….

MR. BARRETT: She did so. She just said "twisted" again.

MRS. McCARTHY: No, no, I said you manage to do that yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're all twisted up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When a member has made a statement, any member in the House will accept that statement. Order, please.

MRS. McCARTHY: When the honourable Opposition Leader did make reference to senior citizens housing he did so with reference, I think, that senior citizens housing, and correct me if I'm wrong — you're so quick to jump to your feet today on points of order, you seem so sensitive about this senior citizens housing thing. We do, in senior citizens housing, have a fine programme, yes, initiated by 10 per cent contribution from the community, and it is a fine programme in which we provide a one-third outright grant, and that 10 per cent is usually initiated by service clubs or by church organizations, which have no reference….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the members please watch the Chair, and would all honourable members, if they have any remarks to make, address their remarks to the Chair, not to each other. We are in formal debate. Would the member proceed.

MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also reply to the Liberal leader's suggestion that objects of art would leave the country, and surely he could not have been in the House when the explanatory statement was made by the Minister of Finance in regard to this Act. Surely he could not have been there. Because it's ludicrous to say that objects of art will leave this Province when the statement was made, and may I please just repeat what the Premier did say, "It is the Government's intention to value objects of art at nominal value of one dollar when the property is bequeathed to a public library, museum, or art gallery and accepted for display and retention in the Province. This will greatly encourage the granting of gifts to these Provincial institutions."

We are, in this Province, one of the first provinces, and almost solely responsible for cultural development within our Province within our $10,000,000 Cultural Fund that was established some two years ago, and this Government has shouldered the responsibility of contributing to the cultural life and the cultural development of our Province. Any government that would do that, Mr. Speaker, is not going to deny British Columbians those objects of art that people would like to leave to them, and this explanation of the Bill very clearly states that. I can only suggest that as the honourable Liberal leader has been so glaringly wrong in this interpretation, surely the rest of his argument is almost the same.

I would like to say this, too, in support of the Bill, that probably one of the most remarkable and one of the most outstanding exemptions in this Act is the exemption of the family home. I would think that for that alone every member of this House should be particularly anxious to stand on his feet and be counted positively in support of the Bill, because in this regard, in this regard, Mr. Speaker, we will take away some of the real concern of families who have lived in their family home, for many, many years, and when they first bought it, it was a very small amount of money. But now, with the values of real estate which have increased because of the good economic climate in British Columbia and because of the tremendous contributions of many citizens in British Columbia, it is now a great asset to them. I would say that on that alone we should be exceptionally proud to stand and be counted in support of the Bill, and many, many other features of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I'll be voting with the Government, loyally, for the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Bill today, and particularly after the long hour and a half discussion and references to the Bill by the leader of the Liberal Opposition, and I make particular reference to the length of time that he took, Mr. Speaker — an hour and a half he spoke on the Bill — and I make particular reference because

[ Page 605 ]

he spent a long part of that time, Mr. Speaker, reading from a long list of letters regarding the 10 per cent portion of the Bill. Now isn't that correct?

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that has to be one of the most hypocritical performances that I have seen in this House, because I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, I point out to you that if that 10 per cent portion was removed….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't attribute motive to anyone.

MR. CAPOZZI: I'm pointing out exactly, and bearing out my argument, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: He cannot challenge the sincerity of a member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he cannot challenge the sincerity, but the word, some of the usage of the words are marginal, and not….

MR. CAPOZZI: Yes, and I point out why I used the word "hypocritical," because he gave the inference to this House that this was the portion of the Bill that he objected to, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if that portion were removed he still would not vote for that Bill. Now to me that is as hypocritical as standing and trying to condemn this Bill, because what he really is trying to say is that he is against succession duty in the Province of British Columbia, and to me that is a very significant factor, because what we are going to deal with here, Mr. Speaker, is his basic statement that what we were doing, and I'll try and get his exact words, is we are robbing the poor of their legacies, robbing the poor of their legacies.

Does he not appreciate that from the succession duties this Provincial Government takes $17,000,000 that go to pay welfare payments, payments for young people, for the welfare allowances? Does he not appreciate that that money also goes, Mr. Speaker, to pay for scholarships at the University of British Columbia? Does he not appreciate that that same money coming out of that $17,000,000 goes to the poor on a direct, on a direct manner? Not as he is suggesting, to be left to the whim of some particular individual, some particular individual who may want to decide he will build a clock tower on the university campus to bear his name. Now if that is the legacy of the poor, if that is….

AN HON. MEMBER: This doesn't apply. He's still alive.

MR. CAPOZZI: Yes, it does, because the university — yes it does. This is the very position we're talking about. He's subject to 10 per cent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, again, again the hypocritical attitude opposing….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. CAPOZZI: No. It's the right word, and it's a correct word and as pointed out, it is not a word that is incorrect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I just checked the words here and it is one of the listed words, and I would ask the member to cease using it.

MR. CAPOZZI: Paradoxical! (laughter) In contrast, in contrast — because, if he believes that this is a legacy of the poor, what is the difference then, when the man is living or dead. Why isn't that same 10 per cent margin removed from the income tax that the Liberal Government sets? Why is there a 10 per cent of what I want to give when I am living, to charity? It is a limitation of 10 per cent, and to me, Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at here is a question of the decision as to how the money that a man has attained is being used.

I would point out time after time that in his comments he made constant reference to the question of what was Christian charity. He implied, for example, that the funds given for use in British Columbia, to the Cancer Foundation — doesn't he appreciate that these same funds liberate money to be used in the other parts of the country? Doesn't he appreciate that the funds that go into the Cancer Association are funds which go into the common flow and do liberate use for any form of research? The question that is down and the basic part of the Bill — and I point out and challenge the five members over there that they would not vote for this Bill, even if they were removed. And to me, if that is not hypocritical, it certainly is a terrible reflection on their sincerity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I asked the member not to use that word.

MR. CAPOZZI: If that isn't, if that isn't….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member withdraw that word.

MR. CAPOZZI: I certainly withdraw it. I certainly withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, I certainly withdraw it because in face of the embarrassment that it causes them, I think that I should withdraw it, and they pointed this out by their reaction to it, how sensitive they are to this particular phrase, in the particular — I didn't say "Ugh."

I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain aspects of this Bill, I think, that do bear some consideration, and I have to support the member from New Westminster in his one recommendation. It rather surprises me that at the same time that he is standing up saying that it is a relatively good Bill and that he also stood up and commented about one of the changes he would like to see in the Bill, then the Leader of the Opposition got up a little while later and said that their party is not going to support the Bill. No, the good member — I listened very attentively to the member from New Westminster and at no time did he say that he was not going to support that Bill. You did not say that. You also said that there were many and various aspects of the Bill. You didn't suggest that you weren't going to support the Bill, and I would point out to you that perhaps you should make your policies understood between the two of you on that side. Now I understand that you are a little young to be going after the leadership in your first year, you know, but it was

[ Page 606 ]

this point that I was trying to warn the Leader about, that the Ides of March are on their way. It was this very concept that on the fifteenth of March….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This has nothing to do with the Bill.

MR. CAPOZZI: I realize that, but I do have to suggest, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, he's hit them again.

MR. CAPOZZI: Now he's anti-Rome and anti-Italian, the same thing — terrible, terrible.

Mr. Speaker, I do think that the recommendation that should be inserted as an amendment into this Act is where, in the paragraph it refers to the deceased for the benefit of husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, the words "or dependent brother or sister" should be included because there are situations of a brother and sister living together, the one looking after the other, death occurs, the responsibility still remains either in name or for the control and maintenance of the particular house, and I think as long as it was limited to a dependent brother or sister, that that is a recommendation that could be considered and one, I think, that would meet with mutual acceptance and would have the member from New Westminster support the Bill, would it not?

MR. D.G. COCKE: I'd support the section.

MR. CAPOZZI: Oh, I see, I see. You would support the section knowing that the Bill could never go through. I understand that. I also think that there is one other section, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we deal with the principle of the Bill, now? Yes, the sections.

MR. CAPOZZI: Well, the principle of the Bill which involves a particular reference to life insurance as one form of investment that is exempt. It seems to me that there should be a broadening of this area, and I cannot see the difference of an individual who has X amount of dollars in life insurance to someone who may have it in mutual funds or in some other asset that is left there for his wife. In fact, Mr. Speaker, and I am not trying to either get into a discussion of the advantages of one or the other, but I suggest that in the type of economy that we have been experiencing over the past 50 years in this country, that it might be a better investment for the remaining spouse to have that investment in something like mutual funds rather than in a life insurance.

I would also suggest that perhaps the wording, and this may be just a bit of a misunderstanding, but when the suggestion was made today that these works of art were available and accepted for display and retention in the Province, I would certainly hope that the word "display" did not apply.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member is going into too much detail, which is more properly done in committee.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, no. This is just the general principle. That is not in the Bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, this is properly done in committee.

MR. CAPOZZI: This is not in the Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not in the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know.

MR. CAPOZZI: Well, I can't speak on it in committee if it's not in the Bill. It was something that was put in as an explanation of the Bill. I can't go into it. There is no specific area that it's covered in the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and if I don't mention it now I can't mention it any other place. But I do hope that the message would be brought along that certainly any works of art would be available for display in any area throughout the country. I do go back — I wish the good member, the leader of the Liberal party were here, because I know that as soon as he finished, he had left at exactly five to four so he could catch the four o'clock hot line and get his stand on, but I think that it should be clearly pointed out to the press, to everyone in this House, Mr. Speaker, that what he was really doing here today was stating as clearly as possible their stand that there should be no penalties in succession duties, that they are really saying that there is no tax for the larger estates….

AN HON. MEMBER: No, No.

MR. CAPOZZI:…. and I think that is a shirking of their responsibility. I think when they stand and we see them standing and voting against this Bill, we'll know that they really are standing and voting for the very large urban rich that they represent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker….

MR. CAPOZZI: Would you vote for the Bill if the 10 per cent were out?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I would just like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when we stand to vote on this Bill we will be voting on this Bill and not on some other legislation that the member may have in mind.

I am pleased that the honourable the Minister without Portfolio who recently took her seat is still here in the House, and the Minister of Lands, because during the comments that she made and the Minister of Lands' reaction to it, it is quite obvious to me that they don't understand what a Succession Duty Act is. Now I know that the honourable the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, is a person very skilled in the matter of estate taxes and estate laws, and I wish that he would take the time to educate his members as to what this Bill is all about. Because when the honourable the first member from Vancouver–Point Grey said that the duties levied under the amendments proposed in this Bill were taking from money from the poor he was right, Mr. Speaker, because under the Succession Duty Act the duties are payable by the beneficiary, not by the estate. And the Federal Estates Tax Act is different in that respect, because it is the estate that pays the tax, not the beneficiaries.

And the Madam Minister should realize that the benefits

[ Page 607 ]

that will go to any acceptable charity, once this Bill passes, will be subject to duties levied at the rate of strangers, and those duties will be paid out of the fund of money which would otherwise go to that charitable organization, not out of the estate generally. And to make such a fundamental….

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it to them again. Just say it again.

MR. WILLIAMS:….basic misunderstanding of the Bill, obviously in the case that the Minister should very carefully consider whether or not she will support it. Because to misunderstand, to be under the misapprehension that the Minister obviously has, is to indicate that she can't have read the Bill and has reached her conclusions on basis of information. Mr. Minister of Health, could you take the Minister of Lands out into the corridor and explain to him that if a gift….

Mr. Speaker, I'll have to give a slight lecture. Before you know the rate of the duties that are assessed, you must know the character of the beneficiary. So, if you take $100,000 and give it to a charity, then the rate for the first time is determined, and that $100,000 gift pays the tax on that $100,000 gift, and the charity gets what's left. It's as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there you go. Therefore, the money that would otherwise go to the charity, the full $100,000 will be reduced by the amount of duties that are levied under this Bill on that gift. It's as simple as that. So you reduce it by whatever the percentage is. If it's 17 per cent, you would take $17,000 out of the gift to the charity and take it into the Treasury of this Province. That's right. So you do take the money out of the hands of the charity.

Well, the honourable the Minister was confused. I trust she is not any longer. That it is the poor, the people who were intended to benefit from a charitable gift who are really going to be suffering as a result, not the estate generally. It doesn't affect the wife, the children, the uncles, the aunts, or anybody else.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'll deal briefly with what I consider to be the principle of this Bill and my reaction to it. I am opposed to the Bill. I think that any step such as this, which is a retrograde one, which would in any way deter any person from philanthropic giving through their estate is wrong, and I cannot accept it. The Government's record of public philanthropy is shocking, and for them to take a step which will deter private philanthropy is equally shocking.

I am sure that when we have a Minister of Social Rehabilitation who considers that the poor and the needy may fall into the category of deadbeats, that this Government probably looks upon those who would be the beneficiaries of charitable donations in the same light. To find such legislation coming in this Province when we should be doing all that we possibly can to ensure the continued giving to the fullest possible extent to charitable and educational foundations is unthinkable, and for that reason I reject this Bill.

But there is another reason, and it is for the Minister of Finance to come to this House and to seek legislative approval of the discretion which he has already exercised in respect of estates, retroactively, is a denial of and contrary to the principles of natural justice upon which this Province, this country, is based. The members, Mr. Speaker, should be under no misapprehension that section 5 of this Bill is before us today because the Minister in exercising an administrative function has been wrong. At the moment his error is subject to challenge in the Courts, and before the Courts he will be shown to be wrong. And the Minister now comes to this Legislature in an attempt, not only to change the goal posts, but to ask legislative endorsement of the error which he has made. And this, to my way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, is an improper and unacceptable use of legislative power. What the Minister has done is wrong in the Courts because it is a denial of natural justice and the Courts won't permit that, even from the Minister of Finance. Therefore he seeks, by section 5, to do that which he would otherwise be prohibited from doing, and for this reason the Bill is wrong, and I urge all the members to consider section 5, and really to consider the effects of a succession duty on charitable gifts before they express their vote on this Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace.

MR. D.E. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon speaking about this particular Bill. I sat and listened with interest to most of the debate that has taken place this afternoon, and with particular interest to the remarks that we have heard from the honourable leader of the Liberal party who did a good job of flopping up the situation, and reading from different letters, et cetera, that he had received from different organizations and institutions that were charitable in nature, and he said over and over again, "I wish to make more and more points." But I think, really, in the debate that has taken place this afternoon all he did was make the same point over and over. It is fairly obvious from listening to the position of the Liberal members in this House that they represent the fat cats of the Province and that their prime interest is in the large estates….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think that is the proper reference to the constituents of any member. Now a member represents all the people in the constituency, and that type of reflection is not proper.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I do not direct the reflection to the members personally, but I would say that, as a matter of my opinion, after listening to their debate this afternoon there is a certain sentiment there for people who I would term as fat cats, so the point that I wanted to make is that these people who represent the vested interests and the people in the area where their estates will be taxed, are certainly being well represented this afternoon by members of the Liberal party. The leader referred to a letter, one particular letter from the Canadian Bible Society and he read, not at length, but a bit of the statements made by the letter to the honourable Premier from the Canadian Bible Society, but he very conveniently omitted one very important paragraph, one right in the middle of the letter, and one which reads as follows, "The progressive policies" — and this is directed to the Premier of the Province — "The progressive policies which you have initiated and carried out over the past 18 years invoke the appreciation of the people of this Province and far beyond. We are convinced that you have the welfare of the people of British Columbia, Canada, and the whole world at heart, and would not do anything to militate

[ Page 608 ]

against their best interests." I think, Mr. Speaker I think that….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say, but?

MR. SMITH: There was no but, or therefore, or why for, no.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is apparent that in a Bill like this, that we do represent the majority interests in the Province of British Columbia, because, Mr. Speaker, look at the Bill for a few moments and see what it really means. I am told by the Department that handles these matters, that we process in British Columbia an average of 12,000 new estates each year. Every estate in British Columbia, regardless of how small or how large, has to go through the Department and they have a record of those estates, and we have an average of 12,000 estates go through each year.

Now it's a little difficult to get the breakdown on the size of the estates, but in spot-checking it is fairly obvious to me, and I think to all the members of this House if they do a little research, that out of the total estates processed in the Province of British Columbia, less than five per cent will ever be in a taxable position, because at the present time, a person whose estate runs in size anywhere from 140 to 160 to 170 thousand dollars, depending upon the age of a widow, will be tax exempt, tax free. There will be no succession duty levied against that estate at all. Now, that covers, Mr. Speaker, that covers better than 90 per cent of the entire estates, and every estate that is processed through the Province of British Columbia. That's a fact, that these estates will not be taxable, so we're talking about a Bill which, with its exemptions, will allow the majority of the estates in the Province of British Columbia to pass on without any tax being levied at all.

This gets us down to that less than 10 per cent figure of estates which will be taxable, and it's interesting to note that out of that less than 10 per cent figure of total estates which may be taxable, less than 10 per cent of them leave more than 10 per cent to charitable organizations. Out of the total estates which will be taxable, which is less than 10 per cent of the total figure, really closer to five per cent, less than 10 per cent of those leave better than 10 per cent of their estates to charitable organizations. So, what are we really talking about in the terms of that? Are we talking about a great number of estates? No. We are talking about a very small, select group.

There's ample provision within the Act today for anyone who wishes to plan his estate properly to do so and take the advantages of the Act that are before him, so that his beneficiaries will not have to pay any B.C. succession duties. It would seem to me that in discussing this Act the members of the other side of the House have picked on a very small area of the Act about which they disagree, but because they are prepared to disagree about that, they would throw the entire Act out. This is one small area which you seem to find disfavour with.

I don't think that this is going to be nearly the problem that you suggest to the public. As a matter of fact in the letters that have been received, and all of us have received letters on both sides of the House, there's been no one yet indicate just how many estates they would have actually been involved in where the estate would have been taxable under this new Act. Not one of them has even taken the time, so what they are doing is throwing up a straw man, in effect. If they have facts and figures, then they should have backed up their letters with facts and figures. The $600,000 straw man.

I think that, in effect, this is a fair Act. That people who make their living in the Province of British Columbia and are fortunate enough to accumulate a large estate, will now pay their fair share of the tax. It's open, everyone knows where they stand, and they can plan their estates accordingly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, you know, when we look at a Bill such as this, and when we talk about succession duties, the first thing we think of, of course, is the wealthy, and the very rich, and we believe that people that are very rich, some of them have made their money by dubious ways….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. NIMSICK: And some of them have made their money out of the sweat and blood of workers by paying them small wages and exploiting them…. Wait a minute. Some of them, that's the very rich, but succession duty taxes do not apply just to the very rich, and it is easy for the Premier, it's easy for the Premier to set out a case when it's a million dollar estate, but how many million dollar estates are there in British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: Very few.

MR. NIMSICK: I know, you just told me that. Twelve thousand estates go through the Department and there are very few of them in the million dollar bracket.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out on a limb.

MR. NIMSICK: No, I'm out on no limb. You just wait. Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable member for North Okanagan will get up and give her point of view, too, because I was very pleased with the honourable member without Portfolio sitting had the courage to do it, and I hope she does it, too, and tell her own story. This Bill is a varied Bill and there are some very good points in it, good points in it, I'll agree that there are some very good points in regard to pensions and one thing and another, but when you come down to this 10 per cent exemption…. I don't agree with that because any one that has come to the end of the line, I'm thinking, I'm thinking of those people who have come to the end of the line. If you are trying to get at the very rich, well then why didn't you make the 10 per cent apply only to those in a high bracket instead of applying to everybody? Because if a person is at the end of the line, he's got no relatives that he wants to leave anything to, and he turns over his total estate, and I'm thinking of the person with an estate of maybe $4,000 to $40,000, an estate of $4,000 to $40,000, and he gives the whole thing to a charitable cause. He doesn't want to leave it to any relatives if he has any, and if he hasn't got any this is his last effort. He has worked hard for that $4,000 or up to $40,000, so according to this Bill, that estate would only be exempt by 10 per cent.

No, I'm not wrong, because the only other way that he gets exemptions is by leaving it to his wife, leaving it to one of his family, or leaving it any other way. But the 10 per cent, if he left his total estate to charity, then the estate tax would apply to everything except 10 per cent of that estate. That is exactly right, that's exactly right, there is no

[ Page 609 ]

exemption….

Not if you haven't got anybody to leave it to. You can't leave a basic exemption for charitable purposes, none of that, the basic exemption only applies when you will it to somebody. So, your $60,000 is out there. And if you will the whole works to a charitable organization only 10 per cent is exempt, and the rest of it is a stranger, because you don't get the $60,000 exemption if you got nobody to leave it to.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can leave it to the Government.

MR. NIMSICK: No, you leave it to a charitable organization, and I'm sure that the Government is no charitable organization, and especially this Government, Mr. Speaker, has no charity at all at heart. They think the most materialistic thinking of any Government we ever had, is this Government. They think materialism, that's what they think of. They haven't got any heart. What do you talk about, when the Minister of Welfare is talking about deadbeats on social welfare and punishing these people, and that. There is no heart in this Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the honourable member please relate to the vote.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I say that there are many, many cases, and these are the cases I'm interested in, are those estates that are small, anywhere, to say, up to $40,000, and they have got nobody, they're at the end of the line as far as family goes and they want to leave their whole estate to some charitable cause, and actually you are going to tax them for everything but 10 per cent. There is no exemption for those people. There is no basic exemption — he wills it to a charitable organization, not according to this, not according to this, the way I read it, and I think that there should be probably a ceiling. If you want to just get at the very rich, then there should be a ceding, over and above that your 10 per cent applies, and not below it. And I'll vote against the Bill on account of those things.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, some comments I would like to make in relation to things that have been said thus far in the debate. I think all of us could define what we consider to be an ideal charity or charitable situation, and I share the sympathies of some of the members who have stated their opinion as to motivations of charity. I can imagine with some ease a society where charity would not be necessary, Mr. Speaker, but I have no illusions and I do not believe that we are ever going to reach that stage, and there will always be people in our society who must rely on charity until that Utopia arrives.

Mr. Speaker, as long as that is the situation, I also cannot accept the position that appeared to be stated by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the position that any of us here, or any of us as human beings, have the right to question the motivation behind an individual disposing of his estate. I can't accept that. When you talk of a nobility concept, in my opinion you are putting yourself in just that position. You are attempting to judge the motivation of an individual human being as he disposes of his estate, and I don't think any human being has that right.

MR. D. BARRETT: I didn't say that.

MR. CLARK: Well, that's as I interpreted your remarks. If I misinterpreted your remarks, Mr. Member, I apologize. That's certainly as I interpreted what you said. Mr. Speaker, I further take exception to a concept which was expressed across the way by the member from North Peace, that if a bad law only effects a few people it is somehow all right.

MR. D.E. SMITH: No….

MR. CLARK: That's exactly what you said, Mr. Member. You tried to put forward the position that because it affected only a certain small percentage of the people of this Province, that it was all right. I called it bad law. You didn't call it bad law. In my opinion if a law, Mr. Speaker, is bad in respect to one human being, it's bad law. And that alone is justification to oppose this Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you'd be for it.

MR. CLARK: Okay. The accusation from the member who has just spoken that somehow we represent the urban rich.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fat tycoons.

MR. CLARK: Okay. Fat tycoons. Mr. Speaker, there are those in this House who know full well, because of their personal knowledge of myself and my family, that that does not apply to me, and I have no apologies to make for my family. But I do recall that when I wanted to go to university at the age of 20 my family was not in a position, my family was not in a position to send me to university, because they didn't have the funds….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable members should not rise in another's seat.

MR. CLARK: But, Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to go to university. I was privileged to be accepted by a college at the University of British Columbia, so lest you think we are only talking about the so-called fat cats, the college that accepted me and provided me with a university education is Union College of British Columbia which trains United Church Ministers for all of Canada, and that college is financed, Mr. Speaker, to a very large extent by people who are affected by this Bill. Two people I can think of in particular, who not only give their estates to charity, not only give it to a church but specifically designate it for one purpose of that church, the training of its theological ministers. And Mr. Minister, lest the House pay attention to the remarks of my friend from Vancouver-Burrard, that people in this position wish to build monuments to themselves….

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking, absolutely shocking.

MR. CLARK: There are no members of this church that can identify the two members to whom I've just referred, because their donation is anonymous. I happen to know of it because it was that estate that made it possible for me to get that education.

Mr. Speaker, another part of this Bill attempts to classify one charity as being more significant than another or more worthy than another. If the charity is within the bounds of

[ Page 610 ]

British Columbia, there are some of the most worthwhile charities, with all deference, Mr. Speaker, that have no reference to British Columbia, in this member's opinion, and I think of those people right now in British Columbia who are donating to such organizations as the Save the Children's Fund which, by this Bill, is specifically designated as being more subject to taxation than some other charity for children. What is less worthy about the Save the Children's Fund or UNICEF or, for that matter, any other charitable organization connected with the United Nations? What is less worthy about these charities? Are we so selfish that we'll put special clauses in the Bill designed to impose special taxation wherever money leaves our own pockets? I agree with the Christian churches in this Province who say that is not in the interests of Christianity. I don't belong to any of these churches, Mr. Speaker, and I make no attempts here to speak on behalf of them as a member, but I refer to a letter that I understand you all received from the Reverend Cunningham. The Reverend Cunningham wrote on behalf of the conference of the United Church. The Reverend Cunningham is the Minister of Saint Andrew's Wesley United Church, for those of you who don't know.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: He's a very fine man.

MR. CLARK: A very fine man, and he says, "The principle that all money must be spent in our own backyards is repugnant to Christian ideals." The member says we oppose only one section. I go to another basic principle of this Act contained in another section, and again quote the Reverend Cunningham, where he says, "In conclusion," in his letter to the Premier, the Minister of Finance, "surely if your discretion has been and is being exercised honestly and reasonably, this retroactive denial of what we believe should be a basic right of all citizens is unnecessary and should be struck out." Another reason, for the benefit of the member from Vancouver Centre, why I oppose this Bill. I will vote against it, and when you sit in the House and listen to a member's contribution, then I'll answer your question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we have had a long-ranging debate on this particular Bill, and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this piece of legislation is the last piece in a jig-saw puzzle of financial control that was first developed by the Minister of Finance way back in 1952. We find that he's the fiscal agent of everything in this Province, and now he has waddled right into the charities, and this is just another step into a monolithic economic state.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member not touch his microphone while he is speaking, these side mikes here, always pick up the sound and it becomes very difficult.

MR. GARDOM: It is another example, Mr. Speaker, of socialistic centralization, and quite frankly this legislation is nothing more than gall, utter gall. It hurts the recipients, and what you are trying to do is substitute Government priorities over charitable priorities, and section 5 is particularly repugnant, particularly repugnant. And section 5 is the type of legislation that one would expect in Cuba, Mr. Speaker, not in British Columbia. It's machete legislation, machete legislation. It cuts off the right of people to seek justice. It cuts off the right of people to seek justice to go to the Courts and reminds you of real Castro stuff.

This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is jumping right smack back into the grave. Two years back, by this particular Section, trying to by-pass the Courts.

Mr. Speaker, the one fact that the Government members are failing to understand is that the only bastion, the only bastion, that protects the people and saves them from dictatorship, be it a benevolent dictatorship or a militant dictatorship, is the Courts, and how you can come here and just say, something that happened two years ago people are going to be denied access to the Courts, why? Why are there rights in one side in British Columbia, and not rights in another? Big Daddy Government — we can do no wrong. We can do no wrong, they say, Mr. Speaker. To heck with the little man. Don't even let him have an opportunity to go to Court. Sell him out of it. Isn't that nice. What nice Social Credit democracy that is, eh? Going back two years. Machete legislation, that's exactly what it is.

Now someone came up with the great suggestion today in this little thing that was circularized. "It is the Government's intention to value objects d'art at a nominal value of a dollar." I don't give a hoot about the Government's intention. You don't seem to give too much hoots about your Government intention when you bring in a section like section 5. What will happen in two years from today? You bring in another section 5 and change your mind in this. If you would think you like this one dollar bit, let's have an amendment to the Bill. We don't want to rely upon your intention. No siree! We cannot rely upon your intentions. No person in British Columbia can, when you start bringing in retroactive legislation to prevent people having their free day in Court. Do you think that's democracy? Do you think that's a fair way to live in Canada? Today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MR. GARDOM: You think it's rubbish to hear this statement? Well, boy oh boy, where does that put you, if you think that's rubbish? You don't believe people have the right to go to Court. Talk about justice being blind. You are blind to see it. You know there is not too much difference between benevolent dictatorship and the other kind. It's usually a step one to the other. You people don't believe in the Courts. You won't even give the citizens their right at any time.

Mr. Speaker, in my view this Bill is rank, it's cheap, it absolutely smacks at Statism. It hinders the charitable pursuits of many, and without any question of a doubt, it hurts the little people, without any question of a doubt, it hurts the people who would finally receive this charitable money. What about something like the Red Cross, Mr. Speaker? Are we going back two years in that, too? The Red Cross, I don't think anyone will disagree, is one of the most noble organizations in the world, but its pursuits are not entirely in British Columbia. What about them? Mr. Speaker, once Government starts bringing in retroactive legislation to prevent the citizens of a free democratic country going to the Courts, what kind of a situation do we have in society? Is that a democracy? I say not. I say it is not a democracy, and this is an undemocratic Bill. This is an undemocratic Bill. This is a highly undemocratic Bill, and those people who will be voting for this Bill today, will not be voting for democracy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second

[ Page 611 ]

Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, just a few words on this Bill. Basically, I am of the opinion that in the case of a large estate that is being left to some charitable, or many charitable organizations, and in many cases it is only fair that the Government should get a percentage of that large estate which was presumably produced here in British Columbia. I think there is some good reason for that, if I may state something which I haven't heard this afternoon, and that is that I think there is reason to believe that a great many charities today, of those charities, there is quite a high percentage of their purses going into professional fees.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. PRICE: Well, all right, I'll name one, and this is along the lines which I think you would agree. Some years ago I was a director of the YWCA in a certain small division in Vancouver, and our budget was very small, I think about $13,500, and of that $13,000, $12,000 went into professional fees, and I am not too sure that this is….

AN HON. MEMBER: Administrative.

MR. PRICE:….into fees for people who were looking after others in need. I am not too sure that those people, and many of them quite little people, that gave their money to Red Feather, I don't think they ever thought that their money was going to pay a director, or some other sports director, a fee that took all that money that they were giving. I think on that basis, if it applies to other charities, that there is some reason to question whether or not some of this shouldn't go into the public services.

Now some of these charities, I am sure, are so self-deserving that they shouldn't be subject to anybody cutting in on them, and I have one in mind like the St. John's Ambulance Group, that are made up of many hundreds of people that put in hour after hour looking after people that may get hurt at parades or exhibitions, or other public gatherings, and they get nothing at all out of it. They put in a lot of time training and all they get is perhaps a uniform with a badge on it, and I feel that these people deserve all the aid that they can get. Now….

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you vote against the Bill.

MR. PRICE: No, I wouldn't vote against the Bill. But there are other considerations, and I think the first member from Vancouver Centre brought up, I think, a very good point, and that is the amount of money which can be considered as benefits that are going to a family. If you read the notes on the Succession Duty Act for second reading, the figure here which shows $158,000, I think, as being possible to be exempted, this would only apply under certain specific conditions, and it seems to me that perhaps a little thought might be given before this is completed, to making a specific figure available for a non-taxable base, because not everybody, as has been stated, leaves insurance, and not everybody leaves pensions, but they might make provisions in other ways to do exactly the same things. I am of the opinion that great consideration should be given to that type of person that is making provisions for his family in some way, but not exactly as laid down in the present Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY: Mr. Speaker, during this discussion today one of the things that I would be concerned about is that the people of this Province may get the idea that this is one of the more heavily taxed citizenry in the nation, and I would just like to point out one thing, that in actual fact, B.C. is the best tax haven of any Province in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. NEY: I'll tell you, if you don't know, because it is right in the Budget, it's right in the Budget…. The gasoline and diesel tax in B.C. is far lower than anywhere in Canada. It's nearly half of that in Newfoundland. The corporation tax, as well as personal income tax is a per cent of the Federal, are also the lowest in Canada….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Order! Will you come closer to Bill No. 11, which is the Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act.

MR. NEY: Am I to come a little closer? (laughter) The corporation tax, as well as the personal tax, is a per cent of the Federal, is still the lowest in Canada. And don't forget that these fortunes that we are talking on now, tend to be in this Province, by this easier route. There is only one province in Canada that has a lower sales tax. There is no amusement tax, compared to 10 to 11 per cent in most of the rest of Canada. It is the only province that has no cigarette tax, whereas most provinces have 10 to 12 per cent tax. In stores these people all complain about taxes, but we should remember that in B.C. we are much better off tax-wise than any other part of Canada.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall Bill No. 11 pass? So ordered. Contrary minded?

There was no one on their feet when they called the question. There was no one on his feet when I called the question…. Will the member be seated. Is it agreed with the House to move back to the Bill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. The second member from Point Grey did more to chasing over to the side of the Government, than anything the Government could have done. (laughter)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall Bill No. 11 pass?

The motion was agreed to on the following division:-

YEAS – 33

Messieurs

[ Page 612 ]

NAYS –16

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 10. The Honourable Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker, has to deal with amendments to the Income Tax Act. Honourable members will recall that for the period since January the 1st, 1962, this Province has entered into an agreement with the Federal Government for the collection of provincial, personal and corporate income taxes. The Federal/Provincial Income Tax Agreement requires that provisions of provincial statutes relating to installment payments and collection of levies are to be identical to the Federal provisions. This is for convenience to taxpayers to file a joint return, and it simplifies procedure. The amendments proposed, Mr. Speaker, are requested by the Government of Canada of the provinces who are party to the collection agreement, to bring provincial law into line with the Federal rules for times of payment of the corporate income tax. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No.

The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 4, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Provincial New-Home Building Assistance Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 4. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HO N. W.A.C. BENNETT: This is an amendment to the Provincial New-home Building Assistance Act. This Government introduced the Provincial home-owner grant in 1957 to reduce the burden of local property taxes on home-owners and to encourage every family to acquire their own home. The annual grant was originally set at $28 and has been progressively raised until the coming year it is recommended to be a maximum of $160. To further assist individuals to own their own homes, effective April the 1st, 1966, the Provincial Home Acquisition Grant Act provided a grant of up to $500 towards the purchase of a home. In 1958 the Act was amended to encourage the purchase or building of new homes, in that an applicant could obtain a grant of up to $1,000 for this purpose. Last year, to additionally assist in this field, a loan by the way of a second mortgage up to $5,000 was introduced.

At this time, with tight money conditions and high mortgage interest rates, the Government desires to assist persons who have rented a home, the renters of the Province who have rented a home for at least two years in the Province. It is therefore proposed to allow those persons the choice of a $500 grant or a $2,500 second mortgage towards the purchase of an existing home. This opportunity is to be initially effective for a one-year term only, with the renewal dependent on the financial conditions in the future.

The general conditions for the $500 grant or the $2,500 loan are as follows. One: A person must have been a tenant who occupied rented premises in the Province for at least two years immediately prior to the purchase of the older home. Two: Purchase must be made between April the 1st, 1970 and March 31st, 1971. Three: A person must not have received previous grants or mortgages under this Act and, in the case of the $500 grant, must deduct any home-owner grants previously received, if any.

Regarding the $2,500 loan, the Act provides interest is not to exceed that prescribed under the National Housing Act of Canada. The rate presently charged is 8 3/4 per cent. This rate of interest is effectively reduced by allowing an annual rebate of 10 per cent of the payments made, or a maximum of $25 each year for prompt payment. The loan is thus insured at the Province's expense. This will bring the effective rate down to about 7 1/2 per cent.

The loan is insured, Mr. Speaker, at the Province's expense, to protect the family in the event of the death of the family breadwinner. I was asked the question before, had we any deaths? And I said no. The very next day we had one, so I must report that now. Further proposed amendments in the Act are — One: To change the name from the Provincial New home Building Assistance Act to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act, to more closely describe the purpose of the Act. Two: To pay $25,000,000 from the consolidated revenue fund into the Provincial Home Acquisition Grant Fund in the 1969-70 fiscal year to replenish and expand the fund to allow the grants and loans to be made, because this is on existing homes, it isn't like building new homes, it has a tremendous present inventory, and the interest is very large, and we expect to be in tremendous demand.

The Government believes stable and industrious citizens are one of our greatest assets, and therefore we wish to encourage these people to permanently locate in our community. Since the inception of this Act, almost 50,000 of these citizens have been assisted in home ownership. Fifty thousand citizens; if there was an average of three to the home that would be 150,000 people, really. But 50,000 individual applications either by way of a grant or mortgage loan, and it is the Government's hope this proposed new provision to this Act will allow many others who are presently tenants to own a home.

Now with $2,500 mortgage, and if we had 30,000 for instance — we've had 50,000 already — if we had 30,000 on

[ Page 613 ]

this basis of $2,500, what's that? Seventy-five million dollars. That's the reason why we put in for one year to start with and to get one year's experience under this new enlarged basis. This is a great step forward, Mr. Speaker, and I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I've got a few points in regard to this Home Acquisition Act. Last year when the amendment came forward I did advocate, at that time, that it should apply to older homes as well as new ones, because in this way you encourage the young people to take on an older home, and maybe they themselves at that age can do a lot of repairing and make it a very fine home, and it gives them an opportunity of gaining a foothold into the ownership of their own home. The Act previously did drive the home-owner, by the fact that he could get $1,000 into purchasing a new home, and many young people were placed in the position that they took on a greater load than they could actually handle. In regards to the $500, previous to the $1,000 being given, we did have a $500 grant for older homes. I don't know why the Government changed that policy and stopped it a couple of years ago and reverted to just new homes.

I'd like the honourable the Minister of Finance to listen to this because I think I've got some points here that might help you. Now one of the points you had previously, and you've got in this Bill, in regards to the $500; a person gets the $500 towards an older home and they have it four years and they are compelled, due to their job, their type of work or something, that they've got to move. They've got to immediately pay back the whole $500.

I feel that they should be allocated $100 a year as long as they live in that home, because they've got to get a home some other place, and they may not be able, in the other case, to apply for their new home on account of the home-owners grant of the $500, so they're out $500 right on their move. They're out the $500 right on their move, so they move to their new place, they can't apply for a new loan on an older home for the simple reason that the home-owners grant has outlawed them in this respect. So I feel, Mr. Minister of Finance, that it should be pro-rated, and that if they stay in the home five years or four years, then there should be only $100 required to pay back. I think they should only be required to pay the $100 back and not the total $500, as it was.

Another point, Mr. Minister, in regards to the rental. I think that one of the things that we should encourage is people, young married couples, to own their own homes and to apply themselves many times to an older home. Maybe there are many people that are ready to give up their older homes and to encourage young people to go in there. But when you put a two year rental, that they've got to be renters for two years, I don't think that that is fair. I think it should apply to anyone that's willing to take on the job of owning their own home and especially when people are young and they're getting married, they want to do this right away, they want to get into their own home, and we should encourage it.

We should, just like the honourable the Minister did, the Minister of Finance. He told us many times here how he bought an old home in Edmonton, or how he bought an old home when he was first married and he built up from that, and I think we should encourage these young people, and if you drive the young married couple into renting for two years before they can apply for such a loan you're trying to condition them into the renting practice and they'll continue, and I say that this two year rental should be taken out of this Bill and it should apply to anyone that's got all the other qualifications to apply for the $500 or the $2,500 second mortgage.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to commend the Minister of Finance and honourable Premier for such a forthright legislation to add to our housing programme, which is the best housing programme in Canada, Mr. Speaker. It might be interesting for the members to know that last year, in 1969, when housing starts in Canada were up 6.7 per cent over the previous year, that in British Columbia our housing starts were up 20.7 per cent according to C.M.H.A. figures, and in the first month of this year of 1970, housing starts in every other region of Canada were down compared to last year except in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, where they increased 19 per cent. I would suggest that it is the housing policy of this Government that helped considerably to go towards that increased inventory and increased employment in this Province.

I'd like to say, too, to the honourable Premier that the legislation is most ingenious insofar as Government legislation in any province is concerned, insomuch as administration costs are concerned. I would like to tell the House that apart from the staff of the Comptroller-General who makes the refunds to the municipalities, there is only one British Columbia Government employee who administers this Act, and that is the Provincial Administrator Home-owner Assistant, and I'd like to state, Mr. Speaker, that this certainly shows there is no bureaucracy here. There is the municipal clerk who, in effect, administers the Act along with his normal municipal functions, and I think this is an opportune time, Mr. Speaker, to commend the Minister of Finance for the efficient and businesslike administration of the Home-owner Assistance Division of the Department. Many people, including the applicants for these grants, contractors, developers, have commented on the fast service without red tape. If you consider, according to the question that was asked on the Order Paper, Question 70, over 6,500 building or acquisition grants were made in the last year, and based on the answer to Question 128 on the Order Paper, over 3,300 second mortgage loans have been approved since May the 1st, 1969, all of these grants and loans were made with a total staff of 13, Mr. Speaker, only one of which is a professional.

I know that if this Home-owner Assistance Programme were to follow the same method as, for instance, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it would take a staff of at least 50, 60, maybe 100 persons, according to the past record and the bureaucracy that has been perpetuated by the Liberal regime. I quoted some figures earlier, referring to Question 128, which showed that 46,860 homes have been purchased with the help of the acquisition grant, and this, together with 3,300 mortgage loans, totals some 50,000 British Columbian families that have been helped by this Government to acquire a home of their own.

I was interested in the honourable member for Kootenay's statement that we should encourage home ownership, and I was very pleased to hear that statement from that side of the House, because that's a statement that

[ Page 614 ]

we haven't heard from the socialists before. But we have encouraged some 50,000 British Columbian families, Mr. Speaker, and it's a great record, a great record.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with the aid of Bill No. 4 which we are discussing this evening, this Government is going even further to help certain people to acquire a home of their own. The people that it is designed to help are those who are caught and who are stuck in a rental position, normally unable to save up even a down payment, young couples who may have to save for years before they may even accumulate enough for just even a modest down payment. I'm sure that in many cases tenants, providing they can obtain a first mortgage at a reasonable rate, will be able to buy the house they are even renting now, with no down payment or very small down payment, and end up with payments less than they are paying now in rent, existing now paying in rent, and yet they would own it and be building an equity, Mr. Speaker.

Some will do what many of our parents and grandparents did. They will buy an older, perhaps rundown home just as the honourable member from Kootenay has suggested, and they will fix it up and sell it at a profit so they can buy a better house. It is at this point, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to suggest to the honourable Minister of Finance to permit these people who have obtained their second mortgage loan and then repaid it, to obtain yet another loan up to the amount they repaid on another house. This is now permitted in the case of the outright grant, and I am sure it would materially improve the value of the proposed legislation and also the $5,000 second mortgage on a new home if we could permit a transfer of the loan.

Some people, for their own reasons, prefer to live in an apartment and surely, Mr. Speaker, it would be better for these people and the community, I suggest, if such people owned their apartment outright than if they rented it. I can foresee a development whereby existing older apartment buildings will be subdivided under the British Columbia Strata Titles Act and people who prefer to live in apartments can, with the assistance of the British Columbia Government, buy an apartment or a suite outright, and since they qualify for the home-owner grant of up to $150 per year, they will probably pay less than they are paying now in monthly payments. In many cases, the mortgagee may have a first mortgage on the apartment block at perhaps 6 or 7 per cent by prior financial arrangement, and he'll obviously be interested in apportioning this blanket mortgage to individual suites at the higher rate which, currently is up to 10 1/2 to 10 3/4 per cent.

Now I said earlier that this new legislation could permit a tenant to buy an older home without a cash down payment on his own, and this is very significant. I say this, because the Government is prepared to lend right up to the cost of the home, for example, if the cost of the home is $17,500 they can arrange a first mortgage of $15,000 and then our Government will lend the difference of $2,500. I might point out, too, Mr. Speaker, that as far as this Government is concerned there is no income test and no upper age limit test….

I am sorry I missed the by-play, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure if the member would like to ask me later I would be delighted to explain it to him. I am sure I can get it through to him somehow.

AN HON. MEMBER: I doubt it.

MRS. McCARTHY: I think it is important to know that there is no income test and no upper age limit test. All legal costs, this Government pays all legal costs involved in drawing and registering our mortgages and also land registry fees, which could mean a saving of about $100 to each applicant, and I don't think that has ever really been spelled out by a Government and I am really very proud of the fact that we do this. Also, if the borrower who is the breadwinner dies, the total debt is forgiven and there is no charge for this concern.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is imaginative and generous and, I believe, helpful legislation, and again I want to commend the honourable Minister of Finance, not only for the legislation but for the efficient and for the very businesslike way in which it is administered. (applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I only want to be very brief. We will be supporting this Bill, but I just wondered if the honourable the Minister, in closing this debate, might like to indicate whether or not the experience of the Department in the past year has given him any cause for concern as to whether or not these mortgages should not be repaid in the event of the disposition of the home. The reason for the concern is that as I walk to the Buildings each day through downtown Victoria I pass a real estate firm which displays in its windows pictures of very fine homes which are for sale here, and one of them, which is for the sale price of $49,500, lists all the outstanding features of the home, one of the features being a large first mortgage and B.C. Government low interest rate second mortgage.

Now, it is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this home, from its picture as well as from the fact that there is a second mortgage, has been built in the last year, and I wonder if the honourable Minister of Finance has any reason to be concerned that these mortgaging rights which we have for new homes now, and which we will soon have for older homes, might not be capable of misuse, in that they can be used to acquire new or older homes by people who qualify and, having so qualified and obtained the mortgage, the properties somehow or other find themselves very quickly back on the market and then become owned by people who would not otherwise qualify. It seems to me that that is a misuse of the proposal, a misuse of the legislation and an abuse which should not be permitted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID: Mr. Speaker, I have just one small point to raise and that is this. As I understand it right now, this can only be obtained if a person has a fee simple title to the property in question, and with perhaps the carving up of older apartment buildings under the Strata Titles Development Act, it is possible that developers might wish to retain the land and give a lease to the people.

Also, in my particular area, MacMillan Bloedel have a policy of only selling leasehold land on a fairly long term, and the term of the lease extends beyond that which takes in the date of repayment for the second mortgage, and these people who buy leasehold land are denied the right to get a second mortgage from the Government. I think with this becoming an increasingly common form of tenure, and when the length of tenure coincides or is longer than that involved

[ Page 615 ]

with the second mortgage, we should make this available to people under these circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the point with respect to agreements for sale is well taken. That is, most older homes are traded on the basis of agreements for sale and this legislation will not apply in that case. That is, you can't have the second mortgage and an agreement for sale on a property, and yet that is the most common type of tenure, in fact, in relation to older homes in all of our cities. I would like to speak for a moment….

AN HON. MEMBER: You can have a first mortgage….

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I checked with the Bureau, and it won't apply. I think further, Mr. Speaker, where we should be concerned is not just aiding people, worthwhile as that is, we should be concerned about the price of housing in the Province of British Columbia, and this legislation, and all of the legislation dealing with the question of housing that we got from this Government does not come to grips with the question of price.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is debating outside the terms of the Bill. I understand the member is talking about the price of housing in British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, only partly. At any rate, the problem is that there is really a need for aid with respect to the land underneath the house, Mr. Speaker. The Government of British Columbia should be doing something in terms of aiding the people of British Columbia to get cheaper land, which would avoid much of the problem of second mortgages and the rest, and I draw the attention of the honourable the Minister of Finance to what is being done in Alberta by the honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs in Alberta, to deal with this question. In Alberta….

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay in the ball park.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, no, if you people want to do something about housing, you will deal with the broader spectrum of the problem and help all the citizens of British Columbia in the process. Now, the situation there is that 86,000 people will be helped because the Government of Alberta is buying cheap land.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: If the member is referring to legislation in Alberta which has its basis in leased land, it has nothing to do with this Bill and he'll have his opportunity to speak on it under Municipal Affairs. The opportunity isn't being denied him.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The honourable member has raised a valid point, and one that is well taken. I have some grave reservations about the honourable member pursuing this line of debate under this particular Bill in that it is not a portion of the Bill. We are talking about the principle of Bill No. 4, not the principle of acquisition of land.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the principle really is to aid people in the form of housing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure the honourable member will understand that he will have an opportunity to debate this principle under the appropriate estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. I keep trying to make it clear to the honourable the Minister of Finance that there are a range of ways in which people can be helped, and unfortunately he is not willing to entertain these areas which could be most helpful to the citizens of British Columbia, and unfortunately this kind of legislation not only helps the citizens to a limited extent, as it does, it helps the major real estate enterprises of the Province far more. That's the problem. So when Wall and Redicopp or Block Bros. have an 83 per cent increase in their net in the past year, part of the reason is the kind of legislation this Government has brought about in housing.

It is clear that the assistance is not going where it should go in its entirety, in fact far too much is going to the real estate interests of the Province, and for these real estate groups to have increases in their net profits such as 83 per cent, as with Block Bros. In the past year, it is clear who is being primarily assisted by the legislation. The price of housing in Victoria went up $4,900 in one year and the benefits thereof were primarily for the real estate interests, and that's the problem.

Until the Government sees the need for a different approach and a broader approach to the housing question, then the money will continue to slide away and filter away to the real estate interests.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of points on this Bill. I noticed from a question which I have placed on the Order Paper, since the inception of this Act two and three-quarter years ago, there have been 46,860 homes take advantage of both the grant and the mortgages, and that some $21,000,000 have been dispersed from this fund, plus $14,000,000 in mortgage money within the past year.

But, Mr. Speaker, the first point I want to raise is that with periodic allotments we have put $60,000,000 into this fund and there now stands as a balance in the fund at December 31, 1969, $35,000,000. With this Bill, of course, we are adding another $25,000,000 to provide for the new policy of second mortgages and grants on older type homes.

Now all I am trying to say here is that I think it does suggest that we could loosen up our policy in some respect on this, and also I would like to suggest that for future reference that we consider some kind of means test basis in establishing of grants and mortgages. In other words, I suggest that a means test should be applied to the eligibility for home acquisition grant and, of course, the new second mortgage loan plan. I am told by real estate agents that many people applying for these grants are buying higher priced homes and are, obviously people of substantial income. The object of the home acquisition grant, in my opinion, should be to stimulate home ownership by people who are not now able to afford to own a home.

It is doubtful if the grant has an effect on a high income person in his decision to build a home, but if there was some kind of means test required we could probably increase the grant to $2,000 or $3,000 more than it is now and create more home purchases where they are really needed. For instance, Mr. Speaker, if we could consider a means test

[ Page 616 ]

where a person at least had to have an income of some $8,000 to $10,000 a year before being eligible and if, for instance, we could consider, instead of second mortgages, a first mortgage plan so that there was not the restriction over a person being eligible first for first mortgage under N.H.A., before being capable of drawing on a second mortgage, and possibly even a low interest rate for those on lower means.

So I put these suggestions forward with the possibility of making the home acquisition principle available to people on lower incomes, and possibly making greater use of the substantial fund which is now available.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The honourable the Minister will close the debate.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: This is a continuing policy, and in winding up the debate I want to say how much I appreciate the discussion that took place on the Government's continuing policy for home ownership in this Province. While we would much rather encourage people to build new homes, we feel that we should help the people who have been renting in our Province to have a new home and make it easy for them to get a new home. For if the people have been here renting for two years already it looks as if they are going to stay in our community and stay as our citizens. But if they come in for six weeks, or if they come from across the line and they hear they can get this and come up and just get it. Now we want this for our people who have been here a little while, that's the whole idea. No, we don't want people coming in from the outside and immediately start to bid up the prices of these homes against the people who have been renting here for two years. We don't want that. This is trying to give a little special help for the person who has been renting for at least two years, a room or something else, as long as he has been renting for two years in our Province, to help him buy his home.

Now, we know that first mortgage money is very difficult these days, we know that. But these homes that people rent in many, many cases, and we have made some surveys, are owned outright by the person who owns the house that is renting to someone else. In many, many thousands of cases they have got this home at less cost than the present market, and it is our hope — I hope it is not a forlorn hope — I have talked to some and they have said that they would do it.

I hope that a renter that has been renting for two years can go not only to his own landlord, but he's not limited to that, he can go to any other landlord, and negotiate a price for the home, and then say to the landlord, "I've been paying you $100 a month rent" — whatever it is — "I'll continue to pay you $100 a month and you won't have the upkeep, you won't have the taxes or anything. We'll make that Government in Victoria, which is not paying anything towards the taxes now towards this home that is rented, will now have to pay $160 towards it." So the person that is buying the home will get the $160 which will reduce the taxes on that home, and allow him perhaps to continue to pay the $100, because he'll be saving some money, and it will all go towards the purchase of a home and the interest of the home.

The persons that have owned these homes, the landlords, who are not big money lenders, but have a little bit more of the human feelings within their breast I hope, that there be a large number of them, will not demand this nine and ten per cent first mortgage rate, but I think some of these people will take seven per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to bet?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, I want to bet. You took six, that's right. Don't you agree, Mr. Leader, that there are people with that kind of a heart?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm one.

MR. BENNETT: You're one. An example, and I know dozens of others. That is for these people who own the individual homes. You are not dealing with the big financial institutions that are just trying to make money. So you will get a first mortgage from the person who owns the home now, and $2,500 down payment, second mortgage. First mortgage for the balance, the person that's there, if he hasn't any money to put up.

I want to tell you this, most of the people that are living in British Columbia today, the greater number, if they are building up any estate at all, they are building it up first and foremost in their homes, in their homes. I know of a lot of people, the only estate they ever had was their home, and we want to encourage that, because none of us want inflation to continue, and you know it's not going to go straight up or straight down, but since 1900 there has been the gradual inflation, and people who have bought homes have saved two ways, they saved because they wanted to fix up their home and own a home, and then it goes up in value as well and the equity gets greater.

What pleases me, and I know all members of this House, that since we started this policy, many people have not only the original equity they had in these homes, because the market has advanced, they have got additional equity, and I think this is a good step forward. I am a little fearful of the amount of capital it's going to take, really. However, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the second reading now. The five years was put there so that they can't sell the home to somebody else, that is to stop them…. Any particulars that you have on that, I would like to have.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 4 be read a second time. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary, No. The motion is carried.

Mr. G. Mussallem presented the First Report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing, as follows: Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing begs leave to report as follows:-

Your Committee summoned Mr. Willard E. Ireland, Chairman of the Public Documents Committee, established by the Public Documents Disposal Act (Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, c. 134), and, having heard the submission on behalf of the Public Documents Committee, recommends that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Documents Disposal Act, approval be given for the destruction of various public documents as listed in the submissions to the Public Documents Committee for 1969 as amended by the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Printing in so far as the following departments of Government are concerned: Commercial Transport; Education; Health Services and Hospital Insurance; Mines and Petroleum Resources; Public Works.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

G. MUSSALLEM, Chairman.

[ Page 617 ]

The report was read and received and, by leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the report adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: I would like to ask the House Leader two things. What is on the agenda for Monday, and secondly, can the House Leader give us an indication of when the questions on the Order Paper of the Minister of Welfare, plus his annual report, will be filed in the House?

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: I can't answer your question regarding the Minister of Welfare, but I hope to be able to ask the House on Monday to continue with second reading of Bills. I hope we can go through the second reading of Bills and then get on the Lands and Forests estimates. I will refer your question to the Minister involved.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.